AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—The petitioner/appellant herein has assailed the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 33112/2011(LR) dated 18th October 2011. In W.P. No. 33112/2011 filed by appellant herein, he had sought for quashing the order dated 27th July 2011 passed by the second respondent.
The only grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that, the appellant claims to be a tenant in respect of the lands in question situated at Mookanahalli Village, Hunsur Taluk. The third respondent claims to be the owner of the land, now represented by his legal representatives and the fourth respondent is stated to have purchased the said land from the third respondent. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application is alleged to have been filed by the appellant for registration of occupancy rights before the second respondent-Land Tribunal. Being aggrieved by order passed by the Land Tribunal, dated 20th April 2002 in Reference No. KLRF.43/88-89 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Hunsur, the appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 20725/2002 and the said matter had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 7.4 March 2007 and the writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed and the order passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted back to Land Tribunal for conducting fresh enquiry and specifically directed the Land Tribunal to give a finding as to whether the appellant/petitioner proves that he submitted an application in Form No. 7 on the basis of the secondary evidence and also find out whether the land was tenanted land and whether the petitioner/appellant is a tenant of the land in question.
After remand, in compliance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, referred above, the Land Tribunal took up the matter for consideration and passed the order dated 27th July 2011, vide Annexure A to the writ petition, holding that the appellant has failed to establish that he has filed Form No. 7 in prescribed form before the cut off date and also failed to established that he is a tenant of the land in question. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 27th July 2011, he filed another Writ Petition No. 33112/2011, which is under challenge in this appeal.
The said matter had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 18th October 2011 and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, holding that the authority has recorded a finding that when there is no application in Form No. 7, question of considering the said application does not arise and that the tribunal has also found that the land in question is not a tenanted land in as much as on 01-03-1974, the land is required to be cultivated by the tenant, which is not forthcoming and rejected the said writ petition. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the second respondent-Land Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, referred above, the appellant felt necessitated to present this writ appeal.
The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, Shri. B.S. Nagaraj at the out set is that, both the Land Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have failed to comply with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 7th March, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 20725/2002. To substantiate the said submission, he drew our specific attention to internal page 6 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7th March 2007, ink page 115 and pointed out that, while allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant, the learned Single Judge has given three directions, i.e. the Tribunal shall give finding whether the petitioner (appellant herein) proves that he submitted an application in Form No. 7 on the basis of the secondary evidence, to find out whether the land was tenanted land and also whether the petitioner (appellant herein) is a tenant of the land. These directions have not been complied with nor recorded any finding after due appreciation of the material available on file including the question as to whether the land in question is a tenanted land as on 01-03-1974.
Further, the learned counsel is quick to point out and submit that the observation made by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned dated 18th October 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 33112/2011 that the Land Tribunal also found that the land in question is also not a tenanted in as much as on 01-03-1974, at internal page 6 and ink page 20, is contrary to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the earlier round of litigation in W.P. No. 20725/2002. Therefore he submitted that at any stretch of imagination, the order passed by the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained for the reason that the same is passed without conducting proper enquiry in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Rules and in non compliance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the earlier round of litigation in W.P. No. 20725/2002 vide Annexure L to the writ petition.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for respondents inter alia contended and substantiated the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Land Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the entire material available on file and hence, interference in the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge and also the Land Tribunal is not called for. However, when this Court asked a specific question to the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent No. 4 as to whether the Land Tribunal has recorded a specific finding in compliance of the specific directions issued by this Court on 7th March 2007 in Writ Petition No. 20725/2002 whether the land in question is a tenanted land as on 01-03-1974, they submitted that appropriate directions may be issued to the Land Tribunal to re-consider the matter afresh in compliance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge dated 7th March 2007 in the aforesaid writ petition.
After careful consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusal of the order passed by second respondent -Land Tribunal dated 27th July 2011 vide Annexure A to the writ petition and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18th October 2011 in Writ Petition No. 33112/2011 and other relevant material available on file, including the specific directions issued by the learned Single Judge dated 7th March 2007 issued in Writ Petition No. 20725/2002 vide Annexure L to the writ petition, it emerges that the writ petition filed by the appellant has been allowed and order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 20th April, 2002 has been set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the Land Tribunal for reconsideration afresh with a direction to conduct a fresh enquiry and to give a specific finding as to whether the petitioner/appellant proves that he submitted an application in Form 7 on the basis of the secondary evidence and also find out whether the land was a tenanted land and whether the petitioner is a tenant of the land in question.
After perusal of the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 27th July 2011, after the matter was remitted back by an order dated 7th March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 20725/2002, it can be seen that the Land Tribunal has not given any finding to as to whether the land in question is a tenanted land as on 01-03-1974 The Land Tribunal has only stated that the appellant has failed to make out a case that he is a tenant as on 01- 03-1974. This clearly shows that the Land Tribunal has not complied with the specific direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the earlier round of litigation vide Annexure L referred to above. Hence, in view of non compliance of the specific directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the aforementioned writ petition vide Annexure L, we do not find any justification or good ground as such to sustained the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Hunsur and also the order passed by the learned Single Judge. But, we do not want to express any opinion on the merit or demerits of the case as expressing any opinion one way or the other would affect the defence to be taken by the respective parties before the original authority. The specific directions issued to the original authority to consider and record a specific finding of fact has been totally overlooked and not complied with. Therefore, we are of the considered view, at any stretch of imagination, the order passed by the Land Tribunal and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and hence, they are liable to be set aside.
Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, it would suffice for this Court, if an appropriate direction is issued to second respondent-Land Tribunal, to pass appropriate orders, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties to the proceedings, to meet the ends of justice. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed;
The order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 27th July 2011 in Reference No. KLRF. 43/88-89 vide Annexure A to writ petition and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 33112/2011 (LR) dated 18th October, 2011 are hereby set aside;
The matter stands remitted back to the second respondent-Land Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh and decide the matter in accordance with law and in strict compliance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 7th March 2007 in W.P. No. 20725/2002, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties to the proceedings, and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
All the contentions taken by the parties in this appeal are left open.