Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1697
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.
Ratnappa Shivappa Uppin Deceased By His L Rs - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7102 of 2005
Decided On : 23-10-2020
R.G. Hegde, Advocate, V.S. Kalasurmath, Advocate, R.M. Kulkarni, Advocate, Hemalekha K S, Advocate, Anand M Sholapurmath, Advocate, Sharanagouda M Biradar, Advocate
Civil court decrees are binding, and material evidence is crucial in determining occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Karnataka Land Reforms Act - 1 of 1974 - The judgment discusses the possession and cultivation of the land in dispute, the entries in revenue records, civil court decrees, and the findings of the Tribunal. It highlights the legal principle that civil court decrees are binding and the importance of material evidence in determining occupancy rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, filed a writ petition to quash the order granting occupancy rights of the land in dispute to respondent No.4. The petitioner claimed to be in peaceful possession and cultivation of the land, while respondent No.4 contested the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the civil court decrees and the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, which favored the petitioner, were not considered by the Tribunal. It also noted that the material evidence did not support respondent No.4's claim of possession and cultivation as a tenant.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of occupancy rights of the land in dispute, considering the conflicting claims of the petitioner and respondent No.4.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the civil court decrees were binding and that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the findings of fact given by the civil courts. It also emphasized the importance of material evidence in determining occupancy rights.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and occupancy rights of the land in dispute were granted in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
S.Vishwajith Shetty, J. - The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 30.07.1981 made in No.LR.AGK. 34:153:153A:125 by respondent No.2- Tribunal vide Annexure-D.
2. Brief facts of the case are, petitioner is the tenant of land bearing R.S.No.120/1+2B measuring 2 acres (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in dispute'). Respondent No.3 who is the brother of the petitioner is the landlord of the land in dispute. Petitioner alleges that he has been in actual possession and cultivation of the land in dispute ever since the year 1956 and he has been paying the rent every year to respondent No.3. The name of the petitioner is entered in the revenue records of the land in dispute in the cultivators column from the year 1964-65 to 1968-69.
3. In the year 1969, respondent No.4 clandestinely managed to get his name entered in the revenue records with the help of village accountant and this was challenged by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 09.11.1973 vide Annexure-B set aside the entries made in the name of respondent No.4 and ordered to enter the name of the petitioner in the record of rights of the land in dispute.
4. In the year 1968, respondent No.4 allegedly tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and cultivation of the land in dispute by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, petitioner had filed O.S.No.125/1968 before the Court of Additional Munisiff, Gokak against respondent No.4 and his family members seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and cultivation of the land in dispute. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 09.03.1971. The regular appeal filed by respondent No.4 challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.03.1971 made in O.S.No.105/1968 was numbered as R.A.No.125/1971 and the said regular appeal was dismissed by the first appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 31.05.1973 and the same has attained finality.
5. After coming into force of the Karnakaka Land Reforms Act (Amendment Act 1 of 1974), the petitioner and respondent No.4 filed separate Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights of the land in dispute. Respondent No.2-Tribunal vide its order dated 30.07.1981 had rejected the claim of the petitioner and granted occupancy rights of the land in dispute in favour of respondent No.4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.07.1981, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.20546/1981 before this Court.
6. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was constituted and therefore, the said writ petition was transferred to the jurisdictional Land Reforms Appellate Authority and numbered as R.A.No.918/1987. Subsequent to abolition of Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the petitioner had filed Civil Petition No.354/1994 before this Court with a prayer to transfer the appeal from the Land Reforms Appellate Authority to this Court and hear the same as writ petition. Accordingly, the same was transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.No.7102/2005.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is a tenant in occupation and cultivation of the land in dispute under respondent No.3 who is his brother and since his brother is settled in Gokak town, the land in dispute was leased to the petitioner in the year 1956 and since then he has been cultivating the land in dispute and paying rent to respondent No3 regularly. He submits that respondent No.4 was never in possession and cultivation of the land in dispute and the Tribunal without properly appreciating the judgment and decree passed by the jurisdictional civil Court has erred in granting the occupancy rights of the land in dispute to respondent No.4. He submits that the civil Courts have given a categorical finding that the petitioner is in peaceful possession and cultivation of
