Satyappa Lagama Parit vs Land Tribunal, Hukkeri Taluk and Others

Balakrishna, J.-The petitioner is aggrieved because his claim for occupancy rights was not allowed in respect of lands situate in Sy. No. 324/11-A, whereas his claim was allowed in respect of lands situate in Sy. No. 92/1 of Yalimunolli, Hukkeri Taluk, Belgaum District.

The facts which are in dispute are that the entries in the Record of Rights in respect of the lands, both in Sy. Nos. 92/1 and 324/11-A stand in the name of the father of the petitioner who was the applicant before the land Tribunal. The order of the land Tribunal is rather amusing. The Tribunal has stated in its order that the name of the applicant is appearing in the Record of Rights as protected tenant for several years and the applicant says that he is not cultivating the lands in Sy. No. 324/11-A for over 15 to 20 years. As regards the lands in Sy. No. 92/1, the Tribunal merely says that it has come to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to be registered as occupant of Sy. No. 92/1, but his claim in respect of Sy. No. 324/11-A should be rejected.

That the applicant has preferred his application in Form No. 7 in accordance with law is not controverted. That the applicant has staked his claim for occupancy rights in respect of the lands situate in both Sy. Nos. 92/1 and 324/11-A is also not in dispute. The claim of the petitioner for occupancy rights is based on the same documents is proved. The petitioner has relied on the entries in the Record of Rights as protected tenant. The Tribunal has noticed that in respect of both the Survey Numbers the entries vouch safe, that the Khata stands in the name of the applicant. It is very difficult to believe that the applicant who has claimed occupancy rights in Form No. 7, appeared before the Tribunal and stated that he is cultivating lands only in Sy. No. 92/1 and not Sy. No. 324/11-A. This observation of the Tribunal seems to be unnatural, artificial and questionable. There is no finding in the order of the Tribunal that such a contention was raised even by the opponents of the applicant before the Tribunal. Most interestingly, the Tribunal has not given a finding as to who is cultivating the lands is Sy. No. 324/11-A.

Against this back-ground, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the statement of the petitioner was not properly recorded by the Tribunal and no statement of the opponents was ever recorded at all and that it is not true that the petitioner stated before the Tribunal that for several years he has not been cultivating the lands in Sy. No. 324/11-A.

It appears to me that in the circumstances of the case, though the entries in the Record of Rights stand in the name of the petitioner in respect of the lands in Sy. No. 324/11-A, the petitioner could not have made a statement before the Tribunal that he is not cultivating the lands. If the petitioner wanted to make such a statement before the Tribunal, there is absolutely no reason for the petitioner to prefer his claim in Form No. 7, for grant of occupancy rights. On account of the improbability that the applicant could not have stated so before the Tribunal and the reasonable probability that the applicant''s case was that he was cultivating the lands both in Sy. Nos. 324/11-A and 92/1, which is substantiated by the entries in the Record of Rights as Khatedar, I have to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a tenant in occupation of the lands. It is also seen that the statements of the opponents have not been recorded by the Tribunal, though it is duty-bound to do so while determining the claims of the rival parties to the dispute.

For the above reasons, I allow this writ petition and quash the order of the land Tribunal, in so far as it relates to the lands in Sy. No. 324/11-A.

In the matter of granting effective relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, in regard to wrong orders passed by the land Tribunals, difficulties are encountered. On the one hand, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority has been abrogated and on the other hand the land Tribunals are yet to be reconstituted. The aggrieved party who comes before the Court in a writ petition is virtually stranded in no man''s land for want of effective remedy. In the instant case, I have reached the finding that the order of the land Tribunal in rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 324/11-A is unjustified. All that I can do, in the circumstances is to quash the impugned order of the Tribunal. But the real question is whether there should be an order directing the competent authority to register the name of the petitioner for occupancy rights in respects of lands in Sy. No. 324/11-A, without which the petitioner would not be satisfied. In other words, mere quashing of the order would lead him nowhere.

In these circumstances, it is no doubt true that the petitioner is not only stranded but also bewildered if he should carry the impression that the Court also is helpless. In this exceptional situation, I do not see any reason why I should not exercise the discretionary power conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to afford an effective and efficacious remedy to a legitimate aspirant, when I am convinced that he is entitled to the relief on merits.

Form No. 7 is the means to secure conferment of occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to occupancy rights and if this Court does not pass an order, when it is of the opinion that the land Tribunal was unjustified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, even the statutory intentment would be defeated. If the land Tribunal is in existence and is functioning, it is possible to say that this case could be remitted back to the Tribunal for its consideration on merits. In the instant case, the order was passed by the Tribunal on 9-7-1976 and we are in the year 1991. This is a situation which is both external and exceptional, for the reason that there is neither the land Tribunal nor the Land Reforms Appellate Authority to give statutory relief to the petitioner. This void could be filled up, in my opinion, by exercising the power vested in this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, in order to ensure that the ends of justice do not suffer. Hence, I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner herein, in an unusual situation. Where there is a right, there ough to be a remedy.

The writ petition is allowed. The Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms, is hereby directed to confer upon the petitioner occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question in Sy. No. 324/11-A of Yalimunolli Village, Hukkeri Taluk, Belgaum District, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

A copy of this order shall be communicated forthwith to the Special Tahsildar, Hukkeri Taluk, Belgaum District.