LAWS(KAR)-1977-10-9

PATEL GARUDAPPA GOWDA Vs. LAND TRI THIRTHAHALLI

Decided On October 28, 1977
PATEL GARUDAPPA GOWDA Appellant
V/S
LAND TRI THIRTHAHALLI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition,, arising under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Thirthahalli, made in LRF(7) 127/74-75, dt.29-11-1975, granting occupancy right in respect of 5 acres 30 guntas of agricultural land in S.No.61 of Shankarapura village of Thirthahalli Taluk. The total area of S.No.61 is six acres and odd. But, in this writ, petition, the dispute is only with regard to 1 acre 34 guntas of land in S.No.61.

(2.) The petitioner is the landholder. The second respondent Manjanaika filed an application before the Tribunal claiming that he is a tenant of the land measuring 5 acres 30 guntas in S.No.61. The petitioner contested the claim of the second respondent so far as 1 acre 34 guntas of land is concerned. The Tribunal overuled that contention and granted occupancy right in favour of second respondent over an area of 5 acres 30 guntas.

(3.) The sole ground urged by Sri B.P.Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition, is that the order of the Tribunal in so far as the land in dispute referred to above is concerned, is void. Both parties have adduced enormous oral and documentary evidence. Inter-alia, the parties have produced copies of pahanis. It is an undisputed fact that the pahanis for the years immediately prior to 1-3-1974 i.e., for the years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, show that the petitioner-land-holder was personally cultivating 1 acre 31 guntas of thari and 3 guntas of bagayath land out of S.No.61 and that the second respondent Manjanaika was cultivating only 4 acres of thari. There is a statutory presumption arising under Sec. 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act that the entries in the Record of Rights are correct unless the same are shown to be incorrect. The entries in the Record of Rights for the years immediately prior to 1-3-1974 are important and valuable evidence in deciding the question whether a landholder is personally cultivating the land or it is a tenanted land, and if it ;s a tenanted land, who is the tenant who was personally cultivating the land.