C. NARASAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri Vivek Reddy appearing for the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent as well as the learned Government Advocate.

(2.) It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 155 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas of Vijayapura village, Devanahalli taluk, since 35 years from the date of petition and that he was cultivating the land and the said land measures 1 acre 37 guntas. The petitioner claims to have filed Form 7 -A under Sec. 77 -A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, seeking grant of the land in his favour and the petitioner had produced the RTC extract for the year 1973 -74 to 1977 -78 as well as an electricity bill which demonstrates that he was cultivating the land. It is further pointed out that respondent No. 3 was employed as a bus driver with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Chikkaballapur Depot and therefore he could not be claiming as an agriculturist cultivating the said land. On the basis of the application filed by the petitioner the second respondent Assistant Commissioner had issued a public notice, apart from calling for report from the concerned Revenue Inspector. It is after holding such an enquiry that the petitioner was found to have been cultivating the land and it was held that he was entitled for occupancy rights and that he had not filed an application in Form No. 7 under Sec. 48(1)(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. He had also asserted that his father was a tenant in respect of the land and that rents were paid in respect of the tenancy. However, the third respondent held that the applicant was in possession and continuously cultivating the land from 01.03.1974 to 1997 and even as per the pahani the applicant seemed to have been cultivating the land at the relevant point of time and this was also affirmed by the report of the Revenue Inspector and accordingly had granted the land bearing Sy. No. 155 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas in favour of the petitioner. The third respondent had challenged that order by way of an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties has allowed the appeal and had set aside the order passed by the second respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same is before this Court.

(3.) It is contended that there was ample material, apart from the documents referred to by the Assistant Commissioner, to demonstrate that the petitioner was indeed cultivating the land as on the appointed date namely, 01.03.1974 as a tenant and that before him his father was cultivating the same continuously and it was also demonstrated from a Criminal Case instituted when the petitioner and his family members were assaulted by the rival group when they were cultivating the land and one Kum. Manjula was even killed, in that skirmish, which occasion was subject matter of a Sessions Case No. 48/2003 before the competent Sessions Court, the third respondent was convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. This sufficiently demonstrated that the petitioner and his family were cultivating the land and were in continuous possession. Therefore, there was no justification in the Tribunal having set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and having remanded the matter and it is in this vein that the learned Senior Advocate would assert the case of the petitioner.