PARAMASHIVAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, in these petitions, have called in question the correctness of the order dated 30th of March, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-L, passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore south Taluk, Bangalore, rejecting their claim for conferment of occupancy right in respect of the land measuring 26 acres 29 guntas in survey Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75, 82 and 83 of Chikkayellur Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.

(2.) A few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of these petitions, may be stated as hereunder. (a) Lands bearing Survey Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75, 82 and 83 in all measuring 26 acres 29 guntas were agreed to be sold by one basavayya @ Basavegouda in favour of one Hanumayya by means of an agreement to sell dated 10th of February, 1966. Since the said Basavayya did not perform his part of the obligation by executing the necessary sale deed, the said Hanumayya filed suit o. S. No. 39 of 1969, on the file of the Court of Principal Civil judge, Bangalore, for specific performance of the agreement to sell and the said suit came to be decreed on 30th of March, 1971. Thereafter, in Execution Case No. 343 of 1971, sale deed dated 15th of November, 1971 came to be executed in favour of the said hanumayya. Subsequent to the sale deed, on 14th of December, 1971, it appears that possession of the lands in question also was delivered to the said Hanumayya. Thereafter, the petitioners and others, on 12th of December, 1974, filed Suit O. S. No. 133 of 1974 for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30th of March, 1971 made in O. S. No. 39 of 1969, on the file of the Court of principal Civil Judge, Bangalore City, and also proceedings in execution Case No. 342 of 1972 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the said suit from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the said suit. The said suit having been dismissed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge, bangalore City, the same was called in question, in R. A. No. 8 of 1978, on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, bangalore City. The learned District Judge, by means of his judgment and decree dated 10th of July, 1979, dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. (b) In the meanwhile, during the pendency of suit O. S. No. 133 of 1974, petitioners 1, 2 and 3, who were plaintiffs 4, 3 and 2 respectively in the said suit, filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights as provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Land reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). In Form no. 7, the first petitioner had claimed occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 8 acres in Survey Nos. 72, 73 and 74; the second petitioner had claimed occupancy rights in respect of 6 acres of land in Survey Nos. 74, 73 and 72; and the third petitioner had claimed occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 8 acres in Survey Nos. 74, 75, 82 and 83 all the lands situate at Chikkayellur Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Magadi Taluk, bangalore Rural District. The Tribunal, at the first instance, by its order dated 3rd of June, 1982, granted occupancy right in favour of the petitioners in respect of various items of lands, in respect of which they had made a claim. However, the said order came to be quashed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, by his order dated 9th of April, 1986 made in Writ Petition No. 20360 of 1982 at the instance of the land owners. In the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge also quashed Form No. 7 filed by the petitioners. However, in Writ Appeal No. 1524 of 1996 filed by the petitioners, the Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 11th of December, 1998, while confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the order passed by the tribunal, modified the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent he has quashed Form No. 7 filed by the petitioners and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal, by means of its order dated 30th of march, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-L, rejected the claim of the petitioners. The said order is called in question in these petitions presented under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SRI Suman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, challenging the correctness of order at Annexure-L, submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioners are not tenants in respect of the lands in question, is totally erroneous and suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record. Elaborating this submission, he pointed out that the finding recorded by the learned District Judge in r. A. No. 8 of 1978 while considering Issue No. 6 and the affidavit filed by the land owners before this Court in Contempt Petition CCC (Civil)No. 842 of 1997, show that the petitioners continued to be in possession of the lands in question; and, therefore, the petitioners must be held as 'deemed tenants' within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Mohan Balaku Patil and Others v Krishnoji Bhaurao Hundre (dead) by L. RS, and that of this Court in the case of Thimmaiah and Others v Smt. Khatumbi and Others and venkatappa Ningappa v State of Karnataka and Others.