AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 28.11.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.7292/2011.
By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant''s writ petition by affirming the order dated 01.07.2010 (Annexure-C)
passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal no.275/2003.
There is a delay of 148 days in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants on the merits of the
appeal.
The Appellate Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record, has found that Babu Sapaliga, the husband of appellant No.1 and now
deceased, was not the tenant of the lands in question as on the relevant date. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the following finding
recorded by the Appellate Tribunal:
Sec 77A has been introduced only to facilitate those who had not applied in Form No.7 though entitled for grant of occupancy rights. Claim
under Sec 77A in Form No.7A is permissible only in respect of the land which has vested in the State Government by virtue of Sec 44 of the Act.
The documents produced by the first respondent in the court below at the most establish that he has worked in the land on behalf of the temple and
made some improvements and also made payment to the Co-operative Bank towards the loan. The first respondent has not summoned the loan
papers including the agreement from the Bank. We do not know to whom the loan was actually sanctioned. In the absence of those records and
the revenue entries for the relevant period and subsequent entry till the Amendment Act was introduced (01.11.1998) it is difficult to come to a
conclusion that the first respondent was actually cultivating/tilling the lands in question as tenant under the appellants on 01.03.1974 and the lands
had vested in the Government and that the first respondent continued to cultivate the land till Sec 77A was introduced. Therefore, we are
convinced that the first respondent was not entitled for grant of lands in question under Sec 77A and the impugned order passed by the second
respondent is against law and facts. The order impugned is therefore not sustainable in law.
The matter was carried further in writ petition no.7292/2011. The learned Single Judge, on a detailed consideration of the matter, has recorded
the following finding:
In the instant case, the applicant/Writ Petitioner claims grant of occupancy in respect of 50 acres of lands. The records of rights of the lands do
not disclose the name of the petitioner as a tenant in cultivation as on 01.03.1974 or immediately prior thereto. The receipts produced by the
petitioner do not disclose that as on 01.03.1974 he was enjoying the property as a tenant. On perusal of the original records which are made
available by the AGA, there is nothing to show that as on 01.03.1974 or immediately prior there to, the petitioner was in occupation of any
specified land for which he had claimed occupancy as a tenant. Therefore, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was right and justified in appreciating
the evidence on record and recording finding that there was nothing to show that the land had stood vested in State Government by virtue of
Section 44 of the Act and that the Writ Petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the same immediately prior to 01.03.1974 and had
continued with the same as on the date the Amendment Act i.e., Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997 came into force. In such
circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal.
(Underlining supplied)
On a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, both the Appellate Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have found that Babu Sapaliga
was not proved to be the tenant of the lands in question as on the relevant date to grant land under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, both I.A.No.1/2017 and the appeal are dismissed. In view of dismissal of the
appeal, I.A.No.2/2017 filed for interim stay also stands dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.