AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—Petitioners, questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 13th December 2006 bearing No. KLR/OCP/SR/1619+1620+1623 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Khanapur, have presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the second respondent - Land Tribunal, Khanapur to register the occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 86 measuring 05 acres 03 guntas out of 10 acres 05 guntas situate at Topinakatti village, Khanapur Taluk, Belgaum District.
It is not in dispute that, earlier, the father of these petitioners, Sri. Maruti Jayappa Gurava had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 19383/1980 assailing the correctness of the order dated 18th May 1979 passed by Land Tribunal, Khanapur. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 18th November 1983 and this Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the said writ petition and quashed the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Khanapur in so far as it related to Sy. No. 86 measuring 05 acres and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to hold fresh enquiry in strict compliance with the requirement of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. After disposal of the said writ petition, the Land Tribunal took up the matter and registered the occupancy rights in favour of the father of petitioners herein by its order dated 17th December 1991. Being aggrieved by the said order, the father of respondents 3, 4 and 5 herein - late Sri. Masnu Jayappa Gurav filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 30693/1992 and the said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 25th August 1999 and the writ petition filed by the father of respondents 3 to 5 was allowed and the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 17th December 1991 was set aside and the mater was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh enquiry and to dispose of the same, in accordance with law, after conducting proper enquiry and after giving proper opportunity to the parties. After remand for the second time, the Land Tribunal took up the matter for re-consideration in compliance of the direction issued by this Court, as referred above. The Land Tribunal, after conducting proper enquiry and after considering the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, has registered the occupancy rights in respect of 1/3rd share in favour of petitioners herein, 1/3rd share in respect of respondents 3 to 5 and 1/3rd share in respect of respondents 6 and 7 herein pertaining to Sy. No. 86 measuring 05 acres 02 guntas by its order dated 13th December 2006. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal, Khanapur, registering occupancy rights only in respect of 1/3rd share in respect of the land in question, petitioners have presented the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.
I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for respondents.
After careful evaluation of the entire original records available on file, threadbare, it emerges that, the father of petitioners herein, Sri. Maruti Jayappa Gurava had filed the application for registration of occupancy rights in Form No. 7 under Rule 19(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules and u/s 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act on 31st December 1974 in respect of several lands including Sy. No. 86 measuring 05 acres wherein it is specifically referred in the relevant column of Form 7 as, "1/3rd share" in respect of Sy. No. 86. The late fathers of other respondents have also filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights to an extent of "1/3rd share" only in respect of the land in question. Further, it is significant to note that, the original Form No. 7 filed by the father of petitioners, late Sri Maruti Jayappa Gurava is found at red ink 93 in the original records and it is crystal clear that, he has filed the said application seeking occupancy rights to an extent of 1/3rd share only in respect of Sy. No. 86 and the same is reflected in the relevant column. However, there is some over writing in writing the same in the relevant columns.
However, it is the case of learned Counsel for petitioners that, the late father of petitioners herein had filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of an extent of 05 acres in Sy. No. 86 out of 10 acres 05 guntas and the Land Tribunal has committed a grave error in registering occupancy rights only in respect of 1/3rd share along with other respondents 3 to 8. To substantiate the said submission, he has taken me through the order passed by the Land Tribunal and pointed out that, the Land Tribunal has not assigned any valid reasons as such to confer occupancy rights in respect of an extent of 1/3rd share as against the claim made by the father of petitioners. The said submission made by learned Counsel for petitioners cannot be accepted nor the same is sustainable after perusal of the original records available on file.
After careful perusal of the original Form No. 7 filed by the father of petitioners late Sri. Maruti Jayappa Gurava dated 31st December 1974, it is undoubted that, he has presented the said application before the second respondent - Land Tribunal for registration of occupancy rights in respect of 1/3rd share only. Further, in Sy. No. 86, which is the land in question, the claim made by the father of the petitioners is 1/3rd share and in respect of Sy. No. 340 also, the applicant has sought for 1/3rt share. Upon cross verification of the said extents of claim made by the applicants, viz. the late fathers of petitioners and other respondents, it is seen that, the same are tallying with the application filed by each of the applicants, viz. the late fathers of respondents 3 to 5 and respondents 7 and 8. That means, the late fathers of these respondents have also claimed 1/3rd share in respect of Sy. No. 86 and also in Sy. No. 340. Further, it is pertinent to note from the copy of record of rights which is very much available in the original records at red ink pages 111 to 114 that, it is specifically recorded in column No. 12(2) in respect of Sy. No. 86 that, for the agricultural years 1965-66 to 1971-72, the name of the grandfather of the petitioners and respondent 3 to 8, Sri. Jayappa Ningappa is shown as cultivating the said survey number measuring an extent of 07 acres 03 guntas out of an extent of 10 acres 03 guntas and in respect of remaining extent, the name of one Hundri Appaji Subbanna is shown. Thereafter, for the agricultural years 1972-73 and the subsequent year 1973-74, the same extent has been shown. Therefore, upon careful evaluation of the original records available on file, it emerges from the records and the contentions of learned Counsel appearing for both parties that, late Jayappa Ningappa, the grandfather of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 8 is the original tenant cultivating the said land. But, petitioners have confined the instant writ petition only in respect of an extent of 05 acres on the ground that, there was an oral partition between the family members and an extent of 05 acres came to the share of the father of petitioners late Sri. Maruti Gurava and the father of respondents 3 to 8 are not entitled to any share in the said land. To substantiate the said specific principal submission, learned Counsel for petitioners has not produced any authenticated documents either before the Land Tribunal or before this Court. The Land Tribunal has, after critical evaluation of the records available on file, specifically recorded the finding that, there was no partition among the family members. Therefore, the Land Tribunal has not accepted the defence taken by petitioners seeking registration of occupancy rights in respect of an extent of 05 acres. The said finding given by the Land Tribunal is after critical evaluation of the original records available on file and after hearing the parties through their counsel. Therefore, interference by this Court in the said specific finding recorded by the Land Tribunal is not justifiable nor I find any good grounds as such urged by petitioners to accept the specific grounds taken by learned Counsel for petitioners. Further, it is pertinent to note that, it is the case of petitioners that, there was an oral partition among the family members. But it can be seen that, neither the father of the petitioners nor the petitioners have made any sincere efforts to submit their wardi to certify the mutation and record the entry in the record of rights for the relevant agricultural year. Petitioners as well as respondents 3 to 8 are claiming their respective share on the ground that their grandfather was cultivating the land in question as tenant. Therefore, on this ground also, petitioners are not entitled to grant of any relief from the hands of this Court. Petitioners have utterly failed to substantiate their case both before the Land Tribunal and before this Court. Therefore, interference by this Court in the specific finding recorded by the Land Tribunal is not justifiable nor I find any good grounds to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal, after conducting proper enquiry and after affording opportunity to the parties, who are non other than the heirs of the same family, after following due procedure as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and Rules, has passed the impugned order. Therefore, interference by this Court is uncalled for.
Further, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that, when the father of the petitioners had filed W.P. No. 19383/1980 challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 18th May 1979, neither the father of respondents 3 to 5 nor the father of respondents 6 and 7 have assailed the correctness of the said order.
Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that, the direction issued by this Court to the Land Tribunal was to consider the case of the father of petitioners alone not and the Land Tribunal has not committed any error in reopening the case and considering the case for registering the occupancy rights rightly in favour of petitioners, but the same has been assailed by the father of the respondents 3, 4 and 5 and this aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered by the Land Tribunal after remand. The said submission cannot be accepted after critical evaluation of the original records wherein, it is specifically pointed out in the original Form No. 7 filed that, the claim made by the father of petitioners is only in respect of the land in question to an extent of only 1/3rd share. When the order passed by the Land Tribunal was challenged before this Court, this Court has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The father of petitioners was also a party to the proceedings before this Court in writ petition No. 30693/1992 and at that stage, he has not raised any objection.
Therefore, now, it is not open for the petitioners, at this stage, to take hyper-technical grounds and plead that, the order passed by the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained when petitioners have failed to raise the objections when the matter was taken up for consideration before this Court on 25th August 1999 in Writ Petition No. 30693/1992. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to urge the said ground at this belated stage. Therefore, the said ground urged by the petitioners is liable to be rejected at the threshold itself.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition filed by petitioners is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.