Lachchappa Hariyappa Lamani and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

B. Veerappa, J—The petitioners, who are the rival tenants filed the above writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 26.09.2002, granting occupancy rights insofar as 5 acres of land in Sy. No. 101, in favour of respondent No. 4.

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners'' father was cultivating the land bearing Sy. No. 101 measuring 18 acres 10 guntas, including pot kharab, situated at Aneguddi village in Ramadurga Taluk, as tenant under respondent No. 3 and he was paying Gutha. After the death of their father, the petitioners continued the cultivation and paid the Gutha to respondent No. 3. In view of the Land Reforms Act came into force, the father of petitioners filed Form No. 7, for grant of occupancy rights in his favour, on 18.08.1974 for 18 acres 10 guntas. Respondent No. 4 never cultivated the land at any point of time nor he was a tenant. Respondent No. 4 also filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of 17 acres 14 guntas. The Land Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record, by its order dated 04.11.1977, granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner''s father in respect of the entire extent. Aggrieved by the said order, the 4th respondent filed a writ petition in WP No. 7541/1978 before this Court and after hearing both the parties, this Court by an order dated 21.11.1980 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, mainly on the ground that the order passed by the Land Tribunal is not a speaking order and the Land Tribunal has not recorded any statements of the parties or witnesses.

After the remand, the Land Tribunal by its impugned order dated 26.09.2002 vide Annexure ''C, has granted occupancy rights in respect of 05 acres in favour of respondent No. 4. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners only insofar as granting of occupancy rights to an extent of 5 acres of land in favour of the 4th respondent.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

Sri. R.K. Kulkarni for Sri. Lokesh Malavalli, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the 4th respondent without holding any enquiry and without opportunity to the parties as contemplated under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. Therefore, he also contended that the material documents produced by the petitioners i.e., record of rights clearly depicts that the petitioners have been in possession and the entire land of 18 acres 10 guntas as on 01.03.1974. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted occupancy rights in respect of the entire land in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, granting of occupancy rights to an extent of 5 acres out of 18 acres 10 guntas in favour of respondent No. 4 is without any basis. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order, only insofar as granting occupancy rights in favour of 4th respondent to an extent of 5 acres.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal, without following the procedure as contemplated under Rule 17(4) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 and contrary to the directions issued by this Court on earlier occasion and also submitted that since, the Tribunal has not passed a speaking order, this Court has got power to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

It is not in dispute that Sy. No. 101, an extent of 18 acres 10 guntas including 36 guntas of pot kharab. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners filed form No. 7 on 18.08.1974 in respect of 18 acres 10 guntas and respondent No. 4 filed Form No. 7 in respect of 17 acres 14 guntas. It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal by an order dated 04.11.1977 granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner''s father to the entire extent. Aggrieved by the said order, the Landlord filed W.P. No. 7541/1978. This Court, after hearing both the parties, by its order dated 21.11.1980, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Land Tribunal. While allowing the writ petition, this Court has observed as under:--

"...I have perused the impugned order, a copy of which is placed in the records. It appears, the Tribunal has also not recorded the statement of any of the parties or witnesses and this is borne out by the endorsement issued by the Tribunal Exhibit-B in favour of the petitioner. There has been no reference at all in the order of the Tribunal to the landholder''s say in the matter. It is not possible to make out therefrom, whether he or anybody else on his behalf were present. I am of the view, that no proper enquiry has been held. Therefore, this petition is allowed. The rule issued is made absolute. The impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed. The matter is remitted to it for fresh disposal according to law and in the light of the observations made above."

In pursuance of the remand order passed by this Court, the Tribunal has proceeded to pass the impugned order on 26.09.2002, granting occupancy rights in respect of 13 acres 10 guntas in favour of the petitioners and 5 acres in favour of respondent No. 4. The impugned order does not reflect that the Tribunal has recorded the statements of the parties and followed the procedure has contemplated under Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, which reads as under:--

"17. Procedure to be followed by the Tribunal --

(1) The tribunal shall in respect of applications made to it follow the same procedure as specified for a summary enquiry under Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 subject to the condition that the records of the proceedings shall be maintained in a language understood by all its members.

(2) Order sheet shall be maintained by the Chairman in respect of each case heard by the tribunal, noting in it the day-to-day proceedings of the tribunal relating to the conduct of the case.

(3) When a meeting is adjourned, the date, time and place of hearing of adjourned meeting shall be made known to the parties present and their signature obtained on the order sheet.

(4) The progress in the enquiry of each case shall be noted by the Chairman immediately after hearing or the holding of spot inspection by the tribunal.

(5) The opposite party shall be allowed to cross-examine the witness and if it does not wish to so cross-examine, a note shall be made accordingly. A brief summary of the evidence given by each witness shall be recorded by the Chairman.

(6) If there are more applications than one for registration of occupancy rights by different persons in respect of the same land, those cases shall be clubbed together and a common order passed.

(7) Prayer on an interlocutory application has to be considered by the tribunal strictly in relation to the reliefs sought for.

(8) The order shall be signed, in addition to the Chairman, by the other members of the tribunal who heard the case.

(9) All orders shall be speaking orders, namely, the points for decision, the decisions themselves and reasons for the decisions shall be mentioned. The orders shall be pronounced in the open court.

(10) No member of the tribunal shall participate in the deliberations or decision of a case in which he is personally interested."

The Tribunal while granting occupancy rights in favor of the petitioners to an extent of 13 acres 10 guntas and 5 acres in favour of respondent No. 4 has not recorded any reason as to why they are entitled to occupancy rights and the order passed by the Tribunal is not a speaking order and without following any procedure, as stated above, hence, the impugned order passed cannot be sustained.

Apart from the same, this Court while remanding the matter, in WP No. 7541/1978, has specifically recorded a finding that the Tribunal has not recorded the statement of any of the parties or witnesses and there is no reference in the order of the Tribunal to the say of the Landlords and it is not a speaking order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law, following the procedure as contemplated. Admittedly, in the present case, no statement is recorded. The order does not reflect whether the Tribunal has recorded the statements of the landlord, petitioners as well as respondent No. 4, which is in total violation of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. The impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is unsustainable in law. Though, the petitioners have contended that they are aggrieved only insofar as granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent No. 4 and has contended that the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is not a speaking order and Rule 17 of the Rules is not followed by affording opportunity to the petitioners. Therefore, the entire order of the Land Tribunal has to be set aside and the matter requires fresh reconsideration and disposal.

Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal to the entire extent is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration, who shall pass order strictly in accordance with law, after following the procedure, by considering the entire material produced by both the parties to the lis, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.