Back
2008(2) Supreme 57
Supreme Court of india
Tarun Chatterjee & Aftab Alam, JJ.
Jagadeesh & Anr. — Petitioners
versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 3377 of 2001
Decided on : 12-02-2008
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 - When there is nothing illegal and wrong in the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by High Court and same appeared to be well merited and in accordance with interpretation of statutory provisions, Court would not interfere with order of High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution (Paras 16, 17)
[(1997) 10 SCC 305],[(2000) 5 SCC 141] and [(1992) 2 SCC 635] relied upon.
Facts of the case:-
1.An application was filed by Appellants herein in the instant case praying for a declaration of occupancy rights, claiming to be tenants of suit agricultural land. Case of tenancy made out by Appellants or their father was disputed by Respondent 4. Land Tribunal allowed application of appellants by Tribunal. Occupancy rights were granted in favour of appellants by Tribunal. Appeal thereagainst by Respondent 4 was dismissed. On Revision petition, High court while exercising its revisional power u/s 121 of Act set aside concurrent findings of fact of land Tribunal as well as appellate authority and held that appellant failed to prove tenancy in respect of scheduled land.
2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court : –
Perusal of Section 121A of Act, under which revisional jurisdiction can be exercised, shows that High Court, while exercising such power is entitled to re-appreciate evidence when it finds that conclusion arrived at by appellate authority runs contrary to materials on record and when it finds that there is no evidence to support conclusion of appellate authority or when it finds that reasons given by appellate authority are absolutely perverse and cannot be supported by evidence on record. High Court held justified in coming to conclusion that evidence and material on record clearly established that appellants were not able to prove that they were tenants in respect of scheduled land under respondents. One of main criteria for deciding whether a particular person is a tenant or not is to see whether there was payment of rent, either in cash or in kind. Instantly while rejecting claim of appellants, High Court had considered that appellants had failed to satisfy court that any payment of rent was made either by father of appellants or by appellants themselves. High Court rightly held that from entries in the RTC record for the years 1968 to 1974, name of appellants was not shown as person in cultivation of land in dispute and also nature of cultivation of scheduled land was not shown as that of tenants in said RTC record. Difficult to hold that tenancy claimed by appellants in respect of the scheduled land could be established. Considering scope of Section 121A of Act, contention of appellants that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 121A of Act, High Court was not entitled to set aside concurrent findings of fact arrived at by appellate authority and land Tribunal was held unsustainable. No reason to interfere with judgment of the High Court. Appeal was dismissed.
Result – Appeal dismissed
judgment
Tarun Chattarjee, J. –
1.In our view, although the High Court had set aside the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunals below under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 (in short ‘the Act’) in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 121A of the Act, even then, this is not a fit case where this Court, in the exercise of its power under Article 136 of the Constitution would interfere with such an order of the High Court.
2.The appellants in this appeal, claiming to be the tenants of agricultural land, bearing Survey No. 125/1, measuring 3 acres 11 Gunthas (hereinafter called as the “scheduled land”) situated in Lingabahalli Village, Madhugiri Taluk in the State of Karnataka, filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal praying for a declaration that they had acquired occupancy rights in respect of the scheduled land. They alleged that they were cultivating the scheduled land from 1968 till the notified date under the Act on Wara basis giving 1/3rd of the share in the foodgrains to respondent No.4. Accordingly, the appellants prayed for an order of occupancy right in respect of the scheduled land alleging that they and their father were cultivating the scheduled land as occupancy right holders relying, inter alia, on the entries under the RTC record.
3. The case of the appellants, as made out, was disputed by the respondent No. 4. The case of respondent No.4 was that the scheduled land was mortgaged to the 3rd respondent, Rajashankar, in the year 1968 and after the expiry of the said mortgage, the mortgagee was liable to deliver possession of the same. The case of tenancy as made out by the appellants or their father was denied. It was alleged by the respondent No.4 that since the respondent No. 3 was a film actor and had settled in Madras (now Chennai), with the consent of the respondent No. 3, the scheduled land was given to the father of the appellants and the father of the appellants was cultivating the same from the year 1968 but not as a tenant. Accordingly, they prayed for rejection of the application filed by the father of the appellants claiming occupancy rights under the Act. Initially, the Land Tribunal allowed the application of the father of the appellants and feeling aggrieved, a writ petition was filed against the said order. The High Court had set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The Land Tribunal, after remand, relying on the entries in the RTC record and some other materials on record, granted occupancy rights in favour of the appellants.
4.Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed. A revision petition, thereafter, was moved before the High Court and the High Court, by the impugned judgment, had set aside the concurrent findings of fact and rejected the application filed by the father, since deceased, of the appellants holding, inter alia, that the appellants or their father had failed to prove the tenancy in respect of the scheduled land. A special leave petition was filed against the judgment of the High Court, setting aside the concurrent orders allowing the application, in respect of which leave has already been granted.
5.We have heard Mr. Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. S. N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. We have examined the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the orders of the Tribunals below. It is true that the High Court, while exercising its revisional power under Section 121A of the Act, had set aside the concurrent findings of fact of the Land Tribunal as well as of the appellate authority, even then, examining the findings of the High Court and considering the power conferred on it in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 121A of the Act, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court in the exercise
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
