K.R. Mahadevappa vs Ramanna

K.L. Manjunath, J.—This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the concurrent findings of the Land Tribunal, Arasikere Taluk in Case No. LRF4:74-75 dated 29.06.2002 which has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 30778/2002 dated 18.03.2008 in this intra Court appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Sri S.N. Gangadarappa, who was the father of respondents 1 to 4 herein along with the respondents 1 to 4 had made an application in Form No. 7 claiming of occupancy right in respect of 5 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 57 of Vaderahalli Village, Javgal Hobli, Arsikere Taluk against K. Ananthamurthy, K.L. Rajashekariah and H.N. Nanjudappa. Rajashekaraiah, died during the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal.

The appellant Mahadevappa is the son of K.L. Rajashekaraiah. K.L. Rajashekaraiah had purchased the aforesaid land from Narayanppa and his children and that the said Shanbog Narayanappa and his children were allotted the aforesaid land at a partition.

The land in question is a land attached to the superior Village Office of Shanbhog under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''K.V.O.A. Act'' for short). The land in question had vested in the Government with effect from 01.02.1963, the day on which the K.V.O.A. Act came into force. Thereafter, the land has been regranted in favour of purchaser K.L. Rajashekaraiah following the judgment of this Court in the case of Lakshmanagowda Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1981(1) KLJ page-1(DB). It is the specific case of Gangadharappa and his children that the land in question has been under their cultivation pursuant to a registered lease deed dated 02.10.1967.

The Land Tribunal, considering the case of the parties allowed the application of S.N. Gangadharapa and his children on the ground that immediately prior to 01.03.1974 he was cultivating the land as a tenant of the land. Accordingly, occupancy rights u/s 44(1) has been granted to them. Challenging the same the writ petition came to be filed by the appellant raising several grounds.

The main ground of attack of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that no lease could have been created subsequent to vesting of the land under the provisions of the K.V.O.A. Act, 1961 and the lease deed said to have been executed on 02.10.1967 is not a lease in the eye of law and such lease is void ab initio. Based on such lease the Land Tribunal could not have granted occupancy rights. It was also contended that the person who created the lease had no right to create the lease. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.

The contention of the appellant''s Counsel before us is that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge did not consider the effect of creating a lease by a person who had no right to create a lease in view of the fact that land vested in the Government under the provisions of the Act.

Therefore, he contends that the Tribunal did not consider the effect of execution of such lease and so also the learned Single Judge. He further contends that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shidramappa Bheemappa Asangi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Secretary, Department of Revenue and Others reported in ILR 2001 Kar. P 5072 (DB), the Land Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge were required to consider the same. Since there is no application of mind by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge about this vital aspect, this Court has to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal which is confirmed by the learned Single Judge.

Sri Rudragowda, learned counsel for respondents to 4 has made an attempt to support the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge contending that since Gangadharappa and his children were cultivating the land as lawful tenants immediately prior to 01.03.1974, they were entitled to make an application and the Tribunal is justified in granting occupancy rights since the lease is evidenced by a registered lease deed. In addition to that, the land was under the cultivation of Gangadharappa even from 1957 onwards. Therefore, the land had stood vested under the provisions of Karnataka Law Reforms Act (Amended) 1974. Even if the land had vested in the Government as per K.V.O.A. Act, the tenancy right of Gangadharappa which was in existence prior to the Act is saved. Therefore he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, what is to be considered by us in this appeal are:

Whether the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have considered the effect of execution of a registered lease deed dated 02.10.1967 after the land is vested in the Government under the provisions of the Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961?

Whether the person who had executed a lease had valid right to execute the lease?

Whether Gangadharappa was in possession of the land as a tenant prior to the land vesting in the Government?

Since all these three points are interlinked with each other, we would like to deal them together as hereunder:

On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is clear to us that the Tribunal has based its decision on the lease deed executed by Venkatasubbaiah in favour of Gangadharappa on 02.10.1967. There is no whisper about the earlier tenancy rights of Gangadharappa. It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have not considered the effect of execution of a lease deed by a Village Officer after the land stood vested as per the provisions of K.V.O.A. Act, 1961. If these two points had been considered by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, we would have decided the matter in this appeal only. Even the evidence PW-1 Rudrappa recorded by the Tribunal discloses that the tenancy commenced only with the execution of Lease Deed in 1967 only. If the land in question had not been attached as a emolument to the village office in question, it would not have been something different. What is, held in the case of Shidramappa Bheemappa Asangi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Secretary, Department of Revenue and Others reported in ILR 2001 Kar. P 5072(DB) is that after the resumption of the land''s attached to the village office or watan by means of a legal fiction called as vesting, the watandars i.e., village office holders have no right whatsoever except making a claim for regrant and that such office holders cannot confer occupancy rights in favour of anybody.

Since we are handicapped on account of non-consideration of these two vital aspects and as these two points would go to the root of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have committed a serious error in not giving a finding on these two vital legal aspects.

In the circumstances, both the orders are to be set aside. Matter is required to be reconsidered afresh by the Tribunal in accordance with law keeping in mind the judgment of this Court in ILR 2001 KAR 5072 in the case of Shidramappa.

Accordingly the writ appeal is allowed. The order passed in W.P. No. 30788/2002 dated 18.03.2008 and the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Arasikere Taluk, in case No. LRF4:1974-75 dated 29.06.2002 are hereby quashed.

The matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal, Arasikere, for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above.

There is no order as to costs.