Y KICHAPPA SETTY Vs. SOMANNA NAIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Somwarpet Taluk, Coorg, in Case No.LRM VI C / 10/74-75 dt.30-10-1975, allowing the application of the first respondent, Somanna Naika, in part and granting occupancy right in respect of 3 acres out of 6 acres 52 cents in Survey No. 10/4 and 48 cents out of one acre 48 cents in Survey No. 10/11 of Rasulpura village of Somwarapet Taluk in the District of Ccorg under S. 48A of the Karna- taka Land Reforms Act. 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act')'.

(2.) Survey No. 10/4, according to the revenue records measures 6.52 acres and Sy.No.10/11l measures 1.48 acres. The first respondent alleging that he is a tenant personally cultivating the said lands, filed an application dt.27-11-1974 in Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal for registering him as the occupant. The applicant stated, inter alia, that his land-holder is one Venkatasubba Setty, the elder brother of the petitioner Kichappa Setty and that he is cultivating the lands as a tenant for the past 23 Yrs. Rule 19(1) of the Rules made under the Act requires that the Tahsildar of the Taluk concerned, shall verify the particulars mentioned in the application with reference to the Record of Rights. The Tahsildar of Somwarpet Taluk, who is the Secretary of the Land Tribunal, tiled before the Tribunal copies of the Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crop Inspection (RTC) for the years 1967-75 as seen from the case-file produced before me by the learned High Court Govt Advoctae, Sri Chandrakantharaj Urs. The Record of Rights shows that the petitioner Kichappa Setty was the actual cultivator during the years 1967-68 to 1974-75; the name of Somanna Naika, the alleged tenant, does not find a place in the said Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crop Inspection. The individual notice, required to be served on the land-holder in Form No.9, as seen from the case-file, shows that the respondent before the Tribunal was Venkatasubba Setty who was called upon to show cause as to why the two lands, Sy.Nos.10/|4 and 10/11, should not be registered in the name of Somanna Naika. the applicant. The case was posted in the first instance, on 8-6-1975. On that date, the Tribunal, apparently, did not sit and a second notice was issued calling upon the said Venkatasubba Setty to appear before the Tribunal on 24-6-1975 at 11 a.m. at Kushalnagar. On 24-6-1975, the case was not taken up and ultimately a notice was issued on 3-10-75 calling upon the parties to appear on 29-10-75 at 11 a.m. at Kushalnagar. On that day also, the case was not taken up; but it was taken up on 30-10-75. On that date the statements of the petitioner Kichappa Setty and the first respondent Somanna Naika. were recorded and signed by the Chairman of the Land Tribunal. The statements have been recorded in Kannada. It is not clear whether the statements were recorded by the Chairman or by a clerk as alleged by the petitioner. It appears to me that the statements of the parties were recorded by some person other than the Chairman. I say so because of the difference in the ink used for recording the statements and the signing. In the statement so recorded, it appears that the petitioner conceded that the first respondent was cultivating 3 acres out of 6.52 acres in Sy.No.10/4 and 48 cents out of 1.48 acres in Sy.No.10/11 and the first respondent was paying 30 Battis of paddy as rent annually for the past 23 years. To the same effect is the statement of the first respondent. On the basis of the said statement, the Tribunal passed the order impugned, which reads :

(3.) The records show that besides the Chairman of the Tribunal, four other Members were present of whom Sri P.M.Khan, Member of the Legislative Council of Kamataka in the vear 1975 and now a Member of the Raiya Sabha was one. In this writ petition, the petitioner has ehallenged the order of the Tribunal; he has made serious accusation against Shri P.M.Khan, the then Member of the Land Tribunal, alleging that the petitioner was threatened with dire consequence? and imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.500 and made to sign the statement. This is what the petitioner has stated in para-3 of the writ petition: