IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of occupancy rights – Scope and purport of two Acts being different, termination of proceedings under Karnataka (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 in regard to grant of occupancy rights cannot bar enquiry to establish claim under Section 45 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 by Land Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

Rastogi, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th September, 2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore affirming the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal, Anekal, in conferring occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 184 to an extent of 10 acres 34 guntas and Survey No. 17 to an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas of Halasahalli Village, Anekal Taluk, in favour of the first respondent.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that first respondent had filed an application in Form No. 7 on 3rd December, 1974 under Rule 19(1) of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules requesting for registration of occupancy rights in his favour under Section 45(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act 1961”).

3. The case of the first respondent was that lands measuring Sy. No. 184, measuring 10 acres and 34 guntas and Sy. No. 17, measuring 01 acre 12 guntas both situated at Halasahally, Thippasandra Village were vested with the Government as on 1st March, 1974 in terms of Section 44 of the Act, 1961 and he being the tenant in respect of the aforesaid lands was entitled to be registered as an occupant of these lands under Section 45 of the Act 1961.

4. The Tribunal, in the first instance, by an Order dated 18th November 1981, rejected the application filed by the first respondent but the High Court of Karnataka vide its Order dated 12th March, 1985 remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law which came to be further challenged in writ appeal and by Order dated 16th March 1987, the same was remitted back to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

5. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority conducted the trial but during pendency of the application, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was abolished and with the intervention of the High Court, the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal.

6. The parties filed their documents in support of their claims which were duly exhibited as A1 to A10(D). In support of the claim, the first respondent examined his power of attorney holder R. Ravindra as PW 1 and one Kamiah as PW 2 and the witnesses were cross-examined by the respective parties and an enquiry was held by the Tribunal in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 48A(5) of the Act, 1961 read with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. After taking into consideration the material on record and noticing the fact as claimed by the appellants before the Tribunal, the subject property was sold by Venkataramaiah to the appellants by a registered sale deed dated 10th July, 1970 and they were stepped into the shoes of Venkataramaiah.

7. The defence of the appellants was that they had purchased the lands from Venkataramaiah under registered sale deed dated 10th July, 1970 and became owner of the subject land which was within the purview of Karnataka(Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 1954”) and Act, 1961 has no applicability in the instant matter.

8. The further contention of the appellants before the Tribunal was that the first respondent is not a tenant but is a trespasser and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and the land was in unlawful possession of the first respondent.

9. The appellants also emphasized that in the proceedings earlier initiated, the first respondent failed to establish his tenancy rights under the Act 1954, as such, he was not entitled to claim later occupancy rights under the Act 1961.

10. Taking into consideration the rival claims of the parties, the Land Tribunal recorded a finding that on 1st March 1974, i.e., the vesting day, the subject land was in possession of the first respondent and his father and that was the admission of the appellants in the earlier proceedings initiated under the Act, 1954(O.S. No. 210 of 1967) and later in subsequent suit f