LAXMINARAYANA VENKATARAMAN HEGDE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is typical of the cases arising from a proceeding under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act before a Land Tribunal which shows how an ignorant and illiterate individual has been deprived of his valuable rights to an agricultural land by clever manipulation and which has caused considerable anxiety for us.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows : 1 acre and 30 guntas of land in survey No. 212 of Devas Village, Sorab Taluk belonged to one Ganapathi Hegde. According to the 3rd respondent Goori Bangarappa, he was a tenant of this land for more than 15 years prior to 1-3-1974. He purchased the land from his landlord under a registered Sale Deed dated 7-6-1973. In view of this purchase though it was not necessary for him to seek occupancy rights, before the Land Tribunal, Sorab, he made an application in form No. 7 under S.48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short 'Act') claiming occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land. At the time of hearing of the case it was disclosed before the Land Tribunal that the third respondent had purchased this land from Ganpathy Hegde for a sum of Rs. 500/- by a Registered Sale Deed dated 7-6-1973 i.e., about nine months before Revolutionary amendments to the Land Reforms Act came into force. It was further disclosed before the Land Tribunal that by another registered Sale Deed of the same date third respondent sold the said property in favour of the appellant. Both the sale Deeds were dated 7-6-1973 an appear to have been registered before the Sub-Registrar on 5-7-1973. The statement made by the third respondent before the Land Tribunal reads : It is seen from the Sale Deed in favour of the appellant copy of which is produced along with the appeal that the third respondent is an illiterate person and he had put his Left Thumb mark on the Sale Deed. According to the deposition, the third respondent knows only about his purchase of the land by him from Ganpathy Hegde - the original owner. He does not know anything about the Sale Deed said to have been executed by him in favour of the appellant. Before the Land Tribunal he stated that his left Thumb Mark had been obtained in the second Sale Deed by playing fraud. He also stated that 4 years before the date on which he gave his deposition in Aug. 1981 he was forcibly dispossessed. After considering his statement and the documents the Tribunal made the following order :

(3.) On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence the Tribunal found that though the land was a tenanted land there had been sale of the very land to the tenant and resale by the tenant to the landlord, on the very day and it was clear that these transactions have been brought about by taking advantage of the illiteracy and ignorance of the tenant. However, the Tribunal took the view that the sale transaction was contrary to the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and therefore the land should stand vested in the Government.