VITOBA GANAPATHI NAYAK Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL HONNAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No. 9849/1982 was disposed of by me along with Writ Petition Nos. 4348/82 and 9850/82 by a eommon order dated 4-11-1983. I had allowed these petitions and quashed the impugned orders of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights on respondents-3 and 5 in W.P. No. 9850/82. As regards the claim of respondent No. 4 in W.P. No. 9848/82, I had quashed the impugned order since he had not made any applications in Form No. 7 in so far as it related to land bearing Sy. No. 19/7 of Balkur village, Honnavar Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. Respondent No. 4 is the petitioner herein and he is aggrieved by my order in so far as it relates to him as regards Sy. No. 19/7 measuring 20 guntas of land. His claim before the Land Tribunal was 1 acre of land. In support of this Civil Petition, respondent No. 4 who is the petitioner herein has produced the postal acknowledgment card issued by the postal authorities bearing the seal of the Special Tahsildar, Honnavar and the rubber stamp seal bearing the date 30th of June, 1979 and a copy of Form No. 7 said to have been filed by him on 29-6-1979, which according to him, was sent by registered post to the Special Tahsildar, Honnavar. When the Civil Petition camc-up for admission, it was found that in the connected Government records in the possession of the Government Pleader, who was assigned this case, two pages were missing and therefore I made an order directing the Special Tahsildar who is allcged to have received the application of the petitioner on 30-6-1979 to file an affidavit in this Court stating the circumstances under which Form No. 7 dated 29-6-1979 was received by him and whether the said form was placed in the records of the Land Tribunal after making the necessary entries in the register maintained by the Land Tribunal for receiving the applications filed by the tenants in Form No. 7. The Special Tahsildar was directed to submit his report within four weeks from that date (1-8-1984). By another order dated 20th of November, 1985, I directed the Administrative Officer of the Advocate General's Office to "hold a departmental enquiry by examining the concerned Clerk Prabhakar who had taken inspection of the records, the Special Tahsildar who has referred to this incident in his affidavit filed before this Court and the Tahsildar who was attached to the Office of the Land Tribunal at the time the petitioner sent his letter dated 29-6-1979 by Registered Post acknowledgment due, which was received by the Tahsildar on 30-6-1979. Further, the Tahsildar who was attached to the Office of the Land Tribunal on 19-11-1981, on which date the aforesaid letter was alleged to have been received by the Office of the Land Tribunal should also be examined. The Administrative Officer shall contact the Revenue Department and get the addresses of these officials and ask them to be present before him on or before 5th of December, 1985. He shall record their statements not only as regards the missing document but also as regards any other fact within their knowledge regarding the letter sent by the petitioner on 29-7-1979 by registered post". Further in para-3, I directed the Additional Registrar of this Office "to take custody of the original records of the proceedings as also the parawise remarks furnished by the Tahsildar dated 12-9-1984. He shall deliver the same to the Administrative Officer of the Office of the Advocate General, after making an inventory of all the documents on record. The six enclosures in the sealed cover which was opened today by the Court-Officer shall be put back in a fresh cover, be sealed and kept in the safe custody of the additional Registrar of this Court." Accordingly, the Administrative Officer of the Advocate General's Office has held a departmental enquiry and submitted his report. He has also filed the affidavit of the Special Tahsildar regarding the filing of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner which was said to have been sent by registered post on 30-6-1979. This Civil Petition has to be disposed of on the basis of the statements recorded by the Administrative Officer in the enquiry held by him, in the light of the report submitted by him and in the light of the affidavit filed by the Special Tahsildar pursuant to the earlier order made by me on 1-8-1984. In the report submitted by the Administrative Officer he has come to the following conclusions:

(2.) The statement made by Sri H.S. Itagi on 4-12-1985 does not throw any light on the case. That is the subsequent statement made by him exonerating the allegation against T.G. Prabhakar, Second Division Clerk. In the statement of one M. Puttabasappa, Special Land Acquisition Officer, who was working as a Regular Tahsildar at the relevant time he has stated thus: "The usual procedure that was prevailing in the Office of the Land Tribunal at Honnavar was that every Tappal that was received through registered post had to be positively entered in a separate Tappal Register and an R.P. number would be noted positively on the face of that letter in addition to affixing the office seal of the Land Tribunal and also the concerned case worker who had received that letter would have affixed his initials on the said letter. Thereafter, I used to record my initials invariably on the face of every tappal received. It is only thereafter, the tappal used to be referred to the concerned official for registering the tappal in the general register and for delivery of the same to the concerned case worker for further action. I have seen the Form-7 application bearing No. 25/352 available in the Land Tribunal file No. 2 (63/89, 352) in the office of the Advocate General. On careful perusal of the said Form-7, I find that it does not bear the initials of the Tappal Clerk and the office seal of the Land Tribunal. Further R.P. number which used to be invariable noted on every tappal received has not been noted in this and again the Form-7 does not bear my initials in proof of having seen the same by me as I invariably used to see and attest my initials on every communication received. I also find that it is also not entered in the general register of the office for the concerned period. Thus I am of the opinion that the Form-7 which is now referred to and which is in the file of the Land Tribunal Records has not been received by me during my period and I am inclined to think that this must only be a letter entry or an insertion in the file." So this person speaks of Form-7 which was available. But he has a doubt whether this is the form which was sent by the petitioner by registered post on 29-6-1979. Why he doubts the genuineness of this Form-7 is it does not bear the initials of the Tappal Clerk and the office seal of the Land Tribunal, it does not bear the registration number and has not gone through the procedural requirements of the Office namely the initials of the Tappal Clerk of the Land Tribunal, registered post number of the cover under which it had been posted and in the absence of the official endorsement in proof of having sent the same by him, as he invariably used to see the initials of the Clerk on the other communications received and there is also no entry in the general register and for delivery of the same. For these reasons, he said that the Form No. 7 available in the file is not Form No. 7 which the petitioner is alleged to have sent by registered post on 29-6-1979.

(3.) The statement of S.K. Sulakhe, retired Tahsildar, is not relevant since he does not know about the matter in controversy. Likewise the statement of S.L. Pandit, Second Division Clerk, does not throw any light.