Smt. Nalini Poojary vs The State of Karnataka, The Land Tribunal and Kashikodi Shri Venkataramana Devaru Temple

Ajit J. Gunjal

The petitioner''s husband claiming to be a tenant makes an Application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 9 acres 88 cents in Sy. No.275/ 2 of Balthia Village, Bantwal Taluk. It is not in disputs that the land in question belongs to respondent No. 3 - temple, which is a notified temple. It appears the occupancy right were initially granted in favour of Sundara Poojary, on the basis of a statement stated to have been made by one Anantha Shenoy claiming to be the administrator of the temple. Since, the temple was not a party to the proceedings, a writ petition was filed before this Court and this Court allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal with the following observations:

The same shall stand quashed and the matter shall stand remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law after due notice to all the parties concerned including the Endowment Commissioner and the Temple Administrator.

On remand, the Tribunal has found that in the absence of any material to show that the original applicant was cultivating the land as a tenant declined to grant occupancy right. The Tribunal has also found that except for the statement made by the erstwhile so called administrator, no document is forthcoming to show that he was a tenant. Aggrieved by the said order, the widow of the original applicant is before this Court.

I have heard Mr. Prasanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.S. Shankaranayana Bhat, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.

Mr. Prasanna, learned Counsel submits that at an undisputed point of time, there was an admission made by the erstwhile administrator regarding the tenancy of the petitioner. Hence, the statement ought to have been given due weightage by the Tribunal.

Mr. Bhat, learned Counsel submits that the temple in question as a notified temple and the question of administrator making such a concession would not arise. He further submits that a finding is recorded by the Tribunal that it is a punja land.

Undoubtedly, when the matter was remanded by this Court, it was with the above observation and for fresh consideration. Fresh consideration would necessarily mean that it shall be a de novo enquiry. It is also to be noticed that except the statement which was made in the earlier proceedings, no documents are forthcoming to show that the petitioner''s husband was a tenant. Indeed, something more was required than the statement made by the erstwhile so called administrator. The petitioner could have examined the witnesses in support of her contentions that her husband was a tenant. Indeed, the petitioner has also not made available the revenue records in support of her contention that it is a tenanted land. In the absence of the name of the petitioner appearing in the revenue records and also in the absence of rent receipt or the levy receipt, it is difficult for this Court to come to a contrary conclusion than the one taken by the Tribunal The Tribunal has taken into consideration the material on record and has recorded a finding that no material is forthcoming to show that the petitioner''s husband was cultivating the land as a tenant. That being a question of fact, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In so far as the nature of the land whether it is a punja or otherwise, a finding is recorded that it is a punja land, which is non cultivable.

Mr. Prasanna, learned Counsel is certainly right in submitting that all punja lands need not necessarily be classified as non cultivable lands. But however, in the case on hand, spot inspection was conducted and it was found that the extent of land which was the claim of the husband of petitioner is indeed a non cultivable and which does not come within the ambit of the ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhakar & Others vs. The Land Tribunal, Karkala Taluk, Karkala and Others reported in (1999) 4 KLJ 524.

Having said so, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. Petition steeds rejected.

Mr. Shashidhar S. Karamadi, learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.