Siddaraj and Others vs Ningappa Chandappa Shirsangi and Others

B. Veerappa, J.

The petitioner/land-lord is before this Court, challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 19.06.1979, granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents 1 and 2 in respect of old Sy. No. 2:2, new Sy. No. 4 measuring 8 acres 34 guntas in favour of the 1st respondent and old Sy. No. 8 new Sy. No. 10, measuring 12 acres 34 guntas, jointly in the name of respondents 1 and 2, situated at Belleri village, Naragund Taluk, Dharwad District, now Gadag District.

This is a third round litigation between the parties before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 1711/1980 against the order of the Land Tribunal dated 19.06.1979 bearing LR Nos. LRM.SR. 675 and 980, on the file of the Land Tribunal, Naragund, Dharwad District, now in Gadag District. It was the contention of the petitioner in the said writ petition that, he is the land-lord/owner of the lands in question and respondents 1 and 2 are the tenants of the lands in question, [specifically stated in paragraph No. 1 of the writ petition] and the lands are in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner since long and till date and the petitioner has been cultivating the lands personally and there is no lease in favour of anybody much less respondents 1 and 2. The record of rights produced by the petitioner for the years 1964-65 upto 1978-79 in respect of Sy. Nos. 4 and 10 of Belleri village, clearly depicts that he is the owner and in possession of the property and he is cultivating the lands as on 01.03.1974, etc.

The said will petition was remanded in view of the amendment of the provisions of Section 118 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 came into force. The same was remanded to Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Dharwad, in LRA No. 173/1986. Subsequently, in view of the insertion of Sections 116A and 116B, by Act No. 19/1986, which came into force on 06.12.1985, the said writ petition was transferred to Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Dharwad in LRA No. 173/1986. During the pendency of the said appeal, before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, again the said Sections were omitted by Amendment''- Act No. 18/1990 w.e.f. 08.10.1990. In the amended Act 18/1990, there is a provision to transfer, under Section 118 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act by Amendment Act, 1990. The appellant before the Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, filed a Civil Petition in C.P. No. 10567/1991 before this Court and this Court by its order dated 17.01.1992 permitted the landlord to convert the Civil Petition into the present Writ Petition (W.P. No. 30769/1993). That is how the present writ petition is before this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ramakrishna Hegde and learned counsel Sri H.R. Gundappa appearing for R1a(1) to R1a(6) and Sri Rajashekhar R. Gunjalli, appearing for R2(c), R2d(1) to R2d(7) and R2f(1) to R2f(2) and Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned AGA for R3 and R4 to the lis and perused the entire original records.

Sri Ramakrishna Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord has contended that the Land Tribunal before passing the impugned order neither he has issued notice to him nor given opportunity to the petitioner to lead any evidence and has not considered the RTC extracts from the year 1964-65, 1978-79 (as per Annexure B), spot inspection report and panchanama (as per Annexures-C and D), in the writ petition and also contended that the Tribunal has not followed any of the procedure as contemplated, before passing the impugned order. Therefore, he requests the Court to quash the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal.

Sri R. Gundappa, learned counsel appearing for Rla(1) to Rla(6), has contended that the land Tribunal after issuing notice to the petitioner and after considering the entire material on record has recorded a specific finding that respondents 1 and 2 have proved the tenancy in respect of the properties in question as on 01.03.1974. The petitioner has not produced any document before the Court to show that he is the owner of the property in question and cultivating the same personally as on the relevant date.

The learned counsel for other respondents also adopted the said arguments.

The learned A.G.A. sought to justify the order passed by the Land Tribunal and contended that Annexures A, B, C and D (RTC extracts, spot inspection and panchanama) relied upon by the petitioner are not the part of the records. In order to ascertain the veracity of the said submission, this Court also permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to verify the original records in the presence of the learned AGA. After perusing the entire original records, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that Annexures A, B, C and D relied upon by the petitioner in the present writ petition, are not part, of the original records. It is also relevant to state at this stage that Annexures A, B, C and D produced by the petitioner are the xerox copies and not certified copies.

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

The Land Tribunal while granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has specifically stated at para No. 2 of the order that both the petitioner as well as the respondents-tenants have appeared for enquiry and their statements have been recorded and the 1st respondent has produced documents in respect of Sy. No. 4 i.e. combined extract of record of rights for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59, to show that he is an ordinary and protected tenant and the 2nd respondent has produced the documents of Pahani extract and Utara for the years 1950-51 to 1953-54 and 1945-46 to 1949-50 in respect of Sy. No. 10. In the statement recorded, he has stated that his father was cultivating the Sy. No. 4 and he was doing Pooja in Durga devi temple. He has further stated chat the 1st and 2nd respondents have been jointly cultivating the land bearing Sy. No. 10 for more than 20 to 25 years and used to pay Rs. 400/- as rent to the landlord and the landlord has not issued any receipts for having received the said rent amount. The 2nd respondent has also stated in his statement before the Land Tribunal that he has been cultivating the said land for more than ten years before filing the application and thereafter, respondents 1 and 2 are jointly cultivating the said land for more than 20-25 years. Therefore, they requested the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights.

The petitioner-landlord has also stated that he has been cultivating the lands in question for more than 20-25 years personally and about six years back, he has given the said lands on lease to one Satyappa and further stated that the respondents have never cultivated the lands.

The Land Tribunal also recorded the statement of one Yallappa Neelagunda a resident of Belleri village, on behalf of the tenants, who stated on oath that the 1st respondent has been cultivating Sy. No. 4 from the last 25 to 30 years but he was not aware of the rent paid by the 1st respondent to the landlord and recently in the year 1977, the 1st respondent had been driven out from the land and thereafter, one Gurannagouda Hiregoudar was cultivating the land.

The Tribunal also recorded the statement of another witness by name Ganganagouda S. Belleri who has stated on oath that 1st respondent had been cultivating the lands upto 1978 and thereafter, one Shettappa Talavar has been cultivated the lands.

The Land Tribunal also recorded the statement of one Kallanagouda Hiregouda on behalf of the landlord, who stated on oath that Sy. No. 10 has not been cultivated by the respondents-tenant at any time and he has stated that from the last four years, one Shetteppa was cultivating the lands. The Tribunal also recorded the statement of one Panehaiah on behalf of the landlord, who stated that he is the adjacent owner of Sy. No. 4 and from, the beginning itself, the landlord was cultivating the lands and the 1st respondent has never cultivated the lands at any time.

It is relevant to state at this stage that the Land Tribunal also recorded a finding at para No. 17 that the landlord has not produced any material documents, which reads as under:

The Tribunal considering the material on record has recorded a finding to the effect that the 1st respondent is the tenant in respect of Sy. No. 4 and his name is found in the record of rights since from the year 1946-47, 1958-59 and 1966-67, from 1966-67 it is shown as . Sy. No. 10 has been cultivated by the 2nd respondent from the year 1946-47 and it shows as . After considering the material on record, the Tribunal recorded a finding that 1st and 2nd respondents were protected tenants and they have been cultivating the land and they have proved the tenancy as on 01.03.1974. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the petitioner is a big landlord and he is the leader of the village. Considering entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has specifically recorded a finding at para No. 22 of the order that both the lands, as on 01.03.1974 and prior to it, were under lease and the tenants have proved their tenancy as on 01.03.1974.

The original records clearly depicts that the RTC extracts from the years 1945-46 to 1949-50, 1950-51, 1953-54, 1957-58 and 1958-59 depicts the name of respondents as tenants. The presumption that they are continued in possession as on 01.03.1974 as tenants, cultivating the lands in question and the same has been corroborated by the evidence/statements by the\\respondents and their witnesses. The petitioner/landlord has not produced'' any documents to disprove the same as rightly recorded by the Land Tribunal in para 17 of the order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought heavy reliance on Annexures A, B, C and D, the Xerox copies of the RTCs for the years 1967-79 and spot inspection Mahazar, produced along with the writ petition, which are not forth coming from the original records, submitted by the learned AGA. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not taken any steps to get the certified copies of Annexures A, B, C and D. Even though the matter is of the year 1993 and this is the 3rd round litigation and the petitioner is agitating the case from 1980, challenging the order of the Land Tribunal dated 19.06.1979, by filing writ petition No. 1711/1980.

It is also relevant to state at this stage, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner 1(a) Lingaraj S/o. Sidaraj has alienated the Sy. No. 10 measuring 12 acres 35 guntas under the sale deed in the year 2011, in favour of one Bhimappa as per Anexures-R1 and R2, produced by the respondents in the present writ petition. The petitioner before alienating the said property has not obtained any permission from this Court. Even though, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 as long back as on 19.06.1979. Inspite of the interim order granted from this Court on 06.04.2006, the writ petition stands abated as on that day. Subsequently, on the application filed by the present petitioner in the year 2013, the matter was restored to file. It clearly depicts that the petitioner has no respect to the Court''s order as well as the order passed by the Land Tribunal. It is needless to observe that any alienation made during the pendency of the writ petition by the petitioner in favour of subsequent purchaser i.e., on 16.12.2011 under two registered sale deeds in favour of Bhimappa S/o. Shivappa Talawar, are hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents have proved the tenancy in respect of the properties in question as on 01.03.2014 and the Tribunal after considering the entire material on record has passed the impugned order. The same is in accordance with law. No grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.