M K RAMANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition under Section 121A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Gubbi under Section 48A of the Act claiming occupancy rights in respect of 9 guntas of land in S.No. 47/4 in Mavinahalli Amanikere village Chandrashekhara Pura of Gubbi Taluk. By a peremptory order without any discussion, the Land Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the applicant's mother's name appears in the pahani column, that there has been purchase and sale of the land in question and pahani also speaks of such cultivation. Therefore, by a majority decision, the Land Tribunal rejected the application. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner presented a writ petition in this Court which came to be transferred to the Appellate Authority constituted under the Act after the amendment made to the Act, providing for an appeal against the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal.

(2.) It is apparent from the order of the Appellate Authority that the appellant- tenant had failed to discharge the onus cast on him by law to establish that he was a tenant. They have adverted to a number of inconsistencies between the statements made by him and the entries in the record of rights and tenancy and crop register. He claimed that they were cultivating the land from the time of his father for over 45 years as tenants. He also stated that he had paid the rent to one Shivagangaiah. From the pahanies it was noticed that for the years 1963 64 one Puttaiah alias Muddaiah cultivated the land in question. In 1965-66 in the column provided for cultivators neither Lingamma mother of the petitioner-tenant nor the petitioner's name was found. For the first time in 1966-67 Lingamma wife of Mariguddaiah was over wrkten on the name of Shivagangaiah. Therefore, the Appellate Authority concluded that even as far back as in 1966-97 it was not cultivated by Lingamma and that could not be accepted as proof. They held that in view of Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, without notice, entries could not be altered in the record of rights.

(3.) They have given further reasons to disbelieve the entries made in the subsequent years. Mainly the reasons are on account of the inconsistencieS in the statement of facts in Form No. 7 and the oral evidence given by the tenant- petitioner before the Appellate Authority. If on facts, the Appellate Authority came to conclude that he was not a tenant, this Court can hardly interfere with that under Section 121A of the Act as a revisional Court.