SRIKANTE GOWDA Vs. LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL THIRTHAHALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the holder of a parcel of agricultural land measuring 5 acres 7 guntas in Survey No.45 of Kudumallige village Thirthahalli Taluk, Shimoga Dist. The second respondent Sooranna Heggade, a native of S.Kanara Dist, made an application under S.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for registering him as the occupant of the said land. The Land Tribunal, Thirthahalli, has granted that application overruling the contention of the petitioner-landholder that the second respondent is not a tenant and the land was and is under his personal cultivation. The order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the land-holder on the ground that the said decision is vitiated as the Tribunal has ignored the presumption arising under S.133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and further that Ext. P1 relied on by the Tribunal for reaching its conclusion, is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the decision. The question fs whether the order of the Land Tribunal is vitiated for the reasons urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The Record of Righs for the period immedately prior to 1st March, 1974 shows that the land-holder himself was personally cultivating the land. The second respondent the applicant before the Land Tribunal, has stated in his application under S.48A of the Land Reforms Act that the Record of Rights does not contain his name and that he has also no receipt or other documentary evidence to support his claim. His case is that he has been cultivating the land for the last 30 years. The Tribunal has noted the fact that the Record of Rights does not support the claim of the second respondent. Nowhere in the order of the Tribunal, it has been stated that the presumption arising under S.133 of the Land Revenue Act has been rebutted by the circumstantial evidence or any direct evidence. The Tribunal proceeded to refer to the oral evidence adduced on both sides and reached the conclusion that second respondent was a tenant personally cultivating the land in question.

(3.) There is a statutory presumption that an entry in the Record of Rights is true unti] the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. The burden of proving that the entry in the Record of Rights is not true is on the party alleging that such entry is not true. It was for the second respondent to shift that burden from him to the petitioner-landholder.