PANDURANG JIVAJIRAO MANGLEKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner i. e. , late Pandurang claiming to be the tenant over the property bearing Sy. No. 204/2 measuring 6 acres 20 guntas situated at Gokak Village, filed application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. Respondents 3 to 8 are the land owners. By the order dated 30-12-1977 the Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner. The said order was questioned before this court in writ petition after about 10 years and ultimately in view of change in law the matter stood transferred to the Land Reforms appellate Authority, Chikodi for disposal and the same was numbered as RA/182/88/87-88. During the pendency of the matter before the appellate authority, the Land Reforms Act was again amended and the appellate authorities were abolished. Hence, the appeal again was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W. P. No. 20311/ 1993. This Court remanded the matter back to thetribunal by allowing the writ petition and directed the Tribunal to record further evidence, if adduced. After remand, the parties were given opportunity by the tribunal. The petitioner got examined himself and examined a witness by name Parashuram on his behalf. On behalf of the respondents, uday (respondent No. 5) and a witness by name Sreekanth were examined. After hearing, the Tribunal as aforementioned, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the tenant-petitioner. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner-tenant died and his legal representatives are brought on record.

(2.) SRI Prabhuling Navadagi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that respondents 3 and 4 herein have admitted before the Land Tribunal as far back as on 30-12-1977 that the petitioner is cultivating the property as tenant since 15 to 16 years prior to recording of the said deposition; the copies of statements of respondents 3 and 4 are produced at Annexure-B and C along with the writ petition; the witness of the respondents viz. , Srikant Mulgund admits that the petitioner is in possession of the property; admission of respondents 3 and 4 and their witness is not considered and appreciated by the Land Tribunal at all; though the land is now lying within the limits of Gokak Town, the same will not lose the character of an agricultural land; that the presumption arising out of the revenue records standing in the name of respondents 3 and 4 stood rebutted by the admission of the respondents and their witness. On these among other grounds, the petitioners prayed for setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal. Per contra, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 3 to 8 submits that the statements of respondents 3 and 4 dated 30-12-1977 were not recorded by the chairman of the land tribunal and therefore the said statements cannot be relied upon. He further submits that in view of the consistent entries in the name of respondents 3 to 8 found in revenue records, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

(3.) AT the outset it should be mentioned that the entries in the revenue records stand in the name of respondents 3 to 8 including the relevant year i. e. 1973-74. Thus, the presumption arises in favour of the possession of respondents 3 to 8.