Back
2006 Supreme(Kar) 356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
R. GURURAJAN, J.
SRI ADMAR MUTT, UDUPI AND ANOTHER - Petitioners
Versus
RAMA SHETTY (DEAD) BY L.Rs AND OTHERS - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11569 of 2003
Decided on 20th April, 2006
Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Advocate for Petitioners;
Sri S.R Hegde Hudlamane, Advocate for Respondents-1 to 7 and impleading Respondents 10 to 12;
Sri Ramesh B. Anneppannavar, High Court Gvvemment Advocate for Respondents-8 and
Headnote:Land Reforms Act, 1961 -Section 2(33) -Agricultural land -Whether punja land in Dakshina Kannada District in agricultural land. Settled Principles:A Division Bench of this Court in identical circumstances, in the case of 1999 (4) KLJ 524 has ruled in para 5 as under; In view of the above stated contentions, the only point to be considered is whether punja lands in Dakshina Kannada District are agriculatural lands or not. In this case, the land is described as a punja Land. This Court in Venkatesha Shet Vs. Narayan Achari, Justice Govinda Bhat (1975 (2) Kar. L.J.173) as he then was considered the question whether a punja land in Dakshina Kannada Disctrict is an agricultural land or not. His Lordships relying on the survey scheme in that area held that punja lands are not agricultural lands as only thatched grass are grown in those lands naturally and such lands are not brought under cultivation and held that punja lands are not agricultural lands as only thatched grass are grown in those lands naturally and such lands are not brought under cultivation and held that punja lands are not agricultural lands. Thereafter, in CRP No. 5130 of 1990 disposed of on 23-10-1990 one of the single Judge of the Court considered the same question and agree with the view expressed by Justice Govinda Bhat as he then was in the above decision and held that Punja lands are not agricultural lands. In C V Gouramma Vs. land Tribunal, Bantwal and others, 1980 (1) Kar. L.J. 54 again the same question came up for consideration as to whether punja Lands in Dakshina Kannada District are agricultural lands or not. After elaborately considering it was held that punja lands are not agricultural lands as only thatched grass is grown in that lands naturally. Thereafterwards, a Division Bench of the Court in WA No. 6222/1997 in which it is held that punja lands are not agricultural lands. Thus, the Court by continuous pronouncements from 1975 till 1998 held that punja lands in Dakshina Kannada are not agricultural lands (1999(4) KLR 524 (DB).
Cases Referred: 1975 (2) Kar. LJ. 173.
Karnataka Land Reforms, 1961 - Section 48 -A(6) - Invocation of -Matter remitted by High Court regarding certain survey numbers in particular - Parties were also concentrating only in respect of those numbers -But tribunal chose to grant occupancy rights in respect of other survey numbers which were beyond remand order - If proper. Admar Mutt and others vs Rama Shetty by LRs and others.
Land Reforms Act, 1961 -Section 25 -Surrender -Deed of surrender produced -Non-consideration of -Order of Tribunal liable to be set aside. [R. Gururajan, J.] - From the material on record it is seen that petitioner has provided the deed of surrender dtd 21-2-1996 annexure-k. A reading of the said document would show that the original mulagenidar had surrendered in terms of this document. This document is not denied. In fact written arguments were also provided before the authorities. Unfortunately, without properly considering the said document, the land tribunal has chosen to grant the occupancy rights in the case on hand. In these circumstances, the petitioner muth is right in this submission that the grant in the case on hand requires to be set aside by this Court in the light of surrender in this case.
Cases Referred: 1975 (2) Kar. LJ. 173.
Land Reforms Act,1961 -Section 48 -A- Tenancy - Punja land -Evidence on record was to the effect that land in question was not tenanted -No finding recorded as to tenancy -Occupancy granted -Held, Tribunal was wrong.
Words and Phrases -Punja lands -Punja lands in Dakshina Kannada District are not agricultural lands.
Cases Referred: 1975 (2) Kar. LJ. 173
Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 -Rule 17 -Enquiry and consideration of material -RTC entries not considered by Tribunal -Enquiry not conducted property -Proceeded to grant occupancy rights in total disregard to directions of Court -Hence, matter requires reconsideration by land Tribunal -Remitted back. [N. K. Patil, J.] - In spite of the said evidence given by the adjacent land owner and the independent witnesses in favour of deceased "H", the claim of deceased "H" has been rejected on the sole ground that, he has filed O.S. No.209/1970 for perpetual injunction, restraining the deceased "D" - petitioner in second revision petition and the said original suit has been dismissed. Hence, it shows that, as on 1st March 1974, he was not cultivating the land in question as tenant and there is no whisper regarding the entry found prior to 1963-64 and both the authorites have given much importance to agricultural years 1970-71 to 1973-74 which stands in favour of deceased "D". The said entry found in favour of deceased "D" is on the basis of the order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner, wherein the deceased "D" has purchased the right of cultivation in auction and this his name has been entered in pursuance of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. It is duty cast on the Appellate Authority to look into all the entries found in the relevant records as on 1st March 1974 and three years prior to that date i.e. 1970-71 to 1973-74 before granting occupancy rights. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered nor the material available on record referred above has been evaluated in detail. RWs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have consistently given the evidence stating that, Sy.Nos.30 and 31 were being cultivated by deceased "H" and deceased "D" jointly. The Land Tribunal has also committed an error in not conducting proper enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Rules.
Cases Referred: 1975 (2) Kar. LJ. 173.
Petitioner is before me challenging the order of the Land Tribunal dated 29-1-2003, Annexure-J in the case on hand.
Facts in brief are as under:
Sri Rama Shetty, was a tenant of several lands. However, he was not a tenant of land measuring 14 acres 13 cents in Sy. No. 48/2; 3 acres 21 cents in Sy. No. 347/1. He was also not the tenant of 3 acres in Sy. No. 347/1,21 cents in Sy. No. 46/5A, 24 cents in Sy. No. 31/5A, 1 cent in Sy.
No. 46/1. This petition is confined to the lands in 14 acres 13 cents in Sy.
No. 48/2, 2 acres 32 cents in Sy. No. 347/1, 68 cents in Sy. No. 347/1,21 cents in Sy. No. 46/5A, 24 cents in Sy. No. 31/5A, 1 cent in Sy. No. 46/1.
Rama Shetty is no more and he is represented by his legal representatives respondents 1 to 7. Rama Shetty filed Form 7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of 26 lands situated in Shivalli Village. In that Form 7 he had claimed 4 acres 13 cents in Sy. No. 48/2, 3 acres 21 cents in Sy. No. 347/1 only. However, he had not claimed in that Form 7 Sy. No. 46/5A and Sy. No. 31/5A, however he had only claimed 3 acres 21 cents in Sy. No. 347. He had also not claimed 14 acres 13 cents in Sy. No. 48/2 but had only claimed 4 acres 13 cents. He had also not claimed 1 cent in Sy. No. 46/1 which is now granted.
2. Sri Rama Shetty challenged the said order in W.P. No. 25041 of 1981 contending that he was also entitled to get 4 acres 12 cents in Sy.
No. 48/2 and 3 acres 21 cents in Sy. No. 347/1. This Court remanded the matter insofar it related to the claim of Sri Rama Shetty in respect of Sy. No. 48/2 and Sy" No. 347/1. After remand, petitioners submitted their objections with regard to the claim of the Sri Rama Shetty. Written submissions also filed by Sri Rama Shetty. Land Tribunal conducted a survey but without notice to the petitioner. The Land Tribunal has now passed an order dated 29-11-2002 granting lands in Sy. Nos. 46/5A, 31/5A, 347/1 (portion) 347/1 (portion), 48/2 and 46/1. Aggrieved by this order petitioner is before me.
3. No statement of objections is filed.
4. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Counsel would argue that the order of the Land Tribunal is wrong for several reasons. He would say that the impugned order is beyond the scope of the remand order in terms of the earlier proceedings. He would elaborately argue that this Court remanded the matter only insofar as two lands are concerned in the writ petition filed by the respondent. He would also say that the Tribunal has also issued notice only with regard to the claim in respect of two lands. learned Counsel complains that the Tribunal while passing the order has considered several lands which according to him is impermissible in law. He would invite my attention to the material facts to say that there exists no agricultural tenancy for the purpose of grant of occupancy rights in respect of two lands in terms of the Karnataka Land Reforms Laws. He would say that the Tribunal by misconstruing the material on record has chosen to grant these lands.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the tenant would argue that the Land Tribunal has the necessary power under Section 48-A(6) of the Act to review its own order in the event of non-consideration of a claim for occupancy rights. He would say that though several lands were claimed, no orders were passed on that claim and that therefore the Tribunal is justified in granting occupancy rights in respect of the other lands which were not considered by it in the earlier order. His main argument is one of review of claim of other lands not remanded by this Court by the Land Tribunal. Insofar as other two remand lands are concerned, learned Counsel would say that his client is in possession and the material on record would support tenancy in the case on hand.
6. After hearing, I have carefully perused the order of the Land Tribunal.
7. Admittedly, the lands belonged to the Mutt. Contesting tenant filed Form 7 claiming several lands in several survey numbers. This petition is confined to the lands meas
