AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 5.10.2012, passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore Taluk, vide Annexure-''A''. By the impugned order at Annexure-''A'', the Land Tribunal, Mangalore Taluk, has granted occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent in respect of Sy. Nos. 15/2, 15/6, 15/11, 15/25, 15/26, 15/30, 15/34, 15/40, 15/41, 15/46, 15/7, 191/3a, 228/4a, 254/3 and 255/2 measuring 0.31 cents, 0.42 cents, 0.33 cents, 0.42 cents, 0.29 cents, 0.40 cents, 0.28 cents, 0.18 cents, 0.79 cents, 0.25 cents, 0.22 cents, 0.95 cents, 1 acre 24 cents, 1 acre 45 cents and 1 acre 12 guntas respectively.
Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Briefly stated the facts are; The petitioner claims that the lands in question were purchased by the mother of the petitioner in the year 1950. At, that time, one Puttugowda was the tenant cultivating the lands in question. He surrendered the lands through Surrender Deed dated 10.4.1968. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner was cultivating the lands in question. Through registered settlement deed dated 6.1.1975, the mother of the petitioner settled the properties in favour of the petitioner. The brother of the petitioner was looking after the lands. At no point of time, the lands in question were leased in favour of the first respondent''s husband. He was not cultivating the lands as on 1.3.1974. There was no relationship of landlord and tenant.
It is stated, on 14.8.1974, the husband of the first respondent filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question. The Tribunal, by its order dated 31.12.1981, rejected the application of the first respondent''s husband. It was challenged in W.P. No. 15459/1982. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent''s husband by order dated 25.3.1988. It was challenged in W.P. No. 22400/1998. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration. After remand, the order dated 14.10.2003 was passed granting occupancy in favour of the 1st respondent by majority views. The Chairman of the Tribunal held that the husband of the first respondent was not the tenant. But, the other members held that the husband of the 1st respondent was the tenant. It was challenged in W.P. No. 53118/2003. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Now, the Chairman has held that the applicant has failed to show that the land was cultivated him as tenant The other members have held that the land was cultivated by the first respondent''s husband as tenant. Consequently, the impugned order has been passed granting occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent in respect of the lands in question i.e., Sy. Nos. 15/2, 15/6, 15/11, 15/25, 15/26, 15/30, 15/34, 15/40, 1-5/41, 15/46, 15/7, 191/3a, 228/4a, 254/3 and 255/2 measuring 0.31 cents, 0.42 cents, 0.33 cents, 0.42 cents, 0.29 cents, 0.40 cents, 0.28 cents, 0.18 cents, 0.79 cents, 0.25 cents, 0.22 cents, 0.95 cents, 1 acre 24 cents, 1 acre 45 cents and 1 acre 12 guntas respectively. Therefore, this writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the impugned order is not a speaking order. Further he submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence on record. He also submitted that in the previous proceedings, this Court had observed that there was no material in favour of the first respondent for grant of occupancy rights. The Tribunal has failed to consider this. He also submitted that without considering the evidence on record, the impugned order has been passed. Absolutely there is no material on record to show that the first respondent''s husband was the tenant. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
As against this, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the first respondent''s husband and thereafter, the first respondent are cultivating the lands in question. They are staying there. Levy receipts and other documents have been produced. Apart from this, the witnesses have been examined to show that the first respondent''s husband was cultivating the lands in question. Therefore, occupancy rights have been granted. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
The learned Government Pleader supported the impugned order.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
It is relevant to note, the first respondent''s husband has filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question i.e., Sy. Nos. 15/2, 15/6, 15/11, 15/25, 15/26, 15/30, 15/34, 15/40, 15/41, 15/46, 15/7, 191/3a, 228/4a, 254/3 and 255/2 measuring 0.31 cents, 0.42 cents, 0.33 cents, 0.42 cents, 0.29 cents, 0.40 cents, 0.28 cents, 0.18 cents, 0.79 cents, 0.25 cents, 0.22 cents, 0.95 cents, 1 acre 24 cents, 1 acre 45 cents and 1 acre 12 guntas respectively. Initially, the application of the first respondent''s husband has been rejected. It has been challenged in W.P. No. 15459/1982. The matter has been remitted for fresh consideration. Thereafter, occupancy rights has been granted in favour of the first respondent''s husband. It has been challenged in W.P. No. 22400/1998. The matter has been remitted for fresh consideration. After remand, the Tribunal as granted occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent by order dated 14.10.2013. It was challenged in W.P. No. 53118/2003. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence on record. The petitioner claims that he has produced chalageni transfer deed and other documents. One Puttugowda was the tenant and he surrendered the land. The first respondent claims that she has produced levy receipts and examined the witnesses to prove the tenancy. There is no discussion of the evidence. It is stated that there are no geni chits or receipts in favour of the first respondent, but they are staying in the land and own agricultural equipments. Therefore, it can be inferred that the applicant was the tenant. Consequently, the impugned order has been passed granting occupancy rights in favour of the 1st respondent by majority view. There is no discussion of the evidence. The impugned order is not a speaking order as it is devoid of reasons. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The matter requires reconsideration.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure ''A'', dated 5.10.2012, passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore Taluk, in case No. LRT. CR. 669/78-79, 734/75-76 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal, Mangalore Taluk, with a direction to reconsider the same, in accordance with law, by giving opportunity to the parties and considering the evidence on record. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter as early as possible.