In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

WRIT APPEAL NOS.1129-1132 OF 2012 (LR)

BETWEEN:

K USMAN SHAFI S/O KUNHIMONU @ IDDINA BEARY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF KOOTELU IN UPPINANGADY PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 241

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADV.)

AND :

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REFORMS,

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL PUTTUR TALUK, PUTTUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND TAHSILDAR PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 241.

3. BASTI GOPALAKRISHNA SHANUBHAG S/O RAMAYYA SHANUBHAG AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, BANDARU, MANGALORE – 575 001.

ISHWARA BHAT SINCE DEAD BY LRS:

4. S SHANTHARAMA S/O ISHWARA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

5. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O ISHWARA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

RESPONDENT NOS.4 & 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF SOORAMBAYALU, UPPINANGADY KASABA, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 241.

MULLYA SIDDANNA HEGDE SINCE DEAD BY LRS

6. SMT. KRISHNAMMA

W/O SIDDANNA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 103 YEARS

(SINCE DEAD BY L.RS RESPONDENTS NOS.8 & 9 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD) (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V/O DTD:13/06/2013)

7. SANJEEVA HEGDE S/O LATE SIDDANNA HEGDE,

SINCE DEAD BY L.R.

7(A) SMT.KALAVATHI HEGDE W/O LATE SANJEEVA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

7(B) NAGESH HEGDE S/O LATE SANJEEVA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

7(C) HARISH HEGDE S/O LATE SANJEEVA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

7(D) CHANDRA HEGDE S/O LATE SANJEEVA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

7(E) CHIDANANDA HEGDE S/O LATE SANJEEVA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

7(F) VENKATESH HEGDE S/O LATE SANJEEVA HEGDE,

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MULIYA HOUSE, UPPINANDADY (POST), PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -574 241. (RESPONDENTS NOS.7(A) TO 7(F) ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/04/2014 ON I.A.NO.6/2013)

8. MADHAVA HEGDE S/O SIDDANNA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF MULLYA HOUSE, UPPINANGADY, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 241.

9. SMT. LAKSHMI D/O LATE SIDDANNA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS IIANTHILA, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 214

IBRAYI BEARY SINCE DEAD BY LRS:

10. AYUB S/O LATE IBRAYI BEARY AGED ABOUT 58 YRS R/O KOOTELU, UPPINANGADY KASABA PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 241.

11. SMT. AASIYA W/O ABDUL KHADER, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDENT OF BAJATHURU VILLAGE VOLALU POST BEDRADI QUARTERS PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 201.

12. KHALID S/O LATE IBRAYI BEARY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O KOOTELU, UPPINANGADY KASABA PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 241.

13. RAMAYYA HEGDE S/O SANKAPPA HEGDE,

SINCE DEAD BY L.RS

13(A) SMT.LAKSHMI W/O LATE RAMAYYA HEGE, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

13(B) ANANDA HEGDE S/O LATE RAMAYYA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

13(C) SHIVAPPA HEGDE S/O LATE RAMAYYA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

13(D) JANARDHANA HEGDE

S/O LATE RAMAYYA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

13(E) MOHANA HEGDE S/O LATE RAMAYYA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

13(F) SMT.JANAKI D/O LATE RAMAYYA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

13(G) SMT.BABY D/O LATE RAMAYYA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KUNTALU KATTAE HOUSE, ILANTHILA VILLAGE, ANDEDADKA POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 214.

13(H) VISHWANATHA HEGDE S/O LATE RAMAYYA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.34, ADARSHANAGARA, NEKKILADI VILLAGE (POST), BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 214.

13(I) SHRIDHARA HEGDE S/O LATE RAMAYYA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.34, SHANTHINAGARA, NEKKILADI VILLAGE (POST),

BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 214

(RESPONDENTS NO.13(A) TO 13(I) ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/04/2014 ON I.A.NO.5/2013)

14. ABUBAKKAR S/O KUNHIMONU @ IDDINA BEARY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF KOOTELU IN UPPINANGADY PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 241.

15. K DAWOOD S/O KUNHIMONU @ IDDINA BEARY,

SINCE DEAD BY L.RS.

15(A) SMT.JAINABERE W/O LATE K.DAWOOD AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

15(B) ABDUL NAZEER S/O LATE K.DAWOOD AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

15(C) ABDUL AZEEZ S/O LATE K.DAWOOD AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

15(D) HAFEEZ HAMZA S/O LATE K.DAWOOD

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KOOTELU, UPPINANGADY, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

15(E) MOHAMMAD SHARIFF S/O LATE K.DAWOOD, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NEAR SHALIMAR HALL, MOODABIDRE TOWN (TALUK), DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

15(F) SMT.NASEEMA W/O M.G.HANEEF, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HAZI RESIDENCY, NEAR BADRIYA COLLEGE, BANDAR, MANGALORE TOWN.

15(G) SMT.REHAMATH BEGUM W/O HANEEF, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ZAM ZAM HOUSE, PUDUBETTU, NELYADI VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST.

(RESPONDENTS NOS.15(A) TO 15(G) ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/04/2014 ON I.A.NO.4/2013) .. RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. M. GEETHA, HCGP. FOR R1 & R2; SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADV. FOR R4 & C/R5; SRI K.SRIHARI, ADV. FOR R8, R10 AND BY GPA HOLDER OF R11 AND R12 & R7 (A, B & D-F); SRI K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADV. FOR R13 (B & I); R9 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; M/S. DHARMASHREE ASSOCIATES, ADVS. FOR R14 & ALSO GPA HOLDER OF R3; SRI B.LETHIF, ADV. FOR R15 (A-G); R13 (E,G,H) – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R13 (C, D & F) – SERVED THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION V/O DT:13/06/2013; R8 & R9 ARE LRS OF R6; NOTICE TO R7(C) HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD:04/03/2014)

THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.16503/2004(LR) DATED 07/12/2011.

THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 15/04/2015 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, RATHNAKALA J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

These appeals are by the aggrieved petitioner of

W.P.No.16503/2004 and W.P.Nos.17067-17069/2004, wherein, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.12.2011 disposed of the said writ petitions on certain terms.

2. To align the events in chronological order:

The appellant’s father namely Kunhimonu @ Iddina Beary was a protected tenant under respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of lands located in Upinangadi Village, Puttur Taluk, D.K. District.

He filed form No.7 seeking confirmation of occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal, Puttur Taluk, as follows:

Under respondent No.3 the lands in survey No.42/3 to an extent of 2 acres 50 cents, in survey No.43/5 to an extent of 3 acres 63 cents, in survey No.42/4 to an extent of 10 cents; under respondent No.4 in respect of lands in survey No.41/2 to an extent of 1 acre 58 cents, in survey No.41/1B to an extent of 0.51 cents,

in survey No.42/2 to an extent of 1 acre 90 cents, respectively. His application was numbered as LRYT No.3334/74-75. Respondents

No.5 to 7 also filed similar applications in respect of some of the above lands, the application of respondent No.5 was registered in

LRYT No.917/75-76 and that of respondent No.6 is numbered as

LRYT No.3897/74-75. The Land Tribunal conducted separate enquiry in respect of these applications vide order dated

03.12.1976, Kunhimonu was granted occupancy rights in respect of

4 items of lands only by rejecting his prayer in respect of other lands.

Respondent No.5 was granted occupancy rights in respect of the lands claimed by Kunhimonu, respondent No.6 was granted 36 cents of land in survey No.41/1B, respondent No.7 was conferred occupancy rights in respect of 10 cents in survey No.42/4, vide order dated 4.11.1976. The appellant’s father challenged the order of the Land Tribunal in rejecting his claim in respect of 4 items in writ petition No.12171 of 1977. He died during the pendency of the said writ petition. The appellant and his two brothers /

respondent Nos.8 and 9 were brought on record. The writ petition was allowed by quashing the order passed by the Land Tribunal in respect of the lands in survery Nos.42/3, 43/5, 42/4, 41/1B and

42/2 with a direction to the Land Tribunal to club all the four applications filed by the appellant’s father and respondents No.5, 6 and 7 and to hold common enquiry. On remand, the Land

Tribunal confirmed its earlier order. The order was challenged in

W.P.No.29969/1994. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 23.01.2002, the order of the Land Tribunal was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal after issuing notice to the concerned parties and to give opportunity to lead evidence.

The Land Tribunal, on 29.03.2003 passed the order holding that the land in survey No.42/2 measuring 1 acre 90 cents is uncultivated for last 40 to 50 years and rejected the claim. The appellant filed writ petition Nos.16503/2004 and 17067 -

17069/2004. After giving audience to both the parties, learned

Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions on following terms:-

i) “The petitioner is entitled for occupancy rights to an extent of 5 acres 33 cents.

ii) Respondent No.5 is entitled for occupancy rights to an extent of 2 acres 60 cents.

iii) Respondent No.6 is entitled for occupancy rights to an extent of 36 cents.

iv) Respondent No.7 is entitled for occupancy rights to an extent of 10 cents.

v) Insofar as Sy.No.42/2 is concerned, the claim stand rejected.

vi) In Sy.No.42/3, an extent of 2 acres 21 guntas is granted, notwithstanding the fact that the claim is 5 acres 56 cents.

vii) The Land Tribunal shall carve out the extent of land which has been granted to the petitioner, respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7.”

3. Sri A.V.Gangadharappa, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge without authority exercised the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal under Section 48A of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the

Act’) and had partly allowed the petitions and rejected the claim, so far they relate to portions of the lands claimed by the appellant’s father. Without holding proper enquiry and without affording any

opportunity to the appellant to adduce his evidence, the Land

Tribunal has passed the order impugned which was before the learned Single Judge. The father of the appellant and subsequent to him, the appellant all through are agitating for registration of the occupancy rights in respect of all the six items of lands. Though in the order of Land Tribunal, there is reference to the spot inspection, no notice of the spot inspection was served on him, when he applied for a certified copy of the spot inspection, the same was not furnished to him; if at all such spot mahazaar had been conducted, definitely, the Land Tribunal would have furnished the certified copy to him. Hence, the finding of the Land

Tribunal that the land in survery No.42/2 is not cultivable land and there is a wild growth of forest trees on the land is perverse and incorrect. The Tribunal has proceeded on a wrong approach, that the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal is not set aside by this

Court. In the absence of the appellant, statements of two of the respondents was recorded without opportunity to him to cross- examine them. Though the counsel for the appellant prayed time

on his behalf, by bringing to the notice of the Tribunal that the appellant was indisposed, the Tribunal overlooked his submission.

The learned Single Judge has drawn adverse presumption against him acting upon the erroneous and arbitrary finding of the

Tribunal. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge and so also the Land Tribunal may be set aside, matter may be remanded to the

Tribunal by affording opportunity by him to participate in the enquiry.

4. Sri K.Srihari, learned Counsel representing respondent

Nos.7 (a, b, d, e & f), 8, 10, 11 and 12, legal heirs of rival tenants, deceased tenants / Muliya Siddanna Hegde and Ibrayi Beary would support the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.

5. The submission of Sri K.Chandranath Ariga, learned

Counsel for respondent No.13 (b & c), legal heirs of Ramaiah

Hegde is to the effect that in respect of the land in survey No.42/2 measuring 10 guntas, Ramayya Hegde was a sub-tenant under

Siddanna Hegde / the chalageni tenant: He filed form No.7 by

mentioning the names of both landlord Basti Gopalakrishna and

Siddanna Hegde. The Land Tribunal in its order dated 04.11.1976 has given a finding that it was a nonagricultural land and the said order was never challenged. The appellant herein was not a party in the case LRYT No.3804/74-75. The owner had given consent before the Tribunal for confirmation of the occupancy rights in his favour. Accordingly, the said land is granted in his favour by the

Land Tribunal in LRYT No.3804/74-75 dated 04.11.1976 has become final. Even the learned Single Judge earmarked the controversy that the nature of the land in survey No.42/2 is to be ascertained, in his judgment at para No.22. At this length of time, the order of the Tribunal in respect of the land in survey No.42/2 may not be disturbed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed as against legal heirs of deceased Ramaiah Hegde..

6. Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned Counsel arguing for respondent

Nos.4 and 5, the sons of late Eshwar Bhat / the original owner of the lands bearing survey Nos.41/2, 41/1B and 42/2, submits that survey No.42/2 was a dry land and was not under cultivation.

However, after remand in accordance with the directions by this

Court in W.P.No.29969/1994 (KLRA), the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.03.2003 fixed the spot mahazaar in the presence of the appellant only. Though opportunity was given to him to cross- examine the respondents, willfully he remained absent and did not file written argument. Since the case had to be disposed of within the time frame fixed by the Court in W.P.No.1985, the Land

Tribunal was constrained to dispose of the case without heeding to the prayer of appellant’s advocate for adjournment. In view of specific direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.29969/1994, the

Land Tribunal on conducting spot mahazaar passed an order exclusively in respect of survey No.42/2 of Uppinangadi village by holding the same as non-agricultural land. At no point of time, this land was tenanted and the learned Single Judge rightly on the available material on record has excluded this land from the lis and said finding does not call for interference.

. 7. In the light of the rival submission made at the Bar and also on perusal of the impugned order, it eminates that original

tenant Kunhimonu @ Iddina Beary, made application for

registration of the occupancy right as the protected tenant under

respondent No.3 / Basti Gopala Krishna and father of respondent

Nos.4 and 5 namely late Ishwara Bhat. At the same time,

respondent Nos.5 to 7 also filed applications in respect of some of

the lands in survey numbers claimed by Kunhimonu. The

applications of all the four of them were dealt separately and

separate orders were passed as per the table below:

cases Orders of the Land Tribunal

Ibrayi Kunhimonu Muliya Beary Ramayya @ Idina Beary Siddanna LRYT Hegde Ramayya Name of the LRYT Hegde LRYT 3897/74- LRYT Kunhimonu M.Siddanna Ibrayi Beary Hegde owners Sy. No. 3334/75-76 917/75-76 75 3804/74-75 3/12/76 Hegde 4/11/76 3/12/76 4/11/76 42/3p 2-21 Basthi 43/3 .2-50 .5-56 43/5p 1-20 43/5p 0-87 Gopalakrishna 43/5 .3-63 .0-60 .1-40 43/591 1-56 .0-10 Shanubhag 42/4 .0-10 .0-10 41/2 .1-58 42/1 1-58 41/1B 0-51 .0-50 41/1Bp 0-36 41/1B 0-36 Eshwara Bhatt 42/2 .1-90 Total .10-22 .6-16 .1-90 .0-10 .4-70 .3-08 .0-36 .0-10

8. Appellant’s father challenged in his W.P.No.12171/1977

in respect of the lands rejected for him and granted to respondent

No.5 / Siddanna Hegde and respondent No.6 / Ebrahim Beary.

This Court vide order dated 10.11.1983, quashed the order of the

Tribunal insofar it relates to the land in dispute between the tenants and remanded the matter. The Tribunal on 26.11.1985 confirmed its earlier order. The Tribunal had granted 10 cents of land in survey No.44/4 in favour of respondent No.7 / Ramaiah Hegde in

LRYT No.3804/74-75. By then, the original tenant was no more and the present appellant challenged the said order also by amending his writ petition No.18724/1985. The writ petition was transferred to Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the matter was set down for recording the evidence. At that stage, Land

Reforms Appellate Authority came to be abolished and the matter was brought before this Court. The writ petition was numbered as

W.P.No.29969/1994. The W.P.No.29969/1994 came to be allowed vide order dated 23.01.2002 and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal vide order dated 29.03.2003. The Tribunal held that the land in survey No.42/2 measuring 1 acre 90 cents is a non-cultivated land with wild trees of 50 to 60 years age.

9. On 17.05.2003, the Tribunal passed a common order in respect of lands in LRYT Nos.3334/74-75, 917/1975-76 and

3897/1974-75 and confirmed the earlier order passed by the

Tribunal on 04.11.1976. The petitioner filed writ petition

Nos.16503/2004 and 17067 – 17069/2004 on the ground that after the remand, no spot mahazaar was held and he had no opportunity to cross-examine the rival tenants / respondents. Thereby, in these writ petitions, he has challenged the order passed by the Land

Tribunal on 17.05.2003 in LRYT Nos.3334/74-75, 917/1975-76 and 3897/1974-75 whereby, occupancy rights is confirmed in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7 in respect of lands in survey

Nos.43/1 to an extent of 1 acre 07 cents, 43/3 to an extent of 1 acre 75 cents, 43/2 to an extent of 2 acre 03 cents, 32/2A1 to an extent of 2 acre 72 cents, 32/2B to an extent of 18 cents, 32/2A 2 to an extent of 37 cents, 32/2c to an extent of 20 cents, 43/5 (p) to an extent of 87 cents and 42/3 (p) to an extent of 2 acres 21 cents and also seeking to quash the order of the Land Tribunal dated

04.11.1976 in LRYT No.3897/74-75. The learned Single Judge was

of the view that, now the controversy is only on survey No.42/2 and the matter could have been remitted to ascertain the nature of the land keeping the writ petition proceedings pending. Because of the reluctance on the part of the petitioner, he took over on himself onus of determining the entitlement of each of the tenant to the disputed land and has disposed of the writ petition by determining the entitlement of petitioner and the respondents No.5 to 7. On the basis of the observation made by the Land Tribunal that the land in survey No.42/2 is not an agricultural land, the claim in respect of the said land is rejected.

10. In the backdrop of the above, a short question that arises for our consideration is:-

‘Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in deciding the entitlement of occupancy rights of each of the tenant?’

11. No doubt having noticed that it was a long drawn litigation, several times having taken sojourn between the Land

Tribunal and this Court and having in mind to do justice and equity between the parties and to put an end to the protracted litigation,

the learned Single Judge might have disposed of the writ petition in the terms supra.

12. The Apex Court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of

Gujarat and another reported in AIR 2013 SC 1513, at para 6 III, held as under:

“III. Scope of Judicial Review :

(i) It is settled legal proposition that judicial review is not taken to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal 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. (Vide: State of T.N. & Anr v. S. Subramaniam, AIR 1996 SC 1232; R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab, (1999) 8 SCC 90; (AIR 1999 SC 3579); and Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, AIR 2006 SC 1214)

(ii) ……………………”

13. Coming back to the matrix on hand, the learned Single

Judge in W.P. No.29969/1994 (D..D.23.01.2002) while remanding the case, ordered at para no.7, which read thus:

“7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The impugned order dated 9.12.1985 passed by the Land Tribunal, Puttur, D.K.District in case No.LRYT.3334/74-75, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Land Tribunal, Puttur, to consider the case afresh on merits after issuing notices to all the parties concerned and after giving due opportunity to them. It is made clear that, insofar as the land bearing Sy.No.42/2 of Uppinangadi village, Puttur Taluk, the Land Tribunal, Puttur has to first decide whether the land is an agricultural land or not and only if it is found that it is an agricultural land then only it gets jurisdiction to decide the tenancy issue and not otherwise.”

14. It is needless to remind that ‘Enquiry’ by the Tribunal is in accordance with Section 48-A of the Act, 1961 and Rule 17 of

Karnataka Land Reform Rules, 1974 r/w. Section 34 of Karnataka

Land Revenue Act, 1964. It is obvious that spot inspection in respect of survey No.42/2 of Uppinangadi village was without notice to the appellant and his statement is not recorded.

Statements of two of rival claimants are recorded but it is without cross-examination. When the matter was before Land Reforms

Appellate Authority, appellant had filed applications seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. His applications were allowed and the evidence was yet to be recorded and at that stage, the Appellate Authority was abolished, permitting the parties to file application under Section 17 of the Act, 1961. Accordingly, the application filed by the appellant herein was allowed and the same was converted to writ petition and the lis was again before this

Court. That being so, the Tribunal could not have overlooked the procedural aspect and so also the direction issued by the Court. It is needless to say that the Tribunal skipped the statutory provision so also the directions issued by this Court and the procedure adopted was vitiated.

15. Hence we are of the considered opinion that learned

Single Judge fell into error by acting on fragile and insufficient oral evidence and documentary evidence of improperly held enquiry contrary to the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and

Rules r/w. Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

16. At the same time, it is also to be noted that in

W.P.12171/1977, the learned Single Judge had set aside the orders passed by Land Tribunal pertaining to land in survey Nos.42/3P measuring 2 acres 31 cents, 43/5P measuring 87 cents, 41/1BP measuring 35 cents, with a direction to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the claim of the petitioner for the lands in survey

Nos.42/2 measuring 1 acre 90 cents and 42/4 measuring 10 cents.

In view of the discussions supra, the Tribunal is also required to comply the direction issued by learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.12171/1977 also.

17. That apart, in the W.P.Nos.16503/2004 & 17067-

17069/2014, the petitioner had challenged the orders of the Land

Tribunal whereby, occupancy right was conferred in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7, as discussed supra. In the light of the discussion supra, said orders of the Land Tribunal whereby the tribunal held separate enquiry and conferred occupancy rights in favour of the rival tenants needs to be set aside for such consideration along with the application filed by the father of the

appellant herein. That apart, pursuant of the disposal of the writ petition, the Tribunal has passed order on 03.01.2013 / Annexure

‘T’, conferring registration of the occupancy right to the petitioner, respondent 5 to 7. Consequent to the setting aside of the order of the learned Single Judge, the subsequent common order passed by the Tribunal on 03.1.2013 in case Nos.LRYT/3897/74-75,

LRYT/3334/74-75 and LRYT/3804/74-75, is nullity in the eye of law and the same has to be set aside.

18. For the present, we are not expressing our opinion on the merits of the case since the very enquiry held by the Tribunal is vitiated and the matter requires to undergo proper enquiry before determining the entitlement of the appellant by strictly adhering to the procedure contemplated under Section 48-A of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules and Section 34 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and also as per the direction issued in W.P.No.29969/1994.

19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

20. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.16503/2004 and W.P.Nos.17067-17069/2004 dated

07.12.2011 and the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, Puttur,

Dakshina Kannada District, in:

a. Case No.LRYT.3334/74-75 dated 29.3.2003,

b. Case Nos.LRYT.3334/74-75, 917/75-76 and 3897/74-75

dated 17.05.2003, insofar as it relates to conferring

occupancy right on respondent Nos.5 to 7 in respect of

lands in survey No.42/3 measuring 2 acres 50 cents, 43/5

measuring 0.87 cents, 42/4 measuring 0.10 cents, 41/1B

measuring 0.15 cents and survey No.42/2 measuring 1

acre 90 cents of Uppinangady Village, Puttur Taluk.

c. Case No.LRYT.3804/74-75 dated 04.11.1976 (insofar as it

relates to survey No.42/4 measuring 0.10 cents of

Uppinangadi Village, Puttur Taluk),

d. Case Nos.LRYT.3897/74-75, 3334/74-75 and 3804/74-

75 and 917/75-76 dated 03.01.2013,

are hereby quashed.

21. The matter is remitted back to the Land Tribunal, Puttur, for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with the direction issued in W.P.No.29969/1994 dated 23.1.2002 and also

W.P.No.12171/1977 (disposed of on 10.11.1983), in strict adherence to the procedure contemplated by Section 48-A of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Rules, 1974 as expeditiously as possible.

22. The parties are directed to co-operate with the Tribunal for speedy disposal of the case. However, the case shall be disposed of within an outer limit of eight months from the date of appearance of the parties/service of notice on them.

23. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2nd

June, 2015, and be informed about the further date of hearing.

All the contentions are left open.

In view of disposal of the main appeals on merits,

I.A.Nos.1/2012 & 2/2013 does not survive for consideration and hence, they are also disposed of as having become infructuous.

Sd/- JUDGE

nvj