Karnataka High Court
Sri Manchegowda vs Sri G Devegowda on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30383
WP No. 13662 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 13662 OF 2017 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANCHEGOWDA
SINCE DECEASED BY LR's
SRI. MANCHEGOWDA
S/O LATE MANCHEGOWDA @ MOOGABASAVEGOWDA
AGED 62 YEARS
R/AT GOVINDANAHALLI
MULUR HOBLI
CHENNAPATNA TALUK-562 160.
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.M. ASHOKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed SRI. G. DEVEGOWDA
by ALBHAGYA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SRI. P. VASANTHAMMA
KARNATAKA
W/O G. DEVEGOWDA
AGED 67 YEARS
2. SRI. YATHISH .D
S/O G. DEVEGOWDA
AGED 48 YEARS
3. SRI. SRINIVAS .D
S/O G. DEVEGOWDA
AGED 45 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30383
WP No. 13662 of 2017
4. SRI. ROOPESH .D
S/O G. DEVEGOWDA
AGED 43 YEARS
5. SMT. SUDHA RANI .D
D/O G. DEVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT NO.88, 8TH CROSS
6TH MAIN, NAGARABHAVI
II STAGE
BENGALURU-560 072.
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
7. LAND TRIBUNAL BY ITS
CHAIRMAN
CHENNAPATNA TALUK
CHENNAPATNA-562 160.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. RAJGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. A.S. HARISHA, AGA FOR R6 AND R7)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE / QUASH
ANNEXURE-A THE ORDER DATED 16.3.2017 PASSED BY R-7 IN
LRF NO.60/75-76.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30383
WP No. 13662 of 2017
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is by the tenant assailing the impugned order dated 16.03.2017 passed by the respondent No.7-Land Tribunal.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioner filed Form No.7 seeking grant of occupancy rights on the premise that the ancestor of respondent Nos.1 to 5 namely G.Devegowda has leased the properties and petitioner was lawfully inducted as a tenant and therefore, claimed that he is entitled to be registered as a occupant of petition lands. Post remand passed by this Court, the respondent No.7-Land Tribunal has taken up the matter for fresh enquiry. After recording the evidence of the parties, the respondent No.7-Land Tribunal has proceeded to reject Form No.7. While rejecting the application, Land Tribunal has recorded a finding that petitioner being a relative of respondents has failed to substantiate that he was a lawful tenant inducted -4- NC: 2024:KHC:30383 WP No. 13662 of 2017 by the respondents' ancestor. Consequently, Form No.7 is rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would point out that the petitioner by examining two independent witnesses has succeeded in substantiating his tenancy rights in the petition land. He would point out that five witnesses are examined and one witness is not cross-examined by the respondent/landlord. Referring to oral evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner, he would contend that petitioner has succeeded in substantiating that he was inducted as a tenant and therefore, petitioner is entitled for grant of occupancy rights.
4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel referring to the original records and also the stand taken in the statement of objections would vehemently argue and contend that the conditions laid down in Section 45 for registration of occupancy rights are not made out in the present case on hand. Referring to Sections 44 and 45, he -5- NC: 2024:KHC:30383 WP No. 13662 of 2017 would vehemently argue and contend that precondition for operation of Section 45 is that the land should vest with the Government and the alleged tenant has to substantiate that he was lawfully inducted and he was cultivating the land in question on the appointed date i.e., 01.03.1974. Referring to revenue records, he would point out that petitioner's name was never found in the cultivators column. Therefore, supporting the order passed by the respondent No.7-Land Tribunal, he would contend that no indulgence is warranted in the present case on hand.
5. Learned HCGP referring to original records would point out that the petitioner's name is not at all reflected in the cultivators column. Referring to revenue record pertaining to Sy.No.10, he would point out that there is insertion of petitioner's name that too not in the cultivators column but above the cultivators column.
6. Referring to these significant details, he would point out that no indulgence is warranted. He would -6- NC: 2024:KHC:30383 WP No. 13662 of 2017 conclude his arguments indicating that petitioner has failed to substantiate that he was lawfully inducted tenant as on 01.03.1974.
7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned AGA. Perused the order under challenge.
8. Petitioner admittedly is the brother of the original landlord (G.Devegowda). Petitioner except bald averments and the evidence of the witnesses, not a single document is produced to substantiate that he was lawfully inducted as a tenant by his brother G.Devegowda during his lifetime.
9. On meticulous examination of the grounds, what can be gathered is that his brother G.Devegowda shifted to Bengaluru and therefore, the petitioner claims that in absence of his brother, he was cultivating the land in question and petition lands were orally leased by his brother G.Devegowda. To substantiate this fact, not a -7- NC: 2024:KHC:30383 WP No. 13662 of 2017 single piece of evidence is produced except the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the petitioner.
10. The laudable object of the amendment in 1974 to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was sought to confer the lands which were tilled by farmers. The object was to divert these lands to the persons who were actually cultivating the lands pursuant to lease created by the original landlords. It is only in those cases where they were lawfully inducted as tenants prior to appointing date, the tenanted lands stood divested and invested in the cultivators/farmers by way of amendment to Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The true conditions laid down in Section 44 for registration of occupancy rights are a person claiming registration must substantiate and prove that he was the tenant of the land in question before the date of vesting. He has to further substantiate that he was personally cultivating the land in question. The precondition for operation of Section 45 is that the land in -8- NC: 2024:KHC:30383 WP No. 13662 of 2017 question stood vested with the Government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
11. This Court in catena of judgments, even in absence of express lease, has relied on the mutation effected in the revenue records which is taken as a basis to consider as to whether tenancy rights were created by the landlord. Often mutation indicating that the applicant was found to be a tenant at the undisputed point of time were examined and considered by this Court in catena of judgments.
12. In the case on hand, the petitioner, in all probability, taking undue advantage of absence of his brother has tried to garb the properties by having recourse to the Land Reforms Act. Merely because his brother shifted to Bengaluru temporarily as he was into business will not in itself constitute a right in favour of petitioner to claim occupancy rights in absence of his brother. Except bald averments made in the petition and oral evidence of -9- NC: 2024:KHC:30383 WP No. 13662 of 2017 witnesses, not a single piece of evidence is produced to substantiate that petitioner was inducted as a tenant.
13. Upon perusal of Form No.7, this Court has noticed that the application which is filed in 1976 indicates that lease was created six years prior to filing of application. This factual matrix is not at all substantiated by the petitioner.
14. This Court has meticulously examined the original records produced by the learned AGA. On meticulous examination of the revenue records, in none of the survey number, the mode of cultivation is shown as 3 which is a prerequisite for consideration of grant of occupancy rights. Unless the mode of cultivation is indicated as 3, no presumption can be attached to indicate that the land in question were tenanted lands. Petitioner's name is also not found in the cultivators column. Based on oral evidence of some witnesses whose credibility is doubtful, the respondent No.7-Land Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application filed in Form No.7.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30383 WP No. 13662 of 2017
15. Upon careful review of the material on record, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to grant any indulgence to the petitioner. The fact that petitioner is the full brother of the original landlord G.Devegowda, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate that brother inducted petitioner as a tenant in the lands in question.
16. Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31