In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

WRIT APPEAL No.1654/2008 & WRIT APPEAL Nos.2180-2201/2008

BETWEEN:

1. Madaiah bin Doddamadaiah Since deceased by LRs

1(a) Sri Madevu S/o late Madaiah Aged about 50 years

2(b) Sri Nanjegowda S/o late Madaiah Aged about 47 years

1(a) & 1(b) are residing at No.2438 4th Cross, Paduvarahally Village Mysore Taluk, Mysore District.

2. Sri Kadlepette Mahadeva (also called as Mahadevayya) S/o Nanjaiah Since deceased by LRs.

2(a) Smt. Kamalamma W/o late Kadlepette Mahadeva Aged about 65 years

2(b) Sri M. Shivakumar S/o late Kadlepette Mahadeva Aged about 49 years

2(c) Sri M.Ravikumar S/o late Kadlepette Mahadeva Aged about 42 years

2(d) Sri Devaraj S/o late Kadlepette Mahadeva

2(a) to 2(d) are residents of Door No.2455, 3 rd Cross Paduvarahalli Village Mysore Taluk Mysore District

3. Sri Chikkanna bin Kullegowda Since deceased by LRs.

3(a) Sri Krishna S/o late Chikkanna Aged about 45 years

3(c) Sri Mahadevu S/o late Chikkanna Aged about 43 years

3(d) Sri Kumara S/o late Chikkanna Aged about 41 years

3(e) Sri Mariswamy S/o late Chikkanna Aged about 39 years

3(a), 3(c) to 3(e) are residents at D.No.2267/8, Kumbara Beedi Paduvarahally Village Mysore Taluk, Mysore District

4. Shantaiah Since deceased by LRs.

4(b) Smt. Susheela W/o late Shantaiah Aged about 59 years

4(c) Kum.Manjula D/o late Shantaiah Aged about 45 years

4(d) Kum.Sheela D/o late Shantaiah Aged about 42 years

4(b) to 4(d) are all residing at D.No.2461, 2 nd Cross, 2 nd Main Paduvarahally Village Mysore Taluk, Mysore District.

5. Sri Thimmayya urf Ayanna (wrongly mentioned as Chamanna) S/o late Thimmayya Aged about 58 years No.48, 7 th Cross Paduvarahally Village Mysore Taluk, Mysore District

6. Kempa Kalaiah since deceased by LRs. Sri Swamy S/o late Kempa Kalaiah Aged about 60 years Residing at No.2383, 4 th Cross Paduvarahally Village Mysore Taluk, Mysore District.

7. Eranna, since deceased by LR Smt.Sannamma W/o late Eranna Aged about 57 years Residing at No.2267/8, 5th Cross, Paduvarahally Village Mysore-12

8. Bettaiah bin Kempaiah since deceased by LRs.

8(a) Sri Jayaram S/o late Bettaiah Aged about 47 years

8(b) Sri Kempegowda S/o late Bettaiah Aged about 44 years

8(c) Smt. Nanjamma W/o late Bettegowda Aged about 42 years

8(d) Sri P.B.Sreedhara S/o late Bettaiah Aged about 39 years

8(a) to 8(d) are all residing at D.No.2267/3, 6 th Cross, V Main Paduvarahally Village Mysore Taluk Mysore District

9. Dasanna since deceased by LR Chinnamarigowda S/o late Dasanna Since deceased by LRs.

9(b) Sri P.C. Jayaram S/o late Chinnamarigowda Aged about 38 years Residing at D.No.2262/1 4th Cross, Paduvarahally Village Mysore-12, Mysore Taluk Mysore District

10. Venkatappa Since deceased by LRs.

10(a) Smt.Siddamma W/o late Venkatappa Aged about 64 years

10(b) Sri P.V.Srinivasa S/o late Venkatappa

Aged about 45 years

10(c) Sri P.V.Radhakrishna S/o late Venkatappa Aged about 42 years

10(d) Sri P.V.Sunil S/o late Venkatappa Aged about 39 years

10(a) to 10(d) are residing at D.No.6 4th Cross, IInd Main, Paduvarahally Village Mysore-12, Mysore Taluk Mysore Dist.

11. Chikkahydappa Since deceased by LR

11(a) Smt. Channamma w/o late Kariyappa aged about 60 years

11(b) Sri Mahadevu, K. S/o late Kariyappa Aged about 42 years

11(c) Sri Krishna K. S/o late Kariyappa Aged about 39 years

11(d) Sri Suresha K. S/o late Kariyappa Aged about 33 years

11(a) to 11(d) are residing at D.No.2960, 4 th Cross, Paduvarahally Village Mysore-12, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District

12. Yalakkanna Since deceased by LR

Sri Dasegowda S/o late Yalakkanna Aged about 59 years Resident of D.No.2462, 4 th Cross Paduvarahally Village, Mysore-12 Mysore Taluk, Mysore Dist.

13. Sri Neelegowda S/o Neelaiah, since deceased by LRs

13(a) Smt. Jayamma W/o late Neelegowda Aged about 58 years

13(b) Sri N.Venkatagiri S/o late Neelegowda Aged about 38 years

13(a) and 13(b) are resident of D.No.2393, Kumbarabeedi Paduvarahally Village Mysore-12, Mysore Taluk Mysore Dist.

14. Sri Shettappa S/o late Bommarayanna Aged about 63 years

Resident of D.No.2376 5th Cross, Paduvarahally Village Mysore-12, Mysore Taluk Mysore Dist.

15. Sri Chikkanna S/o late Siddaiah Aged about 61 years Resident of D.No.2381, 4th Cross, Paduvarahally Village Mysore Taluk, Myosre Dist.

16. Narasimhaiah @ Yalavanna S/o late Dasanna Since deceased by LRs

16(a) Sri N.Narasimhaiah S/o late Narasimhaiah Aged about 59 years

16(b) Sri N.Narayana S/o late Narasimhaiah Aged about 56 years

16(a) and 16(b) are residing at D.No.2470, 4 th Cross Paduvarahally Village, Mysore-12, Mysore Taluk Myosre Dist.

17. Bettaiah Singraiah Since deceased by LR Singraiah, S/o late Bettaiah Since deceased by LRs.

17(a) Sri Narasimha S/o late Singraiah Aged about 50 years

17(b) Sri Cheluva S/o late Singraiah Aged about 48 years

17(a) and 17(b) are residing at D.No.2999/1, Rama Mandir Road Paduvarahalli Village, Mysore-12 Mysore Taluk, Mysore District.

18. Sri Padkai Devayya since deceased, By his L.Rs.

18(a) Smt. Jayamaa, aged about 48 years w/o late Bommegowda

18(b) Smt. Sheela, Aged about 30 years D/o late Bommegowda

18(c) Smt. Shilpa, Aged about 27 years D/o late Bommegowda

18(d) Smt. Sowmya, Aged about 25 years D/o late Bommegowda

18(e) Sri T. Devegowda, Aged about 50 years s/o Padkai Devayya

18(f) Sri T. Kumar, Aged about 42 years s/o Padkai Devayya.

18(g) Sri T. Somu, Aged about 40 years s/o Padkai Devayya.

18(a) to 18(g) are residents of Resident of D.No.2279, 4th Cross, Paduvarahally Village Mysore-12, Mysore Taluk Mysore Dist-570 012.

19. Sri Narasimhayya S/o late Giddanna Since deceased by LR

19(a) Narasamma W/o late Narasimhayya Aged about 65 years Residing at D.No.2405, 3 rd Main 4th Cross, Paduvarahally Village Mysore-12, Mysore Taluk Mysore Dist.

20. Sri Swamanna S/o late Kariyanna Aged about 68 years Resident of D.No.2000/3 1st Cross, Paduvarahally Village Mysore-12, Mysore Taluk Mysore Dist.

21. Papayya since deceased by LR. Sri Nagaraju S/o late Papayya Aged about 59 years Resident of D.No.2302 II Cross, Paduvarahally Village Mysore-12, Mysore Taluk Mysore Dist.

22. Vishakantayya since deceased by LR

22(a) Sri Thammanna S/o late Vishakantayya Since deceased by LRs.

22(a)(i) Smt. Jayamma W/o late Thammanna Aged about 68 years

22(a)(ii) Sri Madevu, T. S/o late Thammanna Aged about 50 years

22(a)(iii) Sri Swamy S/o late Thammanna Aged about 46 years

22(a)(iv) Sri Raju, T. S/o late Thammanna Aged about 44 years

22(a)(v) Sri Nanjunda S/o late Thammanna Aged about 40 years

22(a)(i) to 22(a)(v) are Resident of D.No.83 7th Main, Paduvarahally Village Mysore-12, Mysore Taluk Mysore Dist.

23. Bandayya since deceased by LRs.

23(a) Sri Thammanna S/o late Bandayya

Since deceased by LRs

23(a)(i) Smt. Bhagya Aged about 47 years W/o late Thammanna

23(a)(ii) Sri Yadukumar, T. Aged about 28 years S/o late Thammanna

23(a)(iii) Sri Madhu Kumar Aged about 24 years S/o late Thammanna

All are residing at D.No.2465, 4th Cross, Paduvarahalli Village Mysore-570012, Mysore Taluk Mysore District.

23(c) Sri B.Shivanna S/o late Bandayya Aged about 54 years

23(d) Sri Jayarama S/o late Bandayya Aged about 52 years

23(e) Sri Shivalinga S/o late Bandayya Aged about 50 years

23(f) Sri Devaraju S/o late Bandayya Aged about 47 years

23(c) to 23(f) are residing at D.No.2465, 4 th Cross Paduvarahalli Village, Mysore-12 Mysore Taluk, Mysore District

.. Appellants (By Sri N. Shankaranarayana Bhat, Adv.,)

AND :

1. State of Karnataka Represented by Secretary to Government, Rural Development M.S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore-560 001

2. Sri K.B.Ramachandra Raje Urs S/o late Sardar K. Basavaraja Urs Since Deceased by LRs.

2(a) Smt. Leela Tripua Sundarammanni Aged about 42 years D/o late K.B.Ramachandra Raje Urs C/o Gayathri Vihar, Palace Grounds, Bellary Road Banagalore-560 080

2(b) Smt. Deepa Malini Aged about 39 years D/o late K.B.Ramachandra Raje Urs Resident of No.954/5, ‘Kalpana’ Diwans Road, Lakshmipuram Mysore-570 004, Mysore Taluk Mysore District.

2(c) Smt. Keerthi Malini D/o late K.B.Ramachandra Raje Urs C/o Gayathri Vihar Palace Grounds, Bellary Road Bangalore-560 080

2(d) Sri Chaduranga Kantaraje Urs S/o late K.B.Ramachandra Raje Urs Aged about 35 years, Resident of ‘Leela Vihar ‘, D.No.22/1, Vinoba Road, Jayalakshmi Road Myosre-570 012

3. The University of Mysore Represented by the Registrar Crawford Bhavan Mysore, Mysore District.

4. The Mysore Urban Development Authority Jansi Laxmibai Road Mysore, Mysore District

5. The Land Tribunal Mysore Taluk, Mysore by its Chariman or Secretary Land Tribunal, Mysore Taluk Office Mysore-Hunsur Road Mysore-570 006 Opp. to Premier Studio

6. Driver M.Devayya Since deceased by LRs.

6(a) Smt. Puttamma W/o late Driver Devayya Aged about 66 years

6(b) Sri D.Nagendraswamy S/o late Driver Devayya Aged about 40 years

No.LF50/10, LIG-Block, PWD Quarters, Nandini Layout Bangalore-560 096 Bangalore District.

6(c) Sri Mahesh S/o late Driver Devayya Aged about 38 years

6(d) Sri Vijendra Swamy S/o late Driver Devayya Aged about 36 years

6(a), 6(c) and 6(d) are residing at Linemane, Near Premium Studio Gangotri Road, Mysore-570 012

..Respondents (By Sri D.Nagaraj, AGA., for R1 & R-5; Sri S.S.Naganand, Sr. Counsel for Smt. M.P.Geetha Devi for R-2(a); Sri D.L.N.Rao, Senior Counsel for Smt. M.P.Geetha Devi for R-2(c) & (d); Sri P.H.Ramalingam for R-2(b); Sri T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Adv. for R-3., Sri P.S.Manjunath, Adv. for R-4; R-6(a) to R-6(d) - served)

These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.17918 c/w 22254/1999 dated 3.1.2007 etc.,

These Appeals having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on pronouncement of order this day, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR .J., made the following.

J U D G M E N T

These appeals arise out of the Order dated 3.1.2007 passed in W.P. No.17918/99 c/w W.P. No.22254/1999 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.

No.17918/99 and allowed W.P. No.22254/99.

2. The appellants herein were the petitioners in W.P.

No.17918/99 (hereinafter called ‘tenants’). Father of

Respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(d) herein was petitioner in W.P.

No.22254/99 and contesting respondent in W.P.

No.17918/99. Respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(d) being the legal representatives of original Respondent No.2 are brought on record in these appeals (hereinafter, they will be called

‘landlords’). The land in question (in several bits) measures

96 acres out of the total extent of 816 acres 15 guntas in

Sy.No.1 of “Vijayasripura village” of Mysore district. The appellants claiming to be in possession of different bits of land, totally measuring 96 acres in Sy.No.1 of

“Vijayasripura” as tenants since the time of their ancestors, filed separate applications in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights over the said land before the Land

Tribunal, Mysore. The Land Tribunal, Mysore at the first instance granted the occupancy rights in favour of all the tenants by the order dated 26.9.1980. The landlords filed

W.P. No.17533/1981 before this Court challenging the order dated 26.9.1980 passed by the Land Tribunal, which came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to the Land

Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. This

Court while remanding the matter to the Tribunal, directed the Tribunal to provide an opportunity to the parties to lead both documentary as well as oral evidence, to hear the

parties and thereafter to pass fresh orders. Accordingly, the Tribunal provided ample opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and to have their say in the matter. The

Tribunal on hearing all the parties, passed the order dated

14.5.1999 rejecting the claim of all the tenants for grant of occupancy rights by concluding that the land involved in the litigation is not the agricultural land; the land in question belongs to the State Government inasmuch as it is kharab land; the landlords have not proved the title over the land in question. The Tribunal also concluded that the tenants have failed to prove that they were cultivating the lands as tenants as on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior thereto. Thus the Tribunal not only rejected the claim of the tenants for grant of occupancy rights, but also concluded that the land shall remain with the State Government inasmuch as the land is kharab land and that the landlords are not the owners of the property. The Tribunal virtually decided the ownership of the property, though the same was not in

dispute between the parties that landlords herein were the owners of the property.

Challenging the said order dated 14.5.1999 passed by the Land Tribunal, two writ petitions viz., W.P. No.17918/99 and W.P. No.22254/1999 came to be filed. As mentioned supra, W.P. No.17918/99 is filed by the tenants and W.P.

No.22254/99 is filed by the landlords. It is needless to observe that the tenants filed W.P. No.17918/99 questioning the order of the Land Tribunal by which the

Tribunal rejected their claim for grant of occupancy rights on the ground that they have not cultivated the land as tenants on or prior to 1.3.1974. Tenants were also aggrieved by the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the land in question is not an agricultural land. The landlords questioned the order of the Land Tribunal in W.P.

No.22254/99 on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in concluding that the land in question is not an agricultural

land, but a kharab land belonging to the State Government.

Both the writ petitions were clubbed, heard together and decided by the common order dated 3.1.2007 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, which is impugned in these writ appeals. By the said order dated 3.1.2007, the learned Single Judge concluded that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the land belongs to the State

Government and the same is a kharab land. The learned

Single Judge also decided that the land has not remained as an agricultural land since many years prior to 1.3.1974.

Finally, the learned Single Judge has confirmed the order passed by the Land Tribunal insofar as it relates to rejection of applications filed by the tenants for grant of occupancy rights. Questioning the order dated 3.1.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.17918/99 c/w W.P.

No.22254/99, these appeals are filed by the tenants.

3. The question to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the order of the learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with or not ?

4. Sri Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned advocate appearing for the appellants/tenants taking us through the entire material on record including the documents produced by the tenants before the Tribunal as well as the oral evidence, submits that the learned Single Judge is not justified in rejecting the writ petition filed by the tenants inasmuch as the voluminous evidence let in by the tenants, both documentary as well as oral, would amply prove that the tenants were cultivating the property as tenants prior to

1.3.1974 as well as on 1.3.1974; the rent receipts produced by the tenants would clearly reveal that the tenants have paid rents to the landlords in respect of the portions of land which were being cultivated by them; erstwhile authorities of Palace including Maharaja of Mysore has leased certain

bits of land to the extent of 2 acres to 4 acres to each of the tenants herein and the same is depicted by the rent receipts. Adverting to the oral evidence let in by the tenants, learned advocate for the appellants submits that neither the Tribunal nor the learned Single Judge is justified in ignoring the voluminous evidence let in by the authorities, more particularly by the tenants; the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge are not speaking orders; the material on record is not considered objectively by the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge. Therefore, learned advocate for the appellants/tenants prays for setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge and for remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Per contra, Sri S.S. Naganand and Sri D.L.N. Rao, learned senior advocates appearing on behalf of the landlords contended that the learned Single Judge is

justified in confirming the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the claim of the tenants inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show that the tenants… were cultivating the properties as tenants on or before 1.3.1974; the so called rent receipts produced by the tenants will not in any manner disclose that the tenants have paid rents to the landlords in respect of the property in question; not even a scrap of paper is produced to show that the tenants were cultivating the properties at any point of time muchless as on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior thereto; the khatha stands in the name of the landlords; the entries in the revenue records stand in the name of the landlords and all other revenue records are in favour of the landlords.

Learned senior advocates further submit that there are no lease deeds etc., in favour of the tenants; Even the oral evidence let in by the tenants does not help the tenants inasmuch as it is clearly admitted by certain of the tenants

that the records produced by them do not depict that they are the tenants of the property in question.

Learned Government Pleader produced the records maintained by the Government for perusal of this Court.

5. It is needless to observe that the proceedings in this appeal cannot be equated to the proceedings under

Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC. The present writ appeals are intra

Court appeals. Before proceeding further, it is needless to mention that in a writ petition for certiorari, the superior

Court does not sit in appeal, but it exercises only supervisory jurisdiction and therefore it does not enter into the question of sufficiency of evidence. It is settled legal proposition that the judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merits by re-appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. The only consideration the Court has in its judicial review is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the

finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence.

The adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the Court in writ proceedings (see NIRMALA J. JHALA .vs. STATE OF

GUJARAT AND ANOTHER - (2013)4 SCC 301). An order can be set aside if it is based on extraneous grounds or when there are no grounds at all for passing it or when the grounds are such that no one can reasonably arrive at the conclusion. The Court merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. The Court will not normally exercise its power of judicial review unless it is found that grant of the relief by the statutory authorities suffers from malafides , dishonesty etc.,

Though we are conscious of the aforementioned legal position, in order to satisfy our conscience, we have meticulously gone through and considered entire material on record before passing the order.

6. The records reveal that the notifications were published in the Mysore gazette dated 23.11.1899 and

12.7.1900 by the then Mysore Government headed by

Maharaja of Mysore through the District Collector for acquisition of land to an extent of 816 acres 15 guntas, which were previously parts of four villages viz., Bhogadi,

Hinkal, Paduvarahalli and Kukkanahalli in Mysore district for the purposes of “Mysore palace”. Under the gazette notification dated 29.8.1921, the entire extent of 816 acres

15 guntas of land was treated as a separate block and a new Unit of the “Mysore palace” called “Vijayasripura” was formed. The entire land was acquired for being used and utilized for bungalows, quarters, palace, cow sheds and for other non-agricultural purposes. The said Vijayasripura was not a revenue village and it was not a revenue assessed land inasmuch as it was a non-agricultural land after acquisition in the year 1899-1900. The grand- mother of present landlords viz., late Princess Leelavathi

Devi who died on 11.5.1958 held the entire Vijayasripura land till her death from the year 1900. After her demise, the father of the present landlords viz., Ramachandra Raje

Urs became the owner and after his demise, the present landlords continued to be the owners.

7. Out of the abovesaid land of 816 acres, an extent of 30 acres 20 guntas was acquired by the Mysore State

Government (Mysore City Improvement Trust Board) for formation of Paduvarahalli and Madhavagiri residential

Extensions of Mysore. The payment of compensation for the acquired land was the subject matter of order dated

12.10.1951 in Miscellaneous Case No.89/1948-49 on the file of the District Judge, Mysore. The matter reached this

Court in R.A. No.7/1952-53, which came to be disposed of on 30.6.1959. The grand-mother of the landlords viz.,

Princess Leelavathi Devi was the claimant/respondent in the said appeal and after her death, the grand-father of the

landlords herein viz., Sridhar K. Basavaraje Urs and father of the landlords herein viz., K.B. Ramachandra Raje Urs were brought on record as the legal representatives. The compensation was paid to Shri Sridhar K. Basavaraj Urs and

Shri K.B. Ramachandra Raje Urs holding that they are entitled to compensation since they are the owners of the land in question.

Similarly another extent of 9 acres 29 guntas of

Vijayasripura village alongwith certain buildings and structures built on a portion thereof was acquired by the

Government of Mysore for the purposes of Mysore

University pursuant to the notification issued under Section

4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Karnataka

Gazette dated 1.2.1973. In the matter of payment of compensation, the matter reached the reference Court in

LAC No.201/1977 as well as this Court in MFA

No.273/1981. This Court by the Judgment dated 15.4.1988

allowed MFA No.273/1981 and enhanced the compensation from Rs.24,200/- to Rs.38,720/- per acre. In the said appeal, the father of the landlords herein viz.,

Ramachandra Raje Urs was the claimant/appellant. The compensation was ordered to be paid to the landlord

Ramachandra Raje Urs. Similarly, certain other portions of the very land of Vijayasripura village of Mysore district were acquired by the Government of Karnataka for the purpose of formation of the Housing lay-out, J.S.S. institutions etc.

In all such acquisition notifications dated 21.6.1985 and

29.4.1988, the name of the landlord is shown as khatedar and owner of the property.

8. From the above, it is amply clear that the landlords herein are the owners of Vijayasripura land. The said land was acquired by the then Government of Maharaja of

Mysore way back in the year 1899-1900 for the purpose of

Mysore Palace. Subsequently, there is nothing on record

to show that the said land of Vijayasripura village was treated as an agricultural land and it was cultivated by anybody. The revenue department has not maintained any record to show that the said land is a revenue assessed land. There is nothing on record to show that it is an agricultural land. Thus it is clear that since 1899 itself, the land in question has lost the character of an agricultural land, but the same was owned by the family of Maharaja as non-agricultural land.

At this stage, it is relevant to note certain observations of Division Bench of this Court made as back as on 30.6.1959 in R.A. No.7/1952-53 (mentioned supra) which reads as under:

“…… ….. The land is within the Municipal limits and is one of the attractive sites in the Mysore City. There is no evidence to show that this land was at any time assessed as an agricultural land. On the contrary, Municipal tax

was levied on the same. We agree with the Court below that the acquired land was a building site and not an agricultural land.”

So also the following observations made by another

Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.273/1981

(mentioned supra) disposed of on 15.4.1988 are relevant and the same read thus:

“The L.A.O. has in his award under section 11 of the Act describes the situation of the acquired land thus:

“This property is situated about 2 ½ miles from the City (Mysore) and on the left side of the Mysore-Mangalore Main Road, it is surrounded by the Mysore- University Press, Residential quarters, Regional College of Education, Manasa Gangotri and other industries. It is situated in a highly developed area having good communication facilities.

The L.A.O. in the course of his award refers to the land as one which had good potentiality for building purposes. Admittedly, the land in question while was on one side of the Mysore- Mangalore Main Road, there was ‘Jayalakshmipura Extension’ a lay-out of building sites formed by the Board on the other side of that Road. Further the land in question, it was not disputed, was the only large extent available in the area for formation of layout of building sites at the time of its acquisition, since, by then, large extents of all the surrounding lands had been acquired either for the University or for the Mysore City Improvement Trust Board, besides the same being a land converted for non-agricultural use .

For the above admitted facts relating to the situation of the acquired land, its extent and its converted character as non-agricultural, it becomes obvious that a good layout of building sites could have been formed respectively it and sold as other sites formed in the Board’s layout on the other side of Mysore-Mangalore Main

Road. In this view of the matter, the learned Civil Judge, we think, was fully justified in proceeding to determine the market value of the acquired land on the basis that it was fit to be laid out into building sites and sold.”

(emphasis supplied )

9. From the above, it is also amply clear that land bearing Sy.No.1 of Vijayasripura village is not only owned by the landlords herein but also it is a non-agricultural land and it has lost the character of agricultural land as back as in the year 1899-1900. The schools, residential layouts, buildings including JSS Institution, Mysore University etc, have also come up in the very property. Therefore it is not open for the tenants to contend that the land in question was an agricultural land as on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior thereto. Moreover, the tenants did not dispute that the land in question is not a kharab land. They also contest the order of the Land Tribunal by arguing that the Land

Tribunal is not justified in holding that the land in question

was a kharab land. On the other hand, it is the case of the tenants that the land is an agricultural land and that they are the tenants of the property in question. They also admit that the landlords herein are the real landlords and the land does not belong to the State Government.

10. As mentioned supra, we have meticulously gone through the records produced by the Tribunal. Though 23 tenants are contesting in these appeals, none of the records produced by the tenants would reveal that they are relevant to the land in question. All the tenants have relied upon certain printed rent receipts which are filled up; none of such receipts relate to the land in question. It is not in dispute that the land in question is in Sy.No.1 of

Vijayasripura village. As mentioned supra, by virtue of the gazette notification dated 29.8.1921, the entire extent of

816 acres 15 guntas was treated as a separate block and a new unit of the “Mysore palace” called “Vijayasripura” was

formed. The land in question was never assessed to land revenue after its acquisition in the year 1899-1900. It was treated as a non-agricultural land. The rent receipts produced by the tenants nowhere reveal that the rent receipts are relating to Sy.No.1 of Vijayasripura village of

Mysore district. Even the extent of the land held by each of the tenants is not found in the rent receipts. In some of the receipts, Sy.No.68 is mentioned. Since in none of the rent receipts produced by the tenants, neither Sy.No.1 of

Vijayasripura is mentioned nor the exact extent of the land held by each of the tenants is mentioned, it would be very difficult to accept the contention of the tenants that those rent receipts are pertaining to the land in question.

11. Moreover all the rent receipts produced and relied upon by the tenants, except one or two rent receipts, are up to the year 1961. However two rent receipts are of the year 1965. None of the rent receipts depict any survey

number or extent of the land held by the tenants in the land of Vijayasripura. At the time of arguments, Sri

Shankarnarayana Bhat, learned advocate for the tenants fairly submitted that the rent receipts are upto the year

1961 and that the same do not bear the survey number as

Sy.No.1. As mentioned supra, the tenants have not produced any lease deed or rent note to show that they were the tenants of the property in question at any point of time. Atleast for raising the presumption in favour of the tenancy, the tenants could have produced the entries in revenue records in their favour. Neither khatha/phani extract nor copies of the Record of Rights are produced by the tenants to show that their names appeared at any point of time in the revenue records as cultivators. In none of the revenue records, the names of the tenants appeared even prior to 1961. As mentioned supra, the entire extent of 816 acres 15 guntas was acquired for “Mysore palace” in the year 1899 and from that day onwards, the name of

State finds place in the records. It is needless to observe that as on 1899-1900, Maharaja of Mysore was ruling and

Head of the State and consequently, the name of the

State/Mysore Palace was appearing in the records.

12. Even on re-appreciating the entire material on record, we do not find that the Tribunal or the learned

Single Judge have erred in concluding that the tenants have not proved that they were cultivating the property as tenants as on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior thereto. It is needless to observe that as per the provisions of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 a person gets occupancy rights over the land if he is a tenant of a particular land cultivating the same as on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior thereto. Since there is nothing on record to show that the tenants herein were cultivating the properties as on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior thereto, the

Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have rightly

negatived the contention of the tenants. Moreover as mentioned supra, the land in question has lost the character of the agricultural land way back in the year

1899-1900. Only if the land is an agricultural land and if the person cultivates such agricultural land as on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior thereto, he is entitled for occupancy rights. Since the tenants have failed to produce any relevant records to show that they are the tenants of the agricultural land as on 1.3.1974 or prior thereto, they cannot be granted occupancy rights. At the cost of repetition, we observe that we have perused meticulously even the oral evidence let in by the tenants. There is no dispute that they have deposed before the Tribunal that they were cultivating the property as tenants. But to support the said oral contention of the tenants, there is absolutely any documentary evidence or record. Merely on the oral say of the tenants, the occupancy rights cannot be granted in their favour, particularly when none of the

records produced by them support their contentions. In view of the same, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the appeals fail and the same stand dismissed .

Sd/- JUDGE

Gss/-