Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 576
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.
Dyavappa Gouda Hanumappa Goudar
Vs.
State of Karnataka and Ors.
Writ Petition No. 15804 of 2003 (LR)
Decided On: 06.09.2013
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Sri Jagadish Patil, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:Sri K.S. Patil, High Court Government Pleader and Sri V.R. Datar, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documentary evidence in land disputes, as well as the court's authority to quash orders that fail to consider relevant materials.
Headnote:
Land Tribunal - Land Dispute - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Section 84 - The court discussed the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, particularly Section 84, and emphasized the importance of considering documentary evidence in land disputes. The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for a fresh enquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Land Tribunal's order rejecting the grant of occupancy rights for a land dispute involving 14 acres 4 guntas at Alur Village. The petitioner argued that the land remained agricultural and that there was no conversion order, while the respondent contended that the land had lost its agricultural character in 1925.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order did not consider relevant documentary evidence and quashed the order, remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal for a fresh enquiry.
Issues: The issues involved the agricultural character of the land, the validity of the impugned order, and the consideration of documentary evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering documentary evidence in land disputes and held that the impugned order was liable to be quashed due to the exclusion of relevant materials from consideration.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for a fresh enquiry, directing both parties to appear before the Land Tribunal on a specified date.
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.
1. The petitioner has impugned the Land Tribunal's order dated 29-6-2002 (Annexure-A) rejecting the petitioner's Form 7 for the grant of occupancy rights in respect of 14 acres 4 guntas at Sy. No. 68/1A of Alur Village. Sri Jagadish Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has proceeded on the presumption that the lands are already converted. He submits that there is no conversion order. Without prejudice to this submission, he contends that the land has continued to be an agricultural land even after 1925, in which year the said lands are stated to have been converted. He submits that the mutation entry at Annexure-B shows that the petitioner's grandfather was a protected tenant in respect of 14 acres 4 guntas of the land at Sy. No. 68/1A. The said mutation is effected on 9-5-1948. If the lands were to be converted into the non-agricultural lands in 1925, such mutation would not have been made at all, so contends the learned Counsel. He submits that the land is shown as vested in the Government, as per mutation Entry 1218 (Annexure-C).
2. Sri Jagadish Patil brings to my notice the record of rights from the years 1963-1964 to 1974-1975. All of them show the name of the petitioner. The method of cultivation is shown as 3' (cultivation by the tenant). He submits that in the year 1989, for the first time, the name of 'Department of Irrigation is shown in the revenue records, as they were acquired for its purpose and benefit.
3. Sri V.R. Datar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent 3 submits that, as the lands have lost their agricultural character way back in 1925, they are not vested in the Government. The question of granting the occupancy rights in respect of the lands, which are not vested in the Government, would not arise at all.
4. He submits that way back in 1926 itself, Dharmashala building is constructed. The remaining land is acquired in two phases -- in the first phase for the purpose of Gavathana and in the second phase for the purpose of Sinthamani Irrigation Project.
5. He submits that there has been no tenant-landlord relationship between the petitioner's ancestors and the respondent 3. He submits that the perusal of the impugned order reveals that the large chunks of lands are phada lands and that they are submerged under the Almatti reservoir. On the remaining land measuring about 2 acres, the buildings have come up.
6. He submits that, as the petitioner has failed to show that the land in question is vested in the Government and to show that he was a tenant in respect thereof, the Land Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order. He would therefore pray for the dismissal of this petition.
7. Sri K.S. Patil, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 fairly brings to my notice from the L.C.Rs. the probationary Tahsildar's note dated 20-11-1980. The said note states that the land measuring 14 acres 4 guntas at Sy. No. 68/1A is wrongly mentioned in the records of the Land Records Department as the non-agricultural land. The note further states that, as the land in question is under the agricultural use, it be assessed for land revenue. He submits that the materials produced by the petitioner does not appear to have been considered by the Tribunal.
8. I have browsed through the L.C.Rs. made available by Sri K.S. Patil, the learned Government Pleader. The L.C.Rs. do not contain the non-agricultural conversion order stated to have been issued in the year 1925. The probationary Tahsildar's note dated 20-11-1980 reads as follows.--
Below Endt. No. LND. CR. 625, dated 6-10-1980 of the Tahsildar, Bagalkot.
No. 834,
Sitimani 20-11-1980.
Resubmitted to the Tahsildar, Bagalkot.
2. The Total extent of land Sy. No. 68 of Alur Village was A17-28G out of this area an area A3-28G has already been acquired during 1953 for the Village Gavathana and the same has been effected in the village records as per ME Nos. 1027 and 1051, dated 1-12-1962 an
