Lakshmappa vs The State of Karnataka and Others

L. Narayana Swamy, J.—This writ petition is filed by the Petitioner-tenant being aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2003 in Case No. LRM:TC:391:74-75 passed by the Land Tribunal, Harihara rejecting his claim for grant of occupancy rights.

Brief history of the case is that earlier the Land Tribunal by the order dated 8.5.1979 based on the alleged statement of the Petitioner-tenant rejected the claim of the Petitioner for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 44 measuring 4-30 acres and Sy. No. 42/A measuring 5 acres of Bilasanur village, Harihar Taluk. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred writ petition No. 18433/1980 before this Court and this Court by the order dated 2.7.1986 transferred the petition to Land Reforms Appellate Authority. The appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was numbered in L.R.A. No. 32/86 and by the order dated 29.12.1987 the Land Reforms Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court in L.R.R.P No. 1789/88. This Court by the order dated 11.4.2002 allowed the revision petition and remanded the case to the Land Tribunal to hold fresh enquiry in accordance with law, with the strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules by providing sufficient opportunity to both the parties and dispose of the matter within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order. The parties were directed to maintain status quo as on that date.

It is the case of the Petitioner that on 10.4.1964 Sri Nandaiah s/o Mathad Basaiah and Gadigeyya leased the land in question in favour of the Petitioner for a period of two years. Thereafter Nandaiah and his children Gadigeyya and Shivanandayya by the lease deed dated 20.7.1974 leased the land for a period of five years. The Petitioner has filed Form No. 7 on 19.2.1969, 12.10.1970 and 31.12.1974. When this is the state of affairs, the owners Nandaiah and his children sold the land in favour of B Nijalingaian s/o Sangaiah in 1975.

After remand, the owners have not appeared before the Land Tribunal but only the purchaser contested the proceedings. At page 465 of the records of the Land Tribunal, it is mentioned that notices could not be served on 3rd Respondent and 6th Respondent as they were not in the village and 8th Respondent, 9th Respondent, 10th Respondent and the 11th Respondent could not be served as they were no more. So far as third Respondent is concerned, notice issued to him is returned on account of insufficiency of address. Therefore, the Land Tribunal ought to have taken further steps to serve the owners but instead on 23.11.2002; the case was adjourned to 7.12.2002 for statement. The statement of the Petitioner was recorded on 28.12.2002 and it was concluded on 25.1.2003. On 28.2.2003 the statement of the purchaser Sri Nijalingaiah s/o Sangappaiah was recorded and by the order dated 3.5.2003 the impugned order came to be passed. Hence the present writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been the tenant based on the two lease deeds dated 10.4.1964 for two years and 20.7.1974 for a period of five years. Unless the tenancy claim is decided after hearing the owners, the fifth Respondent, who is the subsequent purchaser, has no say in the matter. The record of rights for the year 1964-65 and 1965-66 disclose the name of the Petitioner. Unless these entries are rebutted by proper materials, the presumption is that tenancy continued in favour of the Petitioner. The impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal solely on the basis that the lease deeds in question are not registered and cannot be looked into is unsustainable.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 contends that no materials are produced by the Petitioner to prove his tenancy as on 1.3.1974 and immediately prior there to. The two lease deeds claimed by the Petitioner are doubtful and they are concocted. They are not registered as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1973 Orissa 25 in this regard. Sri Mathad Nandaiah has not executed any such lease deeds and therefore the land in question is not a tenanted land. Since Sri Nandaiah and his children are no more, the 5th Respondent who is the purchaser on 13.8.1975 is the only interested person. There is difference in the signature of Nandaiah appearing on lease deed dated 20.7.1974 and the request letter given to the Bank for grant of loan dated 12.7.1974 and therefore the said lease deed is concocted. The record of rights for 1972-73, 1973-74 show the self-cultivation by Nandaiah and his children. From 1975-76 the 5th Respondent being the purchaser is in possession and enjoyment and therefore, the Petitioner has failed to prove his possession and cultivation as on 1.3.1974 and therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

The learned High Court Government Pleader supported the order passed by the Land Tribunal.

After hearing the rival contention of the parties and perusing the records, the point that arises for my consideration in this writ petition is; whether the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is just and proper? My finding is in the negative for the following reasons:

This Court while disposing of the revision petition on the earlier occasion has clearly observed in the order that the lease deeds relied upon by the petition cannot be said to be concocted documents considering the various aspects such as the stamp affixed on the lease deeds and the attending circumstances. The land Tribunal has failed to consider the effect of entry of name of the Petitioner for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66. The Land Tribunal has also not considered the further statement recorded on behalf of the Petitioner and the deposition of the witnesses examined on his behalf on the earlier occasion who have supported the case of the Petitioner. Though the notices issued were returned for either not in the village or the parties are dead, the Tribunal has not taken further steps to serve the owners. The case has not been posted for taking steps in spite of the clear endorsement found at Page 465 of the records of the Land Tribunal. Though the fifth Respondent is a proper party to be heard, his turn would come only after an objective decision on the question of tenancy between the Petitioner and the owners. This exercise has not been done by the Land Tribunal. Without a notice being served on the owners and having their say in the matter, the Land Tribunal has proceeded to dispose of the matter, which is not proper.

The Land Tribunal in a four line paragraph No. 2 at Page 8 holds that column No. 12(2) of the record of rights does not show the name of the Petitioner and for the year 1970-71 names of Murigayya s/o Basaiah and Nandayya s/o Basaiah and thereafter B Nijalingaiah are shown and in para-3 it is held that the Petitioner is not entitled to occupancy right. While coming to the said conclusion the Land Tribunal has not referred to the earlier entries in the record of rights and deposition of the witnesses and the documents produced by the parties. Therefore, the impugned order is a perverse order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

The main ground on which the Land Tribunal has refused to look into the lease deeds claimed by the Petitioner is that the said documents are not registered relying upon Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. In a matter of this nature where the tenancy rights are decided based on various aspects such as, oral agreement, deposition of the neighbouring land holders, geni chits, lease deeds, Rent Karar, Acknowledgement of rent, Letters exchanged between the parties and Chit acknowledging tenancy etc., The Land Tribunal is a people Court where it is constituted by members not acquainted with the legal requirements. Considering the aims and objects of the Land Reforms Act, strict Rules of Law cannot be imported to this type of proceedings. Entire materials are to be taken into consideration, analyzed and appreciated to decide the tenancy rights. In that view of the matter just because the documents are not registered and cannot be looked into is not available to the Land Tribunal.

The Land Tribunal has also doubted the lease deed dated 20.6.1974 on the ground that immediately after the expiry of the earlier lease deed the next lease deed was not obtained. This is also not a ground to doubt the genuineness of the document. For what reason execution of the second document was delayed, no effort is made to elicit from the mouth of the witnesses. Without there being an effort in that regard by the parties, it is not proper to doubt the document on the basis that the Petitioner has not obtained the second document immediately after the first lease deed.

It is to be noted here that if tenancy is proved for a particular period unless contrary is proved, it has to be presumed that tenancy is continued in favour of the Petitioner-tenant.

In view of the above facts and Circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Land Tribunal has not properly considered the entire materials available on record and the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is not just and proper. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is hereby quashed. The matter stands remitted to the Land Tribunal, Harihar for fresh consideration in accordance with law and alter giving opportunity to all the parties to have their say in the matter. Since the matter is old, the Land Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible but not later than one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Registry is directed to return the records forthwith.