KRISHNA RAO Vs. LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL BHALKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arising under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Bhalki, (respondent-1) made under Sec.48A of the Act declaring that respondent-2 is the tenant of the agricultural lands comprised in S.Nos.199, 200/1 and 200/1B of Chincholi, Bhalki Taluk, measuring in all 8 acres 37 guntas and consequently entitled to the grant of occupancy right.

(2.) The petitioner is the land-holder. Respondent-2 made an application before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy right under Chapter III of the Act alleging that he is the tenant personally cultivating the lands in question immediately prior to 1-3-1974. On receipt of the said application, the Land Tribunal issued, in the prescribed form, notices to show cause why the application should not be granted. The petitioner appeared before the Land Tribunal and filed written objections contending, inter alia, that the applicant is not a tenant but a mortgagee in possession under an agreement entered into between the parties; that the land-holder, in consideration of the applicant having paid a sum of Rs.2,500, has put the applicant in possession of the lands; that no rent is stipulated under the said agreement but the applicant has to appropriate the profits of the lands in satisfaction of the mortgage-money. He further contended that the time for redemption of the mortgage not having arrived, the applicant as mortgagee has remained in possession. It is staged before me that the applicant produced before the Tribunal an earlier agreement between the parties which, according to him, amounted to a lease of the lands. The fact that the applicant-respondent-2 is personally cultivating the lands in question, is not in dispute between the parties. What is in dispute is the question whether respondent-2 is in possession as mortgagee or as a tenant. If respondent-2 is in possession as mortgagee and not as tenant, he is not entitled to grant of any occupancy right under Chapter III of the Act.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the fact that in his written objections filed before the Tribunal it has been expressly stated that the Records of Rights show that respondent-2 is in possession as mortgagee. There is not even a reference, much less discussion, on this question in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has observed that the petitioner-land-holder has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,500 from respondent-2, that no rent had been stipulated and that respondent-2 has not paid any rent. The order of the Tribunal reads : The English translation of the above reads :