CHENNAPPA GOUDA HUCHAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI VEERESH B.PATIL, ADV.) AND: I) STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LR) KARNATAKA GOVT. SECRETARIAT M.S.BUILDING DR.B.RAMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001. 2) THE LAND TRIBUNAL. BASAVANA BAGEWADI REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN 3) BASAPA BARAGI S/O GURAPPA BARAGI REP.BY HIS G.P.A.HOLDER SRI SANGAPPA BARAGI S/O BASAPPA BARAGI AGED 24 YEARS. AGRICULTURIST R/O HANAMAPUR VILLAGE BASAVANA BAGEWADI TALUK. BIJAPUR DIST. RESPONDENTS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH Court ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.626/04 DATED 16.7.2008. 3 This appeal coming on for orders D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR J., delivered the following this day. JUDGMENT Appeal by landlords who are not very happy to concede to statutory rights conferred in favour of the tenant under the provisions of The Karnataka Land Reforms Act notwithstanding records conforming to the requests which could enable the tenant to seek for conferment of occupancy rights and the Land Tribunal was bound to confer such right if it was so.

2. The present appeal is again only an attempt to protract litigation, perhaps. to weaken the sustenance of the tenant, as we find the appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this court in the writ petition of the tenant whereunder the learned single Judge has set aside the order of the Land Tribunal, rejecting the claim of the tenant for conferment of occupancy rights, notwithstanding that his name 4 figured in the revenue records from the year 1964 onwards, and the presumption in favour of the tenant to be in occupation was not rebutted by the landlord by any positive cogent evidence, but only because four non-official members of the Tribunal joined together to defeat the well-reasoned opinion of the Chairman of the Tribunal who had discussed the legal position with regard to revenue entries, and opined that the tenant should necessarily be conferred occupancy rights.

3. The appeal is on the ground that the appellant had filed certain objections in the writ petition and the learned single Judge has not considered the same.

4. There is a delay of 2 days in preferring this appeal and an application is filed seeking for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit. Perhaps we could have considered the application and called upon the respondents to defend the same, or even otherwise, 5 condoned the delay if the appeal itself had any merit for further examination.

5. We have heard Sri Veeresh B.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant.

6. We find that the appeal is absolutely without any merit, particularly being directed against the remand order passed by the learned single Judge by reason of which the matter only goes back to the Tribunal for proper examination of the tenant’s claim in the wake of revenue entries standing in the name of the tenant from the year 1964 onwards, and being so on the appointed day.

7. Though Sri Veeresh B.Patil, learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently urged that it is only a rebuttable presumption and since the majority opinion had indicated that the applicant is not the tenant that should have been accepted, and that apart, the learned 6 single Judge not having shown awareness to the objections filed on behalf of the appellant in the writ petition, the matter requires to he set aside and the writ petition examined afresh. It is also submitted by Sri Veeresh B.Patil that the objections contained elaborate submissions to indicate as to how presumption arising under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act has stood rebutted by the landlord.

8. It is also submitted that along with the objections, the present appellant had placed good number of documents to support the objection statement, and if the learned single Judge had considered all these, that would have been good enough to dismiss the writ petition.

9. In the wake of such vehement submissions, we have perused the order of the Land Tribunal to satisfy ourselves whether the learned single Judge is justified 7 in quashing the impugned order, in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.

10. In the order of the Land Tribunal, as pointed out in the earlier part of the order, the reason or manner in which the non-members, four in number, dissented from the well reasoned view expressed by the Chairman is conspicuously absent. In fact, with regard to presumptive value under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act, there is not even a whisper by non-official members, whereas the Chairman has elaborately examined the implications of this presumption and has rightly discussed the application of the same to the facts of the case, more so, in the wake of circumstances that on the basis of similar entry in RTC in respect of an extent of 12 acres of land in the same survey number, occupancy rights had been conferred on another person 8 as tenant, and the landlord has simply accepted that order of the Land Tribunal. Moreover, the Chairman has also indicated that though such revenue entries were made in the records in the name of the tenant from the year 1964-65 indicating the applicant’s name to be the tenant, the landlord had not raised his little finger to get over this entry in the manner known to law, and trying to rebut such presumption in the writ petition filed by the tenant before this court questioning the order of the Tribunal, is an effort too late in the day, and at any rate, not relevant the purpose of sustaining the order of the Tribunal.

11. Insofar as non-consideration of the statement of objections and documents sought to be placed before this court is concerned, we notice that the statement of objections by the landlord cannot aid or support the order of the Tribunal, as. is an order passed by a quasi-judicial body which has to speak for itself and 9 sustain Itself and not by external props and aids, and not at any rate, by the statement of objections ified by the present appellant In the writ petition and by further documents sought to be placed before this court.

12. In a proceeding under ArtIcle 227 of Constitution of India, question of receiving any additional evidence does not arise, as, It Is only a proceeding for examining the legality of the order passed by a Thbunal and not an order of this nature passed by the learned single Judge.

13. Be that as It may, we find absolutely nothing wrong or Incorrect or not even any Irregularity In the order of the learned single Judge for interference in this appeal either on merits or on any procedure.

14. The appeal is totally meritless and only deserves to be dismissed, and the appellant Is saving the cost only because the notice is not Issued to the respondent. 4— a 10 Therefore, both the appeal and the application, MIsc.W.81 177/09 are dismissed. Sd/ JUDGE Sd,’ JUDGE