Abdul Kuddus and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

K.L. Manjunath, J.—The concurrent findings of the Land Tribunal, Srinivasapura in case No. LRF-1-174 of 74-75 dated 3.12.1987 and the order of the learned Single Judge in WP No. 20408/2004 dated 24.02.2011 are called in question in this appeal.

Heard Sri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Government Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and 2 and Sri Giri, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.

It is the specific case of the appellant is that he was an absolute owner of 1 acre 26 guntas of dry land situated in sy. No. 100/4 at Unikili village in Srinivasapur taluk. According to him, he had sold 33 guntas of land in favour of one Chikkachowdappa in the year 1968-69 and has been in possession of the remaining half portion of 33 guntas by personally cultivating as an absolute owner. The 3rd respondent filed an application in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Srinivasapura claiming the occupancy rights in respect of 33 guntas of the appellants land as a tenant. The application filed by the 3rd respondent in Form No. 7 was contested by the appellants. According to them, land was never leased to the 3rd respondent. On an earlier occasion, Land Tribunal without considering the evidence on record had passed an order granting occupancy rights on 26.10.1981 which was challenged by the landlord in WP No. 27914/1981 which writ petition came to be allowed on 04.02.1983 and this Court set-aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules.

After remand, again the matter was reconsidered by the Tribunal granting the occupancy rights on 03.12.1987 which was also questioned by the appellant by filing an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Kolar in DLRA No. 169/1987. On account of abolition of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, a civil petition was filed/in CP No. 5362/1991 which later converted into WP No. 21017/1992. This Hon''ble Court for the second time allowed the writ petition of the landlord and set-aside the order of the Land Tribunal on 9th September 1997 directing the Land Tribunal to reconsider the matter after giving opportunity for both the parties.

In the circumstances, the matter was reconsidered by the Land Tribunal and the impugned order came to be passed. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there cannot be any presumptive value for RTC and the Land Tribunal is justified in granting occupancy rights in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved by the order of the Land Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed.

Sri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants contends that learned Single Judge has committed an error in not noticing that the directions issued by this Court on two earlier grounds of litigation has not been followed by the Tribunal. According to him the Land Tribunal order is not a speaking order. Even the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not considering that the Tribunal even without discussing the oral evidence let in by the parties and the documentary evidence produced by the appellants has granted occupancy rights. Therefore, he requests the Court to allow the appeal and set-aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as Land Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the respondent made an attempt to support the order passed by the learned Single Judge, so also order of the Land Tribunal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, what is to be considered by us in this appeal is;

Whether this Court can interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and the order of Land Tribunal? 9. On perusal of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, it is clear that the Land Tribunal had not even considered the oral evidence let in by both the parties. Two witnesses have been examined by Land Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant occupancy rights in favour of the tenant and the procedure followed by the Land Tribunal is not known to law because the Land Tribunal has neither discussed the oral evidence let in by the parties nor the documentary evidence relied upon by the land lord. It is not in dispute that the revenue entries in RTC records have a presumptory value but such presumption is a rebuttable when the landlord has relied upon sufficient materials placed by him the Tribunal could have appreciated the evidence. But as stated supra, the land tribunal has neither considered the oral evidence nor the documentary evidence. In the circumstances, we have to hold that the order passed by the Land Tribunal is perverse and the same has not been passed by following the directions issued in the earlier rounds of litigation.

So far as the order of learned Single Judge is concerned, learned Single Judge relying upon the report of the Tahsildar has dismissed the writ petition which according to us unknown to law. The report of the Tahsildar cannot be a ground to grant occupancy rights. Occupancy rights could be granted based on the evidence let in by the parties and if there is a relationship between the landlord and the tenant, then only the Land Tribunal would get jurisdiction to grant the occupancy rights. The learned Single Judge even without considering the order passed by the Land Tribunal has rejected the writ petition of the appellant. Therefore, we are of the view that an error is committed by the learned Single Judge.

In the result the appeal is allowed. Order passed by the Land Tribunal, Srinivasapura dated 13.02.2004 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 20408/2004 dated 24.02.2011 are hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal, Srinivasapura for fresh consideration in accordance with law.