GANAPATI TIMMANNA BHAT v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Sri K.S. Path, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken me through the records and submits that the entries in the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner continuously and that absolutely no records are forthcoming to support the case of contenting respondents. According to him, the order of the Tribunal is without any basis and therefore the same is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the vesting of the land has not taken place and the boundaries are not mentioned in Form No.7 filed by the applicants. The writ petition opposed learned Government Advocate by contending that the order of the Land Tribunal is based on the ground realities and not merely on technicalities.

The document at Annexure-A produced along with the writ petition reveals the names of Manja Mastigowda and Jayu Shiva Gowda as cultivators in respect of 1 acre 38 V guntas and 19 guntas respectively in Sy.No.1O for the years from 1971 to 1974. The oral evidence let in on behalf of the contesting respondents reveal that they have paid rent in the form of paddy. The tenants have deposed that they have given two bags of paddy etc. to the land owner per year in lieu of rent and they have been cultivating the land from the time immemorIal. To find out the actual position, the Land Tribunal conducted the spot inspection with the help of Surveyors. It was found that Jayu Shiva Gowda was in cultivation of 19 guntas and Manja Mastigowda was in cultivation of 1 acre 38 guntas. Survey sketch was also prepared on 26.11.1981. It is no doubt true that the said survey report or the spot inspection may not relate to

1.3.1974. But there is nothing on record to show as to when and why the petitioner was allegedly dispossessed subsequent to 1.3.1974. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was dispossessed from the property after 1.3.1974. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that -7- they have been in cultivation of the property since the time of their ancestors and for the relevant years 1971 to 1974, their names find place in the revenue records as is clear from Annexure-A. The Land Tribunal also observed that the names of the respondents are entered in the revenue records through pencil entries. The records maintained by the Tribunal also reveal the names of respondents are entered from the year 1976-77 in pencil. The Revenue Officers cannot enter the names of any of the parties without valid reasons. There should be some valid reason for entering the names of the parties. Generally, the pencil entries are made to show prima facie possession of the property, which will be ratified later after making enquiry by the Tahsildar and after disposal of the matter by the Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal has also observed on facts that the petitioner has taken advantage of the illiteracy and poverty of the respondents for getting his name continued in the V7 -8- revenue records inspite of cultivation by the contesting respondents.