Back
2005 Supreme(Kar) 558
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
N.K PATIL, J.
HANMANTH - Petitioner.
Vs.
LAND TRIBUNAL, JOIDA (SUPA), UTTARA KANNADA AND ANOTHER - Respondents.
Land Reforms Revision Petition No. 1686 of 1991 (LRA).
Decided on 16th September, 2005
Smt. Sona Vakkund and Sri M.B. Nargund, Advocates for Petitioner;
Smt. A.R Sharadamba, High Court Government Pleader for Respondent-1;
Sri K.S. Desai, Advocate for Respondent-2.
Headnote:Finding of facts - KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 - Section 121-A -Finding of facts -Concurrent finding of facts recorded by Tribunal and Appellate Authority -Susceptibility to revision.
[N. K. Patil, J]: After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the land tribunal and the land reforms appellate authority, it emerges on the face of the records available on the file that, neither the land tribunal nor the appellate authority has committed any error much less irregularity as such in rejecting the claims of the petitioner. Therefore, both the authorities after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on the file have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities having regard to the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments, interference by this Court exercising power under the revision is not justifiable nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds to interfere at this stage
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY RULES - Application for adducing oral evidence - Rule 9(4) -Application for adducing oral evidence -Rejection of -Legality. [N. K. Patil, J]: It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed an application for adducing the oral evidence under Rule 9(4) of the land reforms appellate rules on 14.9.1989. The said application filed by the petitioner had come up for consideration on 17.10.1989. The appellate authority after hearing both the sides for considerable length of time has passed detailed order giving reasons for rejecting the said application holding that, inspite of the land tribunal, giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence, he has not made any sincere efforts 0 adduce the oral evidence and the dates were also given by adjourning he case on various dates from 28.9.1988 to 18.1.1989 and inspite of giving him sufficient opportunity, the petitioner has not made any sincere efforts to adduce his oral evidence. After hearing both the counsel appearing for the parties, the land tribunal has given opportunity to the petitioner but he has not taken advantage of the same. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in passing the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim before the land tribunal inspite of giving sufficient opportunity. Therefore, he is not entitled for consideration of his request under Rule (4) of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority Rules. The said Order dated 17.10.1989 has attained finality as the same has not been assailed.
Application for adducing oral evidence
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY RULES - Rule 9(4) -Application for adducing oral evidence -Rejection of -Legality.
[N. K. Patil, J]: It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed an application for adducing the oral evidence under Rule 9(4) of the land reforms appellate rules on 14.9.1989. The said application filed by the petitioner had come up for consideration on 17.10.1989. The appellate authority after hearing both the sides for considerable length of time has passed detailed order giving reasons for rejecting the said application holding that, inspite of the land tribunal, giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence, he has not made any sincere efforts 0 adduce the oral evidence and the dates were also given by adjourning he case on various dates from 28.9.1988 to 18.1.1989 and inspite of giving him sufficient opportunity, the petitioner has not made any sincere efforts to adduce his oral evidence. After hearing both the counsel appearing for the parties, the land tribunal has given opportunity to the petitioner but he has not taken advantage of the same. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in passing the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim before the land tribunal inspite of giving sufficient opportunity. Therefore, he is not entitled for consideration of his request under Rule (4) of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority Rules. The said Order dated 17.10.1989 has attained finality as the same has not been assailed.
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS RULES, 1974 - Rule 17-A - Finding of facts - Rule 17-A -Finding of facts -Concurrent finding of facts recorded by Tribunal and Appellate Authority -Susceptibility to revision. [N. K. Patil, J]: After careful persual of the impugned order passed by the land tribunal and the land reforms appellate authority, it emerges on the face of the records available on the file that, neither the land tribunal nor the appellate authority has committed any error much less irregularity as such in rejecting the claims of the petitioner. Therefore, both the authorities after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on the file have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities having regard to the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments, interference by the Court exercising power under the revision is not justifiable nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds to interfere at this stage.
Cases Referred: 1998(1) Kar. L. J. 191; 1998 SC 2502; 1985 (3) SCC 594. Relied: AIR 1997 SC 699.
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 - Section 121-A - Finding of facts - Section 121-A -Finding of facts -Concurrent finding of facts recorded by Tribunal and Appellate Authority -Susceptibility to revision. [N. K. Patil, J]: After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the land tribunal and the land reforms appellate authority, it emerges on the face of the records available on the file that, neither the land tribunal nor the appellate authority has committed any error much less irregularity as such in rejecting the claims of the petitioner. Therefore, both the authorities after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on the file have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities having regard to the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments, interference by this Court exercising power under the revision is not justifiable nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds to interfere at this stage.
This petition is directed against the order dated 2-11-1989 in Appeal No. DAAA/AD/32/89 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi, confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Joida (Supa), in proceedings No. LRM/SR/47 Joida, dated 22-2-1989.
2. Petitioner claiming to be a tenant in respect of Sy. Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30 measuring 6 acres 7 guntas, 2 acres 4 guntas, 0.35 guntas and 0.36 guntas situated at Pradhani Village, Hobli Supa, Sirsi Taluk, filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights. The said application filed by the petitioner had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal on 3-7-1975. The Land Tribunal has granted the occupancy rights. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal, the 2nd respondent herein has filed the writ petition before this Court. This Court passed an order, remitting back the matter to the Tribunal, directing the Land Tribunal to pass appropriate orders afresh after affording opportunity to the petitioner. After remand, the Land Tribunal has taken up the matter for fresh consideration. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, he has not produced any documentary evidence nor has examined any independent witness i.e., adjacent landowners. After considering the materials available on the file and the evidence of the landlord, the Land Tribunal has passed an order dated 22-2-1989 rejecting the claim of the petitioner holding that the land in question is not at all tenanted and vested in Government as on 1-3-1974. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal, the petitioner herein has filed' an appeal on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi and the same has been numbered as Appeal No.DAAA/AD/32/89. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and order passed by the Land Tribunal has passed an order dated 2-11-1989, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner has failed to establish that the land in question is tenanted land and vested in Government as on 1-3-1974 and he has not produced any documents or adduced any oral evidence to substantiate his statement except taking grounds in the memorandum of appeal. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi, the petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant revision petition.
3. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Smt. Sona Vakkund is that, both the authorities have committed an error as well as irregularity in not conducting proper enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 and in not affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. Further she vehemently submitted that the petitioner repeatedly made a request before the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce independent oral evidence on the ground that he does not have any documentary evidence such as entry in RTC or lease deed or any receipts. Therefore, he is purely depending upon the oral evidence such as the evidence of the adjacent landowners and the Tribunal has rejected his request and proceeded to pass the order. It is contended that, the said order is illegal and unreasonable. Against the said order an appeal has been filed before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has filed an application under Rule 9(4) of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Appellate Authority) Rules, 1986 on 14-9-1989 requesting the Appellate Authority to permit the petitioner to adduce oral evidence. The said application filed by the petitioner-has not been considered properly and the same has been rejected. Therefore, she requests that both the orders passed by the authorities are liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, inter alia contended and substantiated the impugned order passed by
