M S NARAYANAGOUDA Vs. GIRIJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal preferred by a land owner in Mudigere Taluk, Chickmagalur District, arises out of an application of the 1st respondent-Girijamma, made u|S.45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), before the Land Tribunal, Mudigere Taluk, for registration of occupancy in respect of 3 acres of wet land out of 5 acres 31 guntas in Survey No.76/P of Halemudigere village in Mudigere Taluk of Chickmagalur District. The 1st respondent-Girijamma filed an application before the Tribunal on 26-12-1974, alleging that she, was personally cultivating 2 acres of wet land out of 5 acres, 31 guntas in Sy.No.76/P of Halemudigere village and that under the provisions of the Act, she may be registered as an occupant.

(2.) The appellant-land owner opposed the said application contending that the applicant was not a tenant as defined under the Act, and that she was not personally cultivating the land. On the basis of the said application, the Tribunal issued public notice under S.48A(2) of the Act. It reads:

(3.) It is relevant to state at the very outset that neither the application of the 1st respondent-Girijamma nor the notice under S.48A(2) of the Act, specify the boundaries of the extent of 3 acres of land in respect of which registration of occupancy was claimed. It has to be noted that the total extent of the land comprised in Sy.No.76/P of Halemudigere village is admittedly 5 acres 31 guntas. The land being specific property, it is necessary to identify the same by giving the correct boundaries if the subject matter forms a portion or part of survey sub-division and not the whole survey sub-division. In the absence of specific boundaries, it is impossible to identify the land alleged to have vested in the State Govt and in respect of which the 1st Respt-Girijamma claimed registration of occupancy The said extent of 3 acres may be situated to the north, to the south, to the west or to the east or it might be distributed all over in several bits. It is common sense that when a person claims any specific immoveable property which is not the whole survey number or a sub-division of a survey number, that party ought to give the boundaries and description so as to clearly identify the property. If a party merely states that out of 5 acres 31 guntas of land he is in possession of 3 acres, how is it possible for anybody to identify that property and adduce evidence whether or not the property claimed by the person was cultivated by the party claiming as tenant? By virtue of S.44(1) of the Act, all lands held by or in the possession of tenants immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, i.e., 1-3-1974,, stand transferred to and vest in the State Government. With a descrpition, as given in the public notice issued by the Tribunal, is it humanly possible to identify the land said to have vested in the State Government under Section 44(1)? The parties appeared before the Tribunal. Both sides led oral evidence. The witness examined for the 1st respondent supported her case, while the witness examined for the appellant-land owner supported his case. The 1st respondent produced no documentary evidence in support of her case, while the appellant produced the certified copies of Record of Rights pertaining to Sy. No. 76/P and levy notices. The Tribunal has noted in its record. "Pahanis and levy receipts are in favour of Narayana Gowda".