Peerappa and Others vs The Chairman, Land Tribunal and Others

Aravind Kumar, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Hatti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 2 to 8 and legal representatives of R-9(A-C) are served. R-8 is represented by Sri S.V. Desai, learned counsel. But, none have appeared on his behalf.

This writ petition is of the year 2003 challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 03.05.2003 present writ petition has been filed and same is pending for the last 12 years before this Court. The only issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is:

"Whether the Land Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application filed by the writ petitioner seeking for grant of occupancy rights or not?"

Facts in brief which has led to the filing of this writ petition can be crystalised as under:

"Petitioner herein filed Form No. 7 seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of lands bearing Sy.No.51/2, 25/1 and 2/3 measuring 1 acre 17 guntas, 2 acres 17 guntas and 2 acres 16 guntas respectively situated at Bisanahalli, Shiggaon taluk. Land Tribunal by order dated 24.06.1997 rejected the application and being aggrieved by said order, writ petition was preferred by the petitioner in W.P. No. 6006/1977. This Court by order dated 29.09.1977 set aside the order passed by Land Tribunal and remanded the matter back to Land Tribunal for adjudication afresh. Land Tribunal by subsequent order dated 20.04.1989 again dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by said order, writ petition was filed by the petitioner herein in W.P. No. 22217/1992 and by order dated 26.03.2001 order passed by the Land Tribunal on 25.04.1989 came to be set aside by this Court and matter came to be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication since it was held that enquiry conducted by Land Tribunal was not in consonance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. As such, Land Tribunal has taken up the application filed by petitioner afresh for adjudication and after issuing notices to the parties and recording the evidence of both parties, Tribunal has rejected the application yet again by order dated 03.05.2003 concluding that petitioner herein was a tenant of suit schedule property till 1971-72 only and tenancy had come to an end in the year 1971-72 itself and there is no explanation offered as to how the name of petitioner has continued in the ROR/RTC for the subsequent period and as such, entry of the name of petitioner in the RTC/ROR as on the appointed date i.e., 01.03.1974 is improper and incorrect. No other reason has been assigned by Land Tribunal. There is no spot inspection conducted by the Land Tribunal."

This Court would have examined as to whether it would be necessary to set aside the order of Tribunal and remand the matter back to Land Tribunal for adjudication afresh. However, this exercise is not undertaken for two reasons: 1) the respondents who had contested the matter before Land Tribunal though are served and R-8 is represented by learned counsel, have not appeared before this Court and contested the matter to support the order passed by Land Tribunal and no explanation is offered as to how the name of the petitioners having been continued in the RTC/ROR even as on the appointed date on 01.03.1974 and 2) the matter has already been remanded twice to the Land Tribunal for being adjudicated afresh and sending back to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh would be an exercise in futility. As could be seen from the records available particularly the RTC extract vide Annexures-A and B it would clearly indicate that from the year 1967-68 till 1986-87, name of the petitioner has been continued in the RTC extract and particularly in column No. 12 (2) in respect of Sy.No.51/2 and 25/1 and the original of Annexures-A and B having been made available by Sri R.K. Hatti would also clearly indicate that even from the year 1952-53 onwards, name of the petitioner as well as his father is finding a place in the RTC extracts relating to Sy.No.51/2 and Sy.No.25/1. As such, this Court is of the considered view that Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner insofar as Sy.No.51/2 and Sy.No.25/1. As such, order of the Land Tribunal dated 03.05.2003 Annexure-C cannot be sustained. Hence, the following order:

"i) Writ petition is hereby allowed,

ii) Order dated 03.05.2003 passed by 1st respondent-Land Tribunal Annexure-C is hereby quashed,

iii) Application filed by petitioner in Form No. 7 by the petitioner is hereby allowed,

iv) 1st respondent-Land Tribunal is directed to issue occupancy certificate in favour of petitioner in respect of land bearing Sy.No.51/2 and Sy.No.25/1 measuring 1 acre 17 guntas and 2 acres 17 guntas by issuing Form No. 10.

v) Claim of the petitioner insofar as Sy.No.2/3 is concerned is rejected and order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim stands affirmed."

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.