VENKATARAMAPPA Vs. MOOGAPPA ALIAS MUNIVENKUTAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under Section 121 A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The revision petitioner was the respondent before the Appellate Authority constituted under the Act for Kolar District. Originally he had made four applications under Section 48 of the Act seeking registration of occupancy rights in respect of four items of land which formed part of Serial No. 2 of Nayakarahalli village, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District. Those applications were made between the date 29-12-1976 and 29-6-1979. The Land Tribunal came to allow those applications granting occupancy rights. Aggrieved by the same, respondents, Moogappa and Ramanayaka filed Writ Petition No. 21856/1982 in this Court seeking an order quashing the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights. That came to be allowed and the Land Tribunal's order was quashed and the matter was remanded back for fresh enquiry. After fresh enquiry, the Land Tribunal again granted the occupancy rights in favour of the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, respondent-Moogappa alias Munivenkatappa filed the Appeal No. DLRA. R. 821/1986. The Appellate Authority on an application made by the appellant permitted additional evidence to be led by him. It also permitted the revision petitioner who was respondent before it to lead evidence parole and documentary. In the result, in addition to the evidence placed before the Land Tribunal, the Appellate Authority also received evidence both documentary and parole on the basis of which the order under revision was passed. The order has gone against the petitioner-tenant on the sole ground that he failed to establish his tenancy by leading cogent evidence in respect of 1-25 guntas of land in Serial No. 2 of Nayakarahalli village.

(3.) Briefly stated the evidence before the Land Tribunal was in so far as it supported the case of the petitioner and his father who claim to be the tenants of the lands in question was that Ramanayaka-4th respondent before the Appellate Authority had granted lease in their favour. He was the Talari of the village and Serial No. 2 was service inam land which was re-granted to Ramanayaka who in turn for consideration of rent leased it to them on the basis of "Vara". As against this, Ramanayaka's statement recorded before the Land Tribunal in the second enquiry was to the effect that he was a Talari who was re-granted Serial No.2 which was in extent, about 5-38 guntas. He gave away 1-25 guntas of land to three of his brothers and remaining 4 acres and odd were retained by him for personal cultivation and that he did not give any part of his land on lease to any one else. Despite the contradictory statements recorded which it must be incidentally mentioned were never subjected to cross-examination by either side was totally ignored by the Land Tribunal and it proceeded to grant occupancy rights solely on the basis of pahani entry for the years 1973-74 which contained the revision petitioner's name in the tenancy column to the extent of 1-35 guntas.