Krishna Bhat (deceased) by his L.R. vs State and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 28-4-1989 passed by the Land Tribunal, Jewargi, has filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Gulbarga, in L.R.A. No. 74 of 1989. When the said appeal was pending adjudication before the Appellate Authority, in view of the amendment of the Land Reforms Act 18 of 1990, the Constitution of the Appellate Authority was abolished and parties were permitted to file a civil petition before this Court u/s 17 of the Amended Act, 1990. Accordingly, petitioner has filed a civil petition before this Court in No. 12256 of 1991 and the same was converted into the instant writ petition.

The grievance of the petitioner now represented by his legal representative in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner has filed Form I for registration of occupancy rights in Sy. Nos. 247 and 256 to an extent of 28 acres 31 guntas and 25 acres and 33 guntas respectively, situate at Ganwar Village, Jewargi Taluk, Gulbarga District. The said application had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal on 28-4-1989 in proceeding No. KCIA: 1098:87-88. The said application filed by petitioner for registration of occupancy rights has been rejected by the Land Tribunal holding that, the lands in question are service inam lands and one Sri Ram Bhat s/o Som Bhat is the inamdar of the said lands and his brother has filed From I for registration of occupancy rights and his request has been rejected. Against the said order, his brother late Sri Ram Bhat has filed a writ petition before this Court in No. 7207 of 1986 and the said writ petition has been dismissed by this Court on 23-9-1986 and occupancy rights granted in favour of deceased Sri Shivappa now represented by his legal representatives on 11-12-1981 has been upheld by this Court. Suppressing this fact, petitioner has filed Form I seeking occupancy rights in respect of the said lands u/s 5 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 and therefore he has no locus standi. Further, the land Tribunal has observed that, inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to establish his claim and therefore, it has rejected his application. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 28-4-1989 petitioner has filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Gulbarga in L.R.A. No. 74 of 1989. When the said appeal was pending adjudication before the Appellate Authority, Gulbarga, in view of the subsequent amendment to the Land Reforms Act, petitioner has presented a civil petition before this Court in No. 12256 of 1991 which was converted into the instant writ petition.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents.

After careful perusal of the entire original records maintained by the Land Tribunal, Jewargi, including the impugned order dated 28-4-1989, what it emerges is that, petitioner has participated in the proceeding before the Land Tribunal, Jewargi in proceeding No. LRY:INM:61-62:81-82 and he has put his signatures on the order sheet maintained by the Land Tribunal in more than six places. The Land Tribunal after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and after conducting enquiry as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Certain Inams Abolition Act and Certain Inams Abolition Rules, 1979 and after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rejected the claim made by petitioner, on the ground that, already his brother one Sri Rambhat being the inamdar has filed Form I for registration of occupancy rights and the said claim made by him has been rejected by the Tribunal on 11-12-1981 and the said order has been assailed before this Court in W.P. No. 7207 of 1986 and this Court has rejected the said writ petition by its order dated 23-9-1986 and upheld the order passed by the Land Tribunal, registering the occupancy rights in favour of one Sri Shivappa now represented his legal representatives and which has attained finality. The petitioner inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, has failed to produce any authenticated documents to establish that, the lands in question has fallen to his share and his name is entered in the record of rights and he has paid the land revenue. But petitioner has not produced any one of these documents before the Land Tribunal. Whereas, the deceased Sri Shivappa has submitted his documentary evidence along with his written submissions and petitioner''s brother one Sri Rambhat has admitted that Sri Shivappa is cultivating the said lands as tenant and the petitioner is none other than the younger brother of the said Sri Ram Bhat. After critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant materials available on file, the Land Tribunal has held that, Shivappa has already been declared as a tenant by the then Land Tribunal and the occupancy rights has been registered in his name in 1981 itself and that has attained finality and therefore, rejected the request of the petitioner, in view of non-production of any documentary evidence by the petitioner to establish his claim.

In view of the said reasoning given by the Land Tribunal, for rejecting the application filed by petitioner, I do not find any error, illegality, much less material irregularity as such committed by the Land Tribunal in passing the said order. Nor I find any authenticated documents as such produced by the petitioner either before the Land Tribunal or before the Appellate Authority or at least before this Court to show that, the lands in question has come to the share of the petitioner, except filing Form I for registering the occupancy rights and making an oral statement. Inspite of sufficient opportunity given to the petitioner by the Land Tribunal, he has failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence and hence, the Land Tribunal, Jewargi has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, interference by this Court, at this stage, is not justifiable. Nor I find any good grounds as such made out by petitioner to entertain this writ petition at this distance of time. Hence, the writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.