The duty of the Land Tribunal to examine whether the petitioner answered the definition of an agriculturist and the significance of documentary evidence in determining occupancy rights.

( 1 ) THIS is a tenant's writ petition challenging the order passed by the land Tribunal, Hoskote, rejecting his application for grant of occupancy rights under Sec. 48a of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (to be hereinafter called the 'act' ).

( 2 ) THE only ground on which the application of the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights came to be dismissed is that he was serving as a secretary of the Land Development Bank for over twenty years and that he is not a bona fide agriculturist.

( 3 ) BEFORE considering this writ petition on merits it is necessary to dispose of I. A. No. 1, filed on behalf of one Chuda Bai, D|o late Govindrao. She has claimed interest in Survey No. 324/2-C measuring 1 acre 11 guntas situate at Hoskote as heir of late 'govindarao and, has sought for impleading her as one of the respondents in this writ petition, She was not impleaded as a respondent before the Land Tribunal. The petitioner has opposed the impleading application on the ground that she is not the daughter of Govindarap and that she is the wife of the 1st respondent D. Nagesh Rao, son of D. Devoji Rao residing in Bangalore City. The 1st respondent's case is that he got the land in question under a lease executed by one Govindarao. The petitioner in I A. No. I had not produced any evidence in support of her claim that she was the daughter of Govindarao and that she inherited the land in question after her father's death. Further, in view of the stand taken by the 1st respondent that he got the land under will, his wife Chudabai cannot have any interest in the land during the life time of her husband Nagesh Rao. Therefore, it is plain that Chudabai has no interest in the land and, therefore, her claim for being impleaded as respondent is rejected.

( 4 ) MR. Munivenkataramana, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the conclusion reached by the Land Tribunal is contrary to the entries in the record of rights, pahanis and index of lands which conclusively establish that the petitioner was in possession and cultivation of the land being the Manager of the joint family as tenant of Survey no. 234/2. Secondly, he contended that the Land Tribunal, Hoskote, has not considered the oral evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner. Thirdly, he contended that the Land Tribunal, has erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner is not a bona fide agriculturist.

( 5 ) MR. T. VENKANNA, learned Advocate for. the 1st respondent, sought to support the impugned order and urged that the petitioner being a secretary of a Land Mortgage Bank, was not a bona fide agriculturist and, therefore, he was not entitled to the grant of registration of occupancy rights. Nextly, he contended that the record of rights and pahani copies from 1964 to 1976 standing in the name of the petitioner are fabricated documents made by the petitioner's brother who is a clerk in the taluk office at Hoskote. He further urged that a dispute has been raised before the revenue authorities regarding the entries of the petitioner's name in the pahanis and the matter is still pending before the revenue authorities and he requested the Court to adjourn the hearing of this case pending disposal of the enquiry by the revenue authorities. This request was rejected on the ground that the enquiry by the revenue authorities would be a long drawn process and there is a legal presumption in favour of the entry under S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. However, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, did not dispute that the pahani entries are in the name of the petitioner from the year 1964-65 to 1976-77. The main question for decision is whether the Land Tribunal, is right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was not a bona fide agriculturist.

( 6 ) THE only reason given by the Land Tribunal to reach the conclusion that the petitioner is not a bona fide agriculturist is that he was employed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document