Sankawva vs The State of Karnataka and Others

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The petitioner in W.P. No. 3810/2002 filed application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of R.S.No. 27/2 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas and Sy. No. 26/1(b) measuring 5 acres 2 guntas of Chickayedathi village, Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District. The tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of land being Sy. No. 26/1(b) measuring 5 acres 2 guntas and rejected the claim in respect of Sy. No. 27/2. The landlord and tenant both of them filed wit petitions challenging the order, which is adverse to them.

The tribunal in its order has taken into consideration the civil litigation between the parties. The landlord and tenant both of them filed suits against each other in respect of Sy.No. 27/2. The record discloses that the tenant was a registered tenant. The application is filed for restoration by the landlord.

It is the contention that despite the order for restoration the tenant did not surrender. This fact was the subject matter of dispute in civil proceedings. The court on the basis of prima facie material produced by the parties held that the tenant was cultivating the land in sy. No. 27/2 and has not in fact surrendered the land to the landlord. This finding was recorded in the year 1972. The appeal was filed against the order. In view of the amendment to KLR Act in the year 1974, the Civil proceedings virtually became infructuous and the appeal was dismissed. The tribunal has taken all these facts into consideration in coming to the conclusion that the resumption proceeding ipso-facto supports the contention of the tenant. The material also does not suggest surrender of land by the tenant. The land was held to be in occupation of the tenant as on 1.3.1974.

Counsel for the landlord in this regard argued that the RTC extracts does not show the actual cultivation.

The word "actual cultivation" should be liberally interpreted. The interruption in the cultivation for any period and for any valid reason like drought and want of rain should not be interpreted that the tenant has given up the tenancy and cultivation of the land. If records show that the cultivation of the land by the tenant prior subsequent to the period of non-cultivation, it should be held that the land is in the actual cultivation of the tenant despite the fact that for any crop period there was no crop cultivation for drought or for want of rain.

On over all consideration, the facts and evidence supports the contention of the tenant that he was cultivating the land and that there was no surrender of possession. In that view, the finding of the tribunal on fact that the petitioner was cultivating the land in Sy. No. 27/2 is sound and proper. Hence, there is no merit in the petition filed by the landlord. The tribunal has rejected the application of the tenant for Sy. No. 26/1 (b). The RTC record does not supports the contention of the tenant. Therefore, the finding of the tribunal that the tenant is not entitled to grant of occupancy rights is sound and proper. Accordingly both the petitions are dismissed.