B. Shekar Shetty vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Appellant is the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12221/2004, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the order passed by the land Tribunal; the present writ appeal is filed.

The Appellant filed an application in Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 6-17C measuring 1 acre of land situated at Badaga Mijar Village, Mangalore Taluk. The Appellant has contended that he has been in possession and cultivating the land from the year 1968 and he is entitled for grant of occupancy rights. The land Tribunal by its order dated 20.10.1981 granted occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land. Being aggrieved by the same, Smt. Sesi Shedhi the mother of Respondents No. 3(a) to 3(d) filed Writ Petition No. 21024/1982 challenging the same before this Court.

This Court by its order dated 31.3.1983 quashed the order dated 20.10.1981, passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the Appellant and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 8.7.2002 rejected the claim of the Appellant for grant of occupancy rights. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 27385/2002 before this Court. This Court by its order dated 22.7.2002 allowed the writ petition once again remanding the matter for re-consideration. In the meanwhile, the said Sesi Shedthi died and her legal representatives were brought on record. After remand, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 11.11.2002 granted interim order appointing a Receiver for management of the property. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 41634/2002 challenging the same. The said order was quashed by this Court on 13.8.2003. The Land Tribunal after conducting necessary enquiry, by its order dated 4.2.2004 rejected the claim of the Appellant for grant; of occupancy rights. Being aggrieved by the same, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 12221/2004.

The Appellant has contended that he has been in possession and cultivating the land in dispute and he is paying land revenue and RTC entries for certain years stand in the name of the Appellant. Without considering all these aspects of the matter, the claim has been rejected, which is contrary to law. The learned Single Judge after considering the matter in detail and after verifying the original records and statements of the parties, by its order dated 27.10.2009 dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order dated 4.2.2004 passed by the Land Tribunal. The Appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2009 filed this writ appeal.

Sri Sampath Anand Shetty, Advocate appearing for the Appellant contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal is contrary to law. The land in dispute is taken on lease from Koraga Shetty i.e., father of the Respondents No. 3 to 6 in the year 1968, since then he has been in possession and cultivating the land and he is paying land revenue to the State Government. The learned Counsel further submits that the land in dispute is a tenanted land and in view of operation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the tenanted land vests with the State Government. The Land Tribunal without considering the records produced by the Appellant rejected the claim and the same is confirmed by the learned Single Judge, which is contrary to law and sought for setting aside the same by allowing this appeal.

On the other hand, Sri. K. Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the 1st Respondent contended that the Land Tribunal after considering the entire materials produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the Appellant has not produced any document to show that the land in dispute is a tenanted land and he is a tenant cultivating the land as on 1.3.1974. Therefore, there is no irregularity in the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

We have carefully gone through the arguments addressed by the parties and perused the order impugned and other relevant records.

It is not in dispute that the Appellant filed an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre of land in Survey No. 6-17C situated at Badaga Mijar Village. Mangalore Taluk. Though, the Appellant has contended that he has been cultivating the land from the year 1963 onwards, no document has been produced to show that the land in dispute is a tenanted land and he is cultivating the said land from the year 1968-69 onwards. Though, the Appellant contended that the land in dispute was taken on Chalageni basis, the said document has not been produced before the Court. The records from the year 1968-69 to 1979-80 stand in the name of Koraga Shelly. The levy demand notice from the year 1970-71 to 1973-74 onwards stand in the name of Koraga Shetty. After his death, the name of Smt. Sesi Shedthi has been shown.

The contesting Respondents in the writ petition have contended that the land in dispute was allotted to the share of Koraga Shetty as per the family partition in the year 1952. Since then, the Koraga Shetty has been in possession and cultivating the land. After his death, Smt. Sesi Shedthi is in possession. At no point of time, the land in dispute was leased in favour of the Appellant and the same is not the tenancy land. The question of vesting the land with the State Government does not arise.

The Respondents have produced the tax paid receipts for the year 1981. However, no document has been produced by the Appellant to show that he is cultivating the land as on the appointed date i.e., on 1.3.1974. In the absence of any document, the occupancy rights cannot be granted to the Appellant. The Land Tribunal after considering the documents produced by the parties and after examining the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the Appellant has not produced any documents to show that he is a tenant cultivating the land in dispute as on 1-3-1974 and rejected the claim. The learned Single Judge after elaborately re-examining the matter came to the conclusion that the Appellant has failed to prove that he is a tenant cultivating the said land as on 1.3.1974. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

We find that the Appellant has not made out any case to take a different view than the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no error or irregularity in the procedure followed by the Land Tribunal. Hence we pass the following

ORDER

The writ appeal is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, after considering all the documents and materials on record Misc.W.5821/2010 filed for production of additional documents does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of accordingly.