KALAVATI ALIAS JAYASHREE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 by R-3 in appeal r. A. No. 115 of 1988 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chikodi is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 27-2-1990 in the said appeal.

(2.) R-3 herein (in the revision) made an application under Section 45 read with Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Form No. VII before the Land Tribunal, Gokak claiming occupancy right in respect of the land admeasuring 21 acres and 37 cents of Dhupadal Village. Tribunal, by majority (Chairman of the Tribunal recorded the dissent), by order dated 10-5-1988 rejected the application. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, R-3 herein filed appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chikodi in R. A. No. 115 of 1988. Appellate Authority, by order dated 27-2-1990 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 10-5-1988, granted occupancy right in favour of R-3 and further directed the Secretary, Land Tribunal, Gokak to issue necessary certificate in Form no. X. It is this order that is under challenge in this revision. I shall refer to the contesting parties as they are shown in the revision, R-1 and R-2 are the State of Karnataka and the Land Tribunal, Gokak respectively.

(3.) FACTS relevant for the disposal of this revision may be stated thus: the dispute centres round the land admeasuring 21 acres and 37 cents in Sy. No. 146 of dhupadal Village. Revision petitioner Kalavati @ Jayashree is the granddaughter of one yamuna Bai Ramachandra Yardi who died in the year 1980 by her daughter M. Anandi Bai. R-3 yamunawa is the granddaughter of one Thippanna Yellappa Holar who died on 16-4-1962 by daughter Laxmawa. It is undisputed that deceased Yamunabai Ramachandra Yardi was the owner of the land in dispute. Thippanna Yellappa Holar was the tenant of this land for over decades. R-3 claims that she is the daughter of Laxmawa, the only daughter of deceased Thippanna and she died when she was aged about 5 years and therefore she continued to live with Thippanna and Thippannabrought her up, looked after her welfare. It is her further case that after the death of Thippanna in the year 1962 she continued to cultivate the land personally and at no point of time her possession was interfered. On 23-12-1974 she made an application under Section 45 read with section 48-A of the Act in Form No. VII before the Land Tribunal, Gokak claiming occupancy right in the said land. Revision petitioner's case in substance is that the land in question was never under the cultivation of any tenant, her grandmother cultivated the land and after her death she being her legal heir came in possession of the land and cultivated it personally. However, she makes a statement in her deposition that she did not know Thippanna cultivating the land at any time. After enquiry, Tribunal on 19-10-1981 allowed the application, granted occupancy right in favour of R-3. Aggrieved by the said order, revision petitioner approached this Court in W. P. No. 24422 of 1981 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and sought for setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal. Grievance of the petitioner was that no sufficient opportunity was given to her to adduce evidence. This Court, by order dated 14-9-1984 allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 19-10-1981 and remitted back the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to proceed to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence. After the remand, r-3 and the revision petitioner were examined and another witness (RW-2) in support of the case of the revision petitioner. Certain documents were marked by both the parties. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence, by majority rejected the application. Members of the Tribunal concluded that R-3 failed to establish the alleged tenancy and that she cultivated the land on 1-3-1974 and just prior to it. But the Chairman disagreed and held that R-3 was cultivating the land as tenant on 1-3-1974. However, aggrieved by the said order of rejection, R-3 appealed before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in R. A. No. 115 of 1988. Appellate Authority after hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties elaborately, concluded that the evidence on record establish beyond a ray of doubt that Thippanna continued to cultivate the land as tenant for over decades till his death and thereafter R-3 being his only surviving legal heir continued to cultivate the land, there is no valid surrender of land at any time. The entries in the revenue records subsequent to 1964-65 are not worthy of acceptance and the revision petitioner's claim that the land was not tenanted at any time is not supported by any evidence worthy of acceptance. Accordingly, Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and granted occupancy right.