N MARULAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal preferred by a land-holder is directed against the order of Bhimiah, J, dt. 10-8-1976 made in WP.3326 of 1976 dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging the order dt.26-3-1976 made by the Land Tribunal, Tiputur Taluk (Respondent-2) granting temporary injunction against the appellant-land-holder in respect of about 13 acres of Agricultural, land comprised in Survey Nos. 329, 330, 331, 336|2 and 337 of Nonavinakere-Amanikere village.

(2.) Respondents 3 to 15 made separate applications before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in respect of separate parcels of agricultural land in the aforesaid survey numbers. The said applications, on notice being served on the appellant, were opposed contending that the applicants before the Tribunal were not tenants and the lands were under the personal cultivation of the appellant and his undivided brother Tn the said proceedings, respondents 3 to 15 made applications for grant of temporary injunction against the appellant. The said applications came up before the Land Tribunal for hearing. The Assistant Commissioner of the Sub-Division, who is the Chairman of the Land Tribunal, explained to the Members that there is nothing on record to make out a prima facie case that the applicants are tenants in possession of the lands in question. He also pointed out that the Record of Rights do not show their names. The Chairman, therefore was for dismissing the applications for temporary injunction. One of the Members also agreed with the Chairman but three out of the five Members of the Land Tribunal differed from the Chairman, and the majority of three Members, without assigning any reasons, ordered that temporary injunction should be issued in favour of the applicants. That order was challenged by the appellant under Art.226 of the Constitution in WP.3326 of 1976 which was admitted by the learned Single Judge and rule nisi was issued. In the writ petition, the appellant made an application for stay of the operation of the order of the Tribunal. That application for stay came up for hearing before Bhimiah, J, who disposed of the main writ petition itself by making an order which reads thus : " Heard Advocates. This writ petition is against the interim order. The order impugned cannot be said to be palpably incorrect or one passed without jurisdiction. Hence, WP dismissed." The said order of dismissal has been challenged in this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. Shri K.S.Putta- swamy, learned High Court Govt Advocate, who appears for the State, was also heard. We asked the learned Govt Advocate whether there is any revenue record showing the names of respondents 3 to 15 as persons cultivating the lands in question immediately prior to 1-3-1974. The learned Govt Advocate fairly conceded that there were no such records on the file of the Tribunal.

(3.) The statutory presumption under Sec. 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is that the entries in the Record of Rights are correct until the contrary is proved Respondents 3 to 15 have not produced any material before the Land Tribunal to show that the entries in the Record of Rights are incorrect. The Chairman of the Tribunal rightly pointed out and impressed upon the non-official Members that there is nothing on record to show that the applicants had a prima facie case and yet, without assigning any reasons, the majority of the Members of the Tribunal decided that the order of interim injunction should go in favour of the applicants. The Chairman has given reasons as to why the applications for injunction should not be granted, while the majority of Members have not assigned any reasons In substance, an order is made without any reasons and contrary to the statutory presumption in favour of the appellant-land-holder.