AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Petitioner has sought for to issue writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 12.7.02 passed by the Land Tribunal, Belur Taluk, Hassan District at Annexure ''B'' and to quash the impugned order dated 1.1.08 in appeal No. 698/02 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore at Annexure ''D'' and also to issue writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner to conduct enquiry and spot inspection to consider Form No. 7A filed by the petitioner and for any other appropriate orders.
Petitioner claiming that, he is the tenant in respect of 1 acre 26 guntas of land in Sy. No. 28/1 situated at Savasihalli village, Madihalli Hobli, Belur Taluk; he was giving 5 pallas of ragi per year as a gutta to the owner and that his name is also entered in the pahani records in column No. 12(2) as on the relevant date; the owner was not in the habit of giving any receipt for having received the gutta; he is the member of the joint family; the land in question was sold to one Srinivas Iyengar during April 1944, however, the name of petitioner''s mother and uncle continued as tenants under the said purchaser and subsequently, the land was sold to several persons, but the possession of the petitioner was not disturbed and in the pahani extracts the name of the uncle of the petitioner continued; filed form No. 7A u/s 77A of the amended Karnataka Land Reforms Act before the Assistant Commissioner for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the said land. The said application came to be rejected by an order dated 12.7.02. According to the petitioner, before rejecting the Form No. 7A filed DV the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner gave no opportunity and the evidence of the parties was not recorded and without looking into the documents produced by the petitioner by way of pahani entries, the Assistant Commissioner came to the wrong conclusion that petitioner is not entitled for grant of occupancy rights, against which, an appeal was preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. 698/02, which also came to be dismissed by order dated 1.1.08. Against the said order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, petitioner is before this Court raising several grounds and seeking for grant of occupancy rights in his favour, in respect of the land in question.
Heard.
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, although the property in question was purchased by the 3rd respondent, petitioner continued to be in possession of the same as a tenant and without looking into that aspect and also the entry made in the RTC extracts, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner.
According to the learned Government Pleader, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner-Land Tribunal and also the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from any irregularity and sought for dismissal of the petition.
On perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Land Tribunal, Belur it is noticed that during the year 1980-81 the land was sold in favour of the 3rd respondent and thereafter, he and his sons continued to be in possession of the property and they never let out the property in question to the petitioner or anybody else for tenancy and a false application has been filed before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that without holding proper enquiry and without conducting spot inspection as to the possession of the land in question, the Land Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the properly in question is in possession of respondent No. 3, which is erroneous.
It is seen that the Land Tribunal, after looking into the documents produced, has noted that the property in question was sold in favour of 3rd respondent during the year 1980 by virtue of sale deed by petitioner''s predecessors and the land in question is not an agricultural land coming within the Land Reforms Act and in column No. 12 for the year 1973-74 or prior thereto the name of the petitioner is not entered and also no documents are produced to show that the land in question is a tenanted land, has rejected the application tiled by the petitioner u/s 77A of the Act.
On perusal of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal what is being noticed is that, the RTC pertaining to the land in question from the year 1970-71 to 1974-75 stands in the name of one Thimmaiah, S/o Dasaiah, Shivaiah and Huchaiah and in column No. 12(3) it is shown as Swantha and there is nothing to depict that the land was vested with the government as on 1.3.1974 and also no documents were produced to show that the petitioner was the tenant and continued to be in possession and cultivation of the land till the filing of Form No. 7A and accordingly, noting that the three conditions have not been satisfied namely, petitioner was a tenant and he was in possession of the land till the filing of Form No. 7A and the land had vested with the Government, it has observed that the Land Tribunal has rightly rejected Form No. 7A filed by the petitioner.
When the entry in the RTC column No. 12(3) is shown as Swantha, then necessarily, there is no question of the land being cultivated by the petitioner as a tenant and moreover, no documents are produced by the petitioner regarding payment of gutta/rent for having cultivated the land and also that even after the land was sold to some other persons, he continued to be in possession. In the circumstance, I do not find any illegality as such, being committed by the Land Tribunal in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner and so also the said order being confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.