Smt Parimala vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2737 Kant

                                                LRRP 02.2008
                            -1-




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 18 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                L.R.R.P.No.02/2008 (LR)

BET WEEN

1 .    SMT. PARIMALA
       D/ O MADHARAO KU LKARNI
       AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOU SEHOLD,
       R/O: HONN IHAL, POST: BAGALKOT.

2 .    SMT. PREMA
       D/ O MADHARAO KU LKARNI
       AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOU SEHOLD,
       R/O: HONN IHAL, POST: BAGALKOT.

3 .    SMT. SAVITRI
       D/ O MADHARAO KU LKARNI,
       AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOU SEHOLD,
       R/O: HONN IHAL, POST: BAGALKOT.

4 .    SMT. KASTU RI
       D/ O MADHARAO KU LKARNI,
       AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O: HONN IHAL, POST: BAGALKOT.
                                           ...PET ITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.A.SANDUR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 .    THE ST AT E OF KARNATAKA
       B Y ITS SECRET ARIAT FOR T HE DEPT OF REVENU E
       AMB EDKAR VEEDHI,
       B ANGALORE-56 0001.             .. DELETED

2 .    LAND REFORMS APPELLAT E AU THORITY.
       B AGALKOT.                   .. DELETED
                                                       LRRP 02.2008
                              -2-




3 .   LAND TRIB U NAL, BILAG I,
      B AGALKOT DIST.

4 .   RANGAP PA BHIMAPPA YANKANCHI,
      R/O GIRISA GAR, T Q: B ILAG I
      SINCE DECEASED REP. B Y HIS LRS:

4(a) GANGAWWA,
     W/O. RANGAPPA Y AKANCHI,
     AGE: AB OU T 60 Y EARS,
     OCC: HOU SEHOLD,
     R/O: GIRISAGAR, TQ: B ILAG I,

4(b) HANMAPPA,
     S/O RANAGAPPA YAKANCHI,
     AGE: AB OU T 48 Y EARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
     R/O: GIRISAGAR, TQ: B ILAG I,

4(c) YANKAPPA,
     S/O RANGAP PA Y ANKANCHI,
     AGE: AB OU T 46 Y EARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
     R/O: GIRISAGAR, TQ: B ILAG I,
     DIST: BAGALKOT.                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PRASHANT MOGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. PRAKASH N.HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (a-c);
R1 AND R2 DELET ED V/ O DTD 15/0 2/2012)


      THIS L.R.R.P.   IS   FILED   U NDER   SECTION   121-A    OF
KARNAT AKA LAND REFORMS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER PASS ED ON 29.08.1 989 IN LRA.No19/ 1988, ON
THE FILE OF THE LAND REF ORMS APP ELLANTE AU THORITY
BAGALKOT, ALLOWING THE APPEA L BY SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD: 18.02.1988 IN KLR/SR -1154 PASSED B Y THE
LAND T RIB UNAL, BILA GI.


      THIS   R EV IS ION    PET IT ION      CO MING   ON      FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COU RT MADE T HE FOLLOWING:
                                                               LRRP 02.2008
                                  -3-




                               O R D E R

This revision p etition is filed by the landlords

challenging the ord er dated 29.08.1989 passed by the

Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bag alkot, in

L.R.A.No.19/1988, setting aside the ord er dated

18.02.1988 passed by the Land Tribunal/respondent

herein and granting occup ancy rights of the land

bearing Sy.No.114/2 measuring 12 acres 14 guntas in

favour of respondent No.4 herein.

2. Though this revision petition is listed for

admission, with the consent of the learned counsels

appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final

disposal.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and the learned counsel for the contesting

respondents.

4. The fourth respondent herein had filed

Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights of the land

bearing Sy.No.114/2 measuring 12 acres 14 guntas

of Honnihal village, Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District LRRP 02.2008

(hereinafter referred to as "the land in question")

and considering the said Form No.7, the respondent -

Land Tribunal had initially granted occupancy rights

of the land in question in favour of the original

claimants. The said order was questioned by the

landlord before this court in W.P.No.6291/1980 and

this court vide order dated 11.12.1984 had set aside

the order passed by the Land Tribunal and remitted

the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of

Form No.7. The Tribunal thereafterwards has once

again considered the Form No.7 filed by the claimant

and vide its order dated 18.02.1988 had rejected the

Form No.7 and as against the said order, the

claimant had filed an appeal under Section 118 of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 before the

Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authority which

was numbered as L.R.A.No.19/1988. The Appellate

Authority thereaferwards heard the appeal and vide

the order impugned herein set aside the order passed

by the Land Tribunal dated 18.02.1988 and granted

occupancy rights of the land in question in favour of LRRP 02.2008

the claimant. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners/landlords have filed the present revision

petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the land in question is a 'Watan' land and under

the provisions of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni

Watans (Abolition) Act (60 of 1950), the land was re-

granted in favour of the Watandar i.e., the

petitioners herein and therefore, the contention of

respondent/tenant that he was in occupation and

cultivation of the land in question prima facie

appears to be not correct. He submits that the re-

grant is made under the aforesaid Act to a person,

who is lawfully in possession of watan land, whether

such possession is actual or not. He also submits

that except the revenue records, there are no other

documents to show that the land in question was

leased to the respondent/tenant and it is the case of

the respondent/tenant that the lands were taken on

lease much prior to the order of re-grant. Therefore, LRRP 02.2008

when there is material on record to show that there

is a re-grant made in favour of the Watandar, it

cannot be believed that the respondent/tenant was in

possession and cultivation of the land in question as

on 01.03.1974. He has relied upon the judgment of

this court in the case of Gundu -vs- Assistant

Commissioner 1 in support of his contention that

there is no material to show that there was a

sanction from the competent authority for the

purpose of leasing the land and therefore, when the

land in question has been subsequently re-granted to

the Watandar, it has to be considered that he was in

possession of the land in question as on the date of

re-grant.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent/tenant submits that the grounds now

sought to be raised were not at all raised by the

petitioners earlier either before the Land Trib unal or

before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. It is for

the first time the argument is addressed to the effect

ILR 1992 KAR 324 LRRP 02.2008

that the land in question was granted to the petitioners

und er the p rovisions of Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni

Watans (Abolition) Act . He sub mits that there is an

admission by the petitioners/landlord s to the effect

that the respondent/tenant is in cultivation and

occup ation of the land in question. Therefore, the

Appellate Authority having regard to the oral and

documentary evidence availab le on record has rightly

granted the land in question in favour of the

respondent-tenant. He sub mits that against a finding of

fact recorded by the appellate tribunal, the scope of

interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional

powers und er Section 121-A of Land Reforms Act is

very limited and therefore p rays to dismiss the

petition.

7. I have carefully considered the arguments

add ressed on both sid es and also perused the material

on record.

8. It is not in disp ute that the land in question

is an ag ricultural land . Before the Tribunal, the 1 s t

petitioner herein has been examined and in her LRRP 02.2008

deposition, she had clearly ad mitted that the land in

question has been leased to the respondent/tenant by

the petitioner and he is occup ation and cultivation of

the said land. She also d eposed to the effect that the

said lands have been allotted to the share of the

petitioners and she mad e a request before the Tribunal

that at least a portion of the land may be given to

them. From this deposition, it is very clear that the

petitioners/landlords have ad mitted that the land in

question has been leased by them to the respondent-

tenant and the respondent-tenant has been in

occup ation and cultivation of the same. In add ition to

the same, the respondent-tenant has prod uced the

revenue records of the land in question which would

clearly go to show that the entries in Column No.12 of

the RTC extracts stood in the name of respondent-

tenant. A perusal of the revenue records available on

record would go to show that even as on 01.03.1974

and thereafter the said records have continued in the

name of the respondent-tenant and the p etitioners-

landlords have not questioned the same. Therefore, LRRP 02.2008

having reg ard to the oral and documentary evidence

available on record , it is very clear that the

respondent-tenant was in occup ation and cultivation of

the land in q uestion as on 01.03.1974 and immed iately

prior to the same. The Land Reforms Appellate

Authority having reg ard to the material availab le on

record has recorded a finding that the respondent-

tenant is in occup ation and cultivation of the land in

question and accord ingly granted occup ancy rights of

the land in question in his favour after setting aside

the erroneous order p assed by the Land Tribunal.

9. In my considered view, the said app roach of

the Land Reforms Appellate Authority cannot be

consid ered either as illegal or perverse. Though the

learned counsel for the petitioners-land lords has

sought to contend that the land in question is a Watan

land and there is an ord er of re-grant made in favour

of the Watand ar etc., as rightly contend ed by the

learned counsel for the revision petitioners, such a

contention is raised for the first time b efore this Court

at the stage of hearing this revision petition. Further as LRRP 02.2008

- 10 -

rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

respondent-tenant, even in the memorandum of

revision petition, no such grounds are urg ed. Since

there is an admission by the petitioners-landlord s to

the effect that the respondent-tenant has been in

cultivation and occup ation of the land in question as

their tenant, the contention now sought to be raised on

behalf of the petitioners loses relevance for the simple

reason that the Land Tribunal while considering the

claim in Form No.7 under Section 48-A of the said Act,

is only required to be give a finding as to who is in

actual possession and cultivation of the land as on

01.03.1974.

10. In the case on hand, there is an admission

by the land lord to the said effect and in addition to the

same, the revenue record s of the land in question

prima facie show that the respondent-tenant has been

in occup ation and cultivation of the land in question,

therefore I am of the consid ered view that there is no

scope for interference with the ord er impug ned by this

Court in exercise of its revisional power und er Section LRRP 02.2008

- 11 -

121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Accordingly, I find no merit in the revision petition.

The revision petition is, therefore, d ismissed .

Sd/-

JUDGE K NM /CL K