2019 Supreme(SC) 1025

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust – Appellant
Versus
Balakrishna Bhat Since Deceased By His Lrs. And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.2926 of 2009
Decided On : 17-09-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 provides for registration of a person as in occupation only if he is in possession and cultivating the land.
High Court, in writ appeal, ought not to set aside the concurrent findings of three Revenue Authorities as well as the single Judge of the Court.

Headnote:

(a) Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Section 45 - Claim of respondents to be in possession rejected by Land Tribunal as well as the Assistant Commissioner after due enquiry on two occasions - Third time again claiming to be in possession on strength of having constructed a house on the land - Act envisages registration of tenants as occupants for agriculturists only - Respondents not claiming as agriculturists - Having no right on suit property - Construction of house illegal. (Para 6)

(b) Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Section 45 - Suit land belonging to appellant temple - Respondents and their predecessors only Archak of the temple - Cannot usurp such property for their own gains. (Para 7)

(c) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Division Bench setting aside concurrent findings of three revenue authorities as well as order of Single Judge - Not acceptable. (Para 8)

(d) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 128, 129 and 133 r/w section 45, Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Respondents not producing any report made by them u/s 128 - Respondents not challenging rejection of their claim by Land Tribunal by order dated 28.01.1981 and the Assistant Commissioner’s order - Respondent 1(b) admitting before Land Tribunal that they don’t possess the land and don’t have any tenancy right - Respondents, held, not entitled to protection of section 133. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:

One late Baba Bommayya Bhat was the archak of the appellant Ganapathi Dev temple and he was in actual possession and enjoyment of agricultural land which he had been cultivating since 1969; that after the death of the said Baba Bommayya Bhat, his son, the late Balakrishna Bhat (husband of Respondent No. 1(a) and father of the Respondents No. 1(b) to 1(e) herein) continued in possession of the suit property and consequently the name of Balakrishna Bhat was entered into the revenue records.

The deceased Balakrishna Bhat, after obtaining necessary permission from the Panchayat, constructed a house in the suit property in 1994 and obtained an electricity connection for the said house; and after his demise, Respondent Nos. 1(a) to (e) are residing in the same house. Respondent Nos. 1(a) to (e) therefore claimed to be the deemed tenants of the suit property under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Respondent No 1(b), Vitthaldas Bhat, filed a Form-7 application under Section 48A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in 1979 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the suit property in his favour.

The Land Tribunal by order dated 28.01.1981 rejected the said Form 7 application filed under Section 48A of the 1961 Act.

The deceased Balakrishna Bhat was not entitled to apply for grant of occupancy rights under Section 77A of the amended 1961 Act. He nonetheless filed a Form 7A application under Section 77A. The Assistant Commissioner, Kumta rejected the application.

The appellant herein filed an application before the Tehsildar to delete the name of the State Government and Balakrishna Bhat in the revenue records of the suit property.

This application was allowed and the appellant’s name was entered in the Record of Rights and was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Respondent Nos. 1(a) to (e) challenged all the aforementioned orders in Writ Petition which also came to be dismissed.

However, the Division Bench of the High Court, without appreciating the material on record in its proper perspective, granted relief in favour of the respondents on the ground that they had constructed a house on the suit property and had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and that the entry made in their favour in the Record of Rights shall be presumed to be true under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

Finding of the Court:

The entry in the respondents’ predecessors’ names in the Record of Rights was illegal and the revenue records in respect of the suit property were correctly modified in the appellant’s name by the orders of the revenue authorities dated 21.05.2003, 30.07.2005 and 23.03.2006.

Result: Appeal allowed.