Back
1980 Supreme(Kar) 36
Karnataka High Court
A.LAXMINARAYANA ACHARYA - Appellant
Versus
LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI - Respondent
Decided On : 02-08-80
The legal framework under Sec. 48a of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 was central to the court's decision, emphasizing the conditions for registration of occupancy right and the discretionary nature of holding local inspection by the tribunal.
Headnote:
KUMKI LANDS - Land Tribunal Order - Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Sec. 48a - The court discussed the provisions of Sec. 48a of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and its conditions for registration of occupancy right. It highlighted the requirement for lands to be held by or in the possession of tenants immediately prior to the date of commencement of the amendment Act and the lack of provision for claiming occupancy right based on the necessity for proper enjoyment of lease-held property. The court also addressed the duties of the tribunal, including the requirement for verification or enquiry, and the discretionary nature of holding local inspection.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's claim for registration as an occupant in respect of two items of lands was rejected by the Land Tribunal, leading to the filing of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory evidence to support his claim and that the tribunal's order was well-considered and reasoned, dismissing the writ petition.
Issues: The issues included the rejection of the petitioner's claim, the adequacy of the tribunal's enquiry, and the consideration of documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the lack of evidence to support the petitioner's claim and the compliance of the tribunal's order with the legal provisions, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) A portion of the order dated 4-12-78, a true copy of which is at Ext-F, rejecting the claim of the petitioner laxminarayana Acharya for being registered as an occupant in respect of two items of lands comprised in sy. Nos. 17712 measuring 4 acres 7 cents and 14112 measuring 3 acres 93 cents situate in Anjar Village of Udupi taluk in Dakshina Kannada Dt. is under challenge in this writ petition which is one filed under Art. 226 of the constitution of India.
( 2 ) THE matter arises in this way: - the petitioner had applied to the 1st respondunt Land Tribunal, Udupi, in form-7 claiming occupancy in respect of four items of lands comprised in sy. Nos. 8|1 measuring 1 acre 21 cents, 8/4 measuring 33 cents, 177/2 measuring 4 acres 7 cents 141/2 measuring 3 acres 93 cents, all situate in Anjar village of Udupi Taluk in Dakshina kannada Dt. as required under Sec. 48a (1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961 (for short 'the Act' ). His case was that formerly his father was the tenant in respect of the lands in question and after him he became the tenant thereof under the 3rd respondent Sri Laxminarayana Devaru anjar Mutt. Respondents 4 to 6 contested the claim of the petitioner in respect of the two items of land comprised in S. Nos. 177/2 and 141/2. It is their case that respondents 4 and 6 are, the owners of S. No. 177/2 and respondent-5 is the owner of S. No. 141/2. Their further case is that those lands did not belong to the 3rd respondent and they were not leased out at any time either to the petitioner or his predecessors,
( 3 ) THE tribunal after holding an enquiry allowed the claim of the petitioner in rospect of two items of land comprised in S. Nos. 8|1 and 8|4 and rejected his claim in respect of the two tems of land comprised in S. Nos, 177/2 and 141/2 as per its order Ex-F. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed this writ petition.
( 4 ) SHRI M. Kama Bhat, the learned advocate appearing for petitioner, contended that the land tribunal was not right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner in respect of S. Nos. 177/2 and, 141/2 as it was reasonable to hold that those two survey numbers were included in the lease-hold of the father of the petitioner and after him of the. petitioner as they were the Kumki lands to S. Nos. 8|1 and 8/4 which were admittedly in their possession and enjoyment as lease-hold lands over which occupancy right has been conferred on the petitioner. He has further contended that even otherwise, the petitioner is entitled for registration of occupancy in respect of those two items, as they are absolutely necessary to the petitioner for the proper enjoyment of S. Nos 8|1 and 8/4 in respect of which he has been ordered to be registered as on occupant as, they were the kumki lands to S. Nos. 8|1 and 8/4 He has also urged that the enquiry held by the tribunal was not in accordance with law and that the tribunal did not consider the documents produced by him properly. On these grounds, he urged to allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order Ext-F so far as it relates to the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for registration of occupancy right in respect of F. Nos. 177/2 and 141/2.
( 5 ) REGARDTION the contention that S. Nos. 177/2 and 141/ 2 were included in the lease-hold of the petitioner, the petitioner did not produce any satisfactory evidence either oral or documentary before the tribunal. All that was urged before the tribunal regarding these two items, was that they were the kumki lands to S. Nos. 8/1 and 8/4 and hence it was reasonable to hold that they were included in the lease-hold of the petitioner, as the petitioner was holding S. Nos. 811 and 8/4 as tenant under the third respondent. It seems to me that this contention is wholly untenable. It is no doubt true that the owners of the Kadeem Varg lands in Dakshina Kannada Dt. enjoy certain poivileges over the kumki lands. The fact that such owners enjoy certain privileges does not confer upon
