2004 Supreme(SC) 1094

2004(7) Supreme 481
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Ram and Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7431 of 2000
Decided on 17-9-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash, Ms. Savitri Pandey and P.P. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Shirdhar Y. Chitale, S. Rikshit, Ms. V.D. Khanna, R.J. Gouley, P. Narasimhan and Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocates.

Headnote:Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961-Section 48-A-Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964-Section 133-Claim of occupancy rights- D applied for grant of occupancy rights over the entire survey No.43 measuring 2 acres claiming to be the protected tenant over the said land for over 50 years-Three others applied for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the same land requesting for grant of occupancy rights over their share of land which they were cultivating about 15 years after partition in the family properties-Landlord did not contest the case-From spot inspection and local enquiry, Tribunal recorded that suit land was in possession of all the 4 applicants-Tribunal granted occupancy rights to all of them according to their possession over the respective shares of the land-Order passed by the Tribunal set aside by Single Judge of the High Court-Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal-Appeal against-Whether finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal could be held as perverse or based on no evidence-(No)-High Court has rightly set aside order of the Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.

       Held : The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned order observed that all the four applicants were close relatives; three applicants from the beginning claimed occupancy rights in respect of their respective shares of land; the tenancy of the land stood in the name of their grandfather who was holding tenancy on behalf of the entire family; two times the matter was remanded and three times the Tribunal, appreciating the material on record, held that all the applicants were entitled for occupancy rights and that original tenancy was a joint tenancy; the Division Bench also referred to a document of the year 1919 and observed that in the said document, name of the grandfather of the appellant, Jayawantrao Dessai, found place; spot inspection was made by the Tribunal and it was found that all the four applicants were in possession of the land. The Division Bench also found that the approach and appreciation of the material on record by the learned Single Judge was wrong and he ignored the effect of the spot inspection made by the Tribunal. Although the Chairman of the Tribunal in the third order after remand found in favour of the applicant Dattoba on the basis of entries of R.O.Rs and land revenue receipts, other members did not agree. It is true that in the third order made by the Tribunal which was set aside by learned Single Judge in the writ petition, the Chairman has given detailed reasons in support of his opinion, the remaining four Members of the Tribunal held in favour of all the four applicants but have not given reasons to come to the conclusion that all of them were entitled for grant of occupancy rights in respect of their respective shares. It may be remembered that four Members of the Tribunal were non-official Members, they were not members judicially-trained. Although they have not given reasons in support of their opinion, their opinion could be supported on the basis of material on record particularly taking note of the fact that the Tribunal consecutively three times found as a fact that all the four applicants were cultivating the respective shares of their land. (Para 6)

       The Division Bench of the High Court, in our view, was right in taking exception to the order of the learned Single Judge in upsetting the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal while exercising writ jurisdiction. Thus, having regard to the facts found, looking to close relationship between the parties and also considering spot inspection and the local enquiries made with the adjacent land owners, in our view, the order of the Tribunal holding that all the 4 applicants were entitled for grant of occupancy rights ought not to have been reversed by the learned Single Judge. Finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, in the light of what is stated above, could not be said to be either perverse or based on no evidence or was bad for non-consideration of material evidence brought on record. By the impugned judgment, Division Bench has rightly set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. (Para 6)