The Lakshmi Narasimha Devaru vs D Poovappa Poojary
2022 Latest Caselaw 11114 Kant

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JULY, 2022

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

       WRIT PETITION No.15220 OF 2012 (LR)

BETWEEN:

       THE LAKSHMI NARASIMHA DEVARU
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE
       MANAGING TRUSTEE
       SRI.VENKATARAMANA ACHARYA
       S/O LATE M.ANAND ACHARYA
       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
       SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA MUTT,
       GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD,
       MANGALORE-575 001
                                   ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANANDARAMA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   D.POOVAPPA POOJARY
     SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S

2.   SMT. KUSUMA
     ADULT,
     W/O LATE D. POOVAPPA POOJARY,
     SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

2 (a) SMT. GEETHA,
      D/O LATE D. POOVAPPA POOJARY,
      MAJOR,

2 (b) SRI . AMARNATH
                           2




     S/O LATE D. POOVAPPA POOJARY,
     MAJOR,

2 (c) SMT. SAVITHA
      D/O LATE D. POOVAPPA POOJARY,
      MAJOR

2 (d) SMT. MAMATHA
      D/O LATE D. POOVAPPA POOJARY,
      MAJOR,
      RESPONDENTS NO. 2 (a) TO 2(d)
      ARE R/AT KOTHATTU HOUSE,
      JEPPINAMOGARU,
      MANGALORE - 575 007.

3.   SMT. JANAMMA
     ADULT,
     D/O LATE MONAPPA POOJARY,
     SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

3(a) SRI NARENDRA,
     S/O JANAMMA,
     MAJOR

3(b) SRI SANATH ALIAS SANJEEVA
     S/O JANAMMA,
     MAJOR

3(c) SMT. INDIRA
     D/O JANAMMA,
     MAJOR

3(d) SMT. VEENA
     D/O JANAMMA,
     MAJOR

     RESPONDENTS 3(a) to 3(d) ARE
     R/AT "TACHILA HOUSE",
     DASARAKODI, KONAJE,
     MANGALORE TALUK,
                            3




     MANGALORE.

4.   SMT. DEVAKI
     ADULT
     D/O MONAPPA POOJARY

5.   SMT. SAVITHRI
     ADULT
     D/O MONAPPA POOJARY

6.   SRI SEENA
     ADULT
     S/O MONAPPA POOJARY
     SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

6(a) SMT.USHA
     W/O.LATE SEENA
     ADULT

6(b) MR.PRASHANTHA SUVARNA
     S/O. LATE SEENA
     ADULT

6(c) MR.PRADEEP SUVARNA
     S/O.LATE SEENA
     ADULT

6(d) MR.PRATAP SUVARNA
     S/O LATE SEENA
     ADULT

     6(a) TO 6(d) ARE R/AT
     DOOR NO.1-172/1,
     GORIGUDDA, KANKANADY
     YEKKUR
     MANGALURU-575 007

7.   THE MANGALORE LAND
     REFORMS TRIBUNAL
     MANGALORE TALUK
                           4




     MANGALORE
     REREPRESENTED BY
     ITS CHAIRMAN

8.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REVENUE DEPARTMENT
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BANGALORE-575 001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

9.   THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     MANGALORE, D.K.

                               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI P.UDAY SHANKAR RAI, ADV. FOR R2 [A TO D]
    SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADV.
           FOR R3 [A TO D] & R4 TO R6
    SRI.D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R7 TO R9
    R2 TO R6 ARE LR'S OF DECEASED R1
    R6 (A) TO R6 (D) ARE SERVED)

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF MANGALORE LAND REFORMS
TRIBUNAL, MANGALORE TALUK AND QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 08.07.2005 PASSED BY THE MANGALORE LAND
REFORMS TRIBUNAL, MANGALORE TALUK IN L.R.T NO.505
80-81 (ANNEXURE-C) GRANTING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS TO
THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF POOVAPPA POOJARY TO
AN EXTENT OF 0.25 ACRES AND 0.46 ACRES IN SY.NO.12/4A
AND SY.NO.97/1A1A2B RESPECTIVELY OF JEPPINAMOGARU
VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR   ORDERS    ON   10.06.2022, COMING   ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                             5




                         ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the Lakshmi Narasimha

Devaru represented by its sole Managing Trustee Sri.

Venkataramana Acharya son of Late M.Anand Acharya

("Landlord" for short) challenging the conferment of

occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.12/4A,

measuring 24 cents and Sy.No.97/1A1A2B, measuring

46 cents in favour of the tenants.

2. The Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights on

08.07.2005. However, this writ petition is filed on

08.05.2012 i.e., after a period of seven years.

3. In the writ petition, it is stated that even though a

date had been given for pronouncement of order, on that

day, the order was not ready and the subsequent date

was not communicated to the petitioner, as provided

under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,

1961.

4. It is also stated that the petitioner's father--

M.Anand Acharya passed away on 05.09.2005 and the

petitioner was required to attend various matters and

also to make some family arrangements and hence,

could not attend the pending legal matters. It is stated

that the Land Tribunal though is statutorily obligated to

communicate a copy of the order, did not communicate

the order to the petitioner and after considerable length

of time, the petitioner enquired with the Land Tribunal

and was informed that the matter was pending. It is also

stated that after repeated requests, the Land Tribunal

informed the petitioner that the matter was disposed off

on 08.07.2005 and immediately, he applied for the

certified copy of the order and other documents in the

first week of April 2012 and received it on 07.04.2012

and thereafter, he filed the present writ petition.

5. The original records which are furnished by the

learned Additional Government Advocate indicate that

the case was posted on 07.05.2005, on which date, the

advocate for the applicant filed his written arguments.

The order-sheet records that the respondent was present

and the matter was adjourned to 28.05.2005, for

arguments of the respondent. On 28.05.2005, the

order-sheet records that the arguments were advanced

by the respondent's counsel and the matter was posted

for pronouncement of orders on 18.06.2005. On

18.06.2005, the order-sheet indicates that none were

present and the matter was adjourned for passing of

orders to 08.07.2005 and on that day, the order was

pronounced.

6. In the light of the fact that the order-sheet

indicates that the arguments of the respondent-landlord

were advanced and a date was fixed for pronouncement

of order to 18.06.2005 and thereafter, was adjourned to

08.07.2005, the averments made in the petition that no

date was fixed for pronouncement of the order and the

petitioner was thus unaware of the date on which the

order was pronounced cannot be accepted.

7. This fact also belies of the contention raised in the

writ petition to the effect that a subsequent date for

pronouncement was not communicated. As it is admitted

that a date had been given for pronouncement of order

and on that day the order was not pronounced, then, it

was incumbent upon the petitioner to approach the Land

Tribunal and verify the subsequent date given for

pronouncement of the order. As stated above, since the

order was not ready on 18.06.2005, the Land Tribunal

adjourned the matter 08.07.2005 and thus a fresh date

had been fixed for the pronouncement of the order. In

the light of this clear recording of the subsequent date in

the order-sheet, the argument of the petitioner in this

regard cannot be accepted.

8. The other ground given in the writ petition that due

to the sudden death of the petitioner's father, the

petitioner had to make certain family arrangements and

to attend various matters of the family and hence, could

not attend to the pending legal matters, cannot also be

accepted.

9. It has to be stated here that the petitioner, in fact,

represented his father before the Land Tribunal on the

basis of a General Power of Attorney executed in his

favour on 10.12.2003. The said Power of Attorney,

which is available in the original records of the Land

Tribunal, indicates that the father of the petitioner was

executing the Power of Attorney as he was aged about

76 years and due to his old-age, he was finding it

extremely difficult to attend the lawyer's office and other

offices. This averment clearly indicates that it was the

petitioner who was taking care of the proceedings before

the Land Tribunal.

10. In fact, it is the petitioner who had filed an affidavit

on 17.09.2004 opposing the claim of the tenant and it

was the petitioner, who was cross-examined on

15.01.2005. In the light of these facts, the averment

that due to the death of the petitioner's father, the

petitioner could not attend the pending legal matters,

cannot be accepted.

11. It may also be pertinent to state here that in the

writ petition, an averment is made that a portion of the

land bearing Sy.No.97/1A1A2B was being acquired by

the National Highways Authority and in the ground raised

for seeking of an interim prayer, it is alleged that the

tenants were trying to take possession though they were

not entitled to do so. It, therefore, follows that it is only

when a portion of the land bearing Sy.No.97/1A1A2B

was sought to be acquired, the writ petition is filed only

to deny the tenants from collecting the compensation.

12. It is also to be stated here that in the writ petition

at paragraph No.25, it is stated that a portion of the land

bearing Sy.No.97/1A1A2B was being acquired by the

National Highway Authorities and this averment indicates

the reasons for which the petition was filed in the year

2012, which is obviously one for claiming compensation.

It is also pertinent to state here that admittedly, certain

portions of land had already been acquired by the

Railways.

13. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner who claims

to be a Family Trust was aware of the legal procedures

and the manner in which legal proceedings take place.

14. I am therefore of the view that in this writ petition,

no cause, much less, sufficient cause is made out for

condoning the huge delay of seven years in filing this

writ petition.

15. However, having regard to the length of this

litigation and in order to ensure a finality to the matter,

the merits of the claim are also being considered.

16. The Land Tribunal has recorded a finding that the

name of the tenant was found in the RTC for the year

1968-69 itself and tenant had also produced rent

receipts and these documents indicated that he was a

tenant of the agricultural lands, which were the subject

matter of his Form No.7.

17. The Land Tribunal has also noticed that the land

bearing Sy.No.12/4A measuring 24 cents was a

Bhagayat land as per the revenue records and in the said

land there were twenty coconut trees and twenty areca

nut trees and this fact was also admitted by the

Landlord. The Land Tribunal has, therefore, concluded

that Sy.No.12/4A was an agricultural land. This

reasoning of the Land Tribunal being rational and proper

deserves to be affirmed.

18. In respect of Sy.No.97/1A1A2B measuring 91

cents, the Land Tribunal has noticed that as per the

revenue records, the said land was a Khushki (dry) land

and the Land Tribunal has also recorded a finding that

both the lands were agricultural lands and till the year

1959, the rent was being paid as per the Rent

Agreement and therefore, the lands in question were

required to be considered as tenanted lands.

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however,

sought to contend that there is absolutely no material to

indicate that the land bearing Sy.No.97/1A1A2B was an

agricultural land. He stated that as a matter of fact, the

said land was a Punja land and there was no evidence to

establish that the said lands were capable of being used

for agricultural purposes and were in fact being

cultivated. He, therefore, contended that the order of

the Land Tribunal could not be sustained.

20. The original records which are produced by the

State inter alia contain three rent receipts dated

15.04.1969, 14.01.1974 and 16.06.1974. The contents

of the said receipts read are as follows:

ªÀÄAUÀÆègÀÄ vÁ¯ÉÆÃPÀÄ d¦à£À ªÉÆUÀÄæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ PÉÆvÀÛlÄÖ PÀA¥ÉÆAqÀÄ£À°ègÀÄ ªÉÆãÀ¥Àà ¥ÀÆeÁjAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ ¥ÀƪÀÀ¥Àà ¥ÀÆeÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ªÀÄAUÀÆègÀÄ ±ÀºÀgÀÄ ®Që£ÀgÀ¹AºÀ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÄPÉÛñÀégÀgÁzÀ D£ÀAzÀZÁAiÀÄðgÀÄ PÉÆlÖ gÀ²Ã¢ K£ÉAzÉæ ºÀvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀĸÀÛjUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ wÃgÀªÀiÁ¤¹ ¨ÁQ G½zÀ gÀÆ¥ÉÊ 200/- F ¢ªÀ¸À PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ eÁqÁ DV §AvÀÄ.

m.a.acharya

ªÀÄAUÀÆègÀÄ vÁ: 15/4/69

-------------------------------------------------

ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ: 14/1/74

ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ d¦à£À ªÉÆUÀÄæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ PÉÆvÀÛlÄÖ PÀA¥ËAr£À°ègÀĪÀ ªÉÆ£À¥Àà ¥ÀÆeÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ¥ÀƪÀÀ¥Àà ¥ÀÆeÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ.

ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ²æà ®Që£ÀgÀ¹AºÀ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÄPÉÛñÀégÀgÁzÀ M. D£ÀAzÀ DZÁjAiÀÄgÀÄ UÉÃt ¥ÁªÀw §gÀPÉÆlÖ gÀ²Ã¢ü:-

K£ÉAzÀgÉ ¤¤ßAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸À®è vÀPÀÌ UÉÃt ¨Á§ÄÛ 1972 ªÀiÁZÀð¬ÄAzÀ 1973 ªÀiÁað ªÀgÉV£À UÉÃt ¨Á§ÄÛ §gÀvÀPÀÌ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä £ÀÆgÀ ªÀÄƪÀvÀÄÛ R.130/- eÁqÉAiÀiÁV FªÀvÀÄÛ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° §AvÀÄÛ

m.a.acharya

F.§UÉå.¸ÁQë J. Narayana

-------------------------------------------------

ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ: 16/6/74

ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ d¦à£À ªÉÆUÀÄæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ PÉÆvÀÛlÄÖ PÀA¥ËAr£À°ègÀĪÀ ªÉÆ£À¥Àà ¥ÀÆeÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ¥ÀƪÀÀ¥Àà ¥ÀÆeÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ²æà ®Që£ÀgÀ¹AºÀ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÄPÉÛñÀégÀgÁzÀ M..D£ÀAzÀ DZÁjAiÀÄgÀÄ UÉÃt ¥ÁªÀw §gÀPÉÆlÖ gÀ²Ã¢ü. K£ÉAzÀgÉ ¤¤ßAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸À®è vÀPÀÌ UÉÃt ¨Á§ÄÛ 1972 ªÀiÁZÀð¬ÄAzÀ 1973 ªÀiÁað ªÀgÉV£À UÉÃt ¨Á§ÄÛ §gÀvÀPÀÌ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä £ÀÆgÀ ªÀÄƪÀvÀÄÛ R.130/- eÁqÉAiÀiÁV FªÀvÀÄÛ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° §AvÀÄÛ

m.a.acharya

F.§UÉå.¸ÁQë J. Narayana

-------------------------------------------------

21. The petitioner, who deposed before the Land

Tribunal and was also cross-examined, admitted that the

rent receipt dated 15.04.1969 was issued by his father.

The said admission reads as follows:

" ... ¢£ÁAPÀ 15.04.1969 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ¥ÀƪÀ¥Àà ¥ÀÆeÁjUÉ MAzÀÄ gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ CzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝà ºËzÀÄ. ..."

22. The petitioner, however, denied the execution of

the rent receipt dated 16.06.1974. The rent receipt

dated 16.06.1974 was, however, not commented upon

by the petitioner. The relevant portion is as under:

". . . 16.6.74 gÀAzÀÄ D£ÀAzÀ DZÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¥ÀƪÀ¥Àà ¥ÀÆeÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÖAvÀºÀ gÀ²Ã¢ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. 1968-69£Éà ¸Á°£À Dgï.n.¹. £ÉÆÃrzÉÝãÉ. CzÀgÀ°è ZÁ®UÉÃuÉ MPÀÌ®Ä JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. . . . £ÀªÀÄä CdÓ£À PÁ®¢AzÀ®Æ PÀÆqÁ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ D ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ°è EzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. . "

23. These statements leave no room for doubt that the

land was a tenanted land and was in possession of the

tenant. The contention that the lease was only in

respect of the house and not the land cannot be

accepted in the light of the fact that the petitioner

admits the issuance of the rent receipt and also the

mentioning of the chalageni in the RTC of the year 1968-

69 and further, the fact that the petitioner made a clear

statement during his cross-examination that the tenant

being in possession right from the time of his grand-

father.

24. The petitioner has, in fact, produced a legal notice

dated 03.02.1958, which is marked as Ex.R-2. The said

legal notice reads as under:

From M A N G A L O R E-3 A. Ranganath Rao, M.A., B.L., 3rd February 1958 Advocate, C.H.S. Road, Mangalore-3 (S.K)

To (1)Somu Hengeu, widow of )Residing at Kothatta in Monappa Poojary )Jeppinamogaru Village

(2)PoovappaPoojary, son )Post KANKANADY.

of No.(1). ) (S. Kanara)

I have been instructed by my client Sri. M. Narayana Acharya, son of M. Venkatramana Acharya, Trustee, Sri Laxminarasimha Matt, presiding in Ganapathi Temple Road, Mangalore Town, to send you this notice on his behalf.

In respect of the property issued to you under the Bhadige-chit dated 14-4-1956 executed by you

in my client's favour on a monthly rent of Rs.4-8-0, after deducting the payments of Rs.10/-, Rs.25/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.3/- made by you on 6-10-1956, 8- 12-1956, 26-1-1957 and 19-2-57 respectively, a sum of Rs.36-8-0 is due from you are arrears of rent in respect of the period 1-5-1957 till 31-1-1958. You have willfully defaulted in paying the rent. You have also failed to execute a Bhadige-chit in my client's favour after the expiry of the period fixed in the Bhadige-chit dated 14-4-1956. You have thus rendered yourselves liable to be evicted.

Please take notice that unless you pay within 7 days of the receipt of this notice the aforesaid arrears of rent with interest thereon and the costs of this notice Rs.3.75 and obtain a voucher for the payment from my client, and unless you surrender possession of the property to my client on 28-2- 1958 after paying the rent for February 1958 and obtain vouchers for the surrender and payment, legal proceedings will be instituted against you for the necessary reliefs at your risk as to costs. This notice is sent to No (1) among you with a request to communicate its contents to No (2).

Yours faithfully, sd/-

o/c A Ranganath Rao Advocate."

25. As could be seen from the said legal notice, there is

no mention of only a house being leased out to the

tenant. The legal notice only states that in respect of

the property leased to the tenant, under a Baadige Chit

(¨ÁrUÉ aÃn) dated 14.04.1956; there were arrears of rent

due. If it was really the case of the landlord that only the

house had been leased out, the legal notice would have

clearly depicted that fact.

26. In my view, the admission of the petitioner

regarding the issuance of the Baadige Chit (¨ÁrUÉ aÃn),

rent receipt on 15.04.1969 and the fact that the

signatures on the other two rent receipts match with the

signature of the petitioner's father in the admitted rent

receipt, clearly establishes that the lands in question

were tenanted lands.

27. The tenant has also produced a copy of the award

of the year 1971 in respect of the portion of the land

which was acquired in Sy.No.12/4B. In the said award, it

is stated that Poovappa Poojari i.e., the father of

respondent Nos.1 to 6 was the Chalageni tenant.

28. It is admitted by the landlord that a portion of the

land was, in fact, acquired. Having regard to the fact

that in the award, there is a specific mention of

Poovappa Poojari being a Chalageni tenant in respect of

Sy.No.12/4B, it cannot be denied that the lands in

question were tenanted lands.

29. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

contended that Sy.No.97/1A1A2B being a Punja land, it

could not have been the subject matter of the

proceedings before the Land Tribunal.

30. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Subhakar and others vs.

Harideesh Kumar and others, reported in (2007) 9

SCC 561 and a decision of this Court in the case of

Narayana Devadiga (deceased) by L.Rs. vs.

Smt.Sharada and others, reported in (2002) Vol.1

Kant.L.J. 581, stating that the Punja land could not be

considered as land under Section 2A(18) of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

31. In Subhakar's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was

considering the situation where both the Land Tribunal

and this Court had categorically noted the fact that the

land being the Punja land was not being cultivable and

only grass was being grown naturally and in the context

of that factual situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court came to

the conclusion that the grant of such a Punja land could

not be sustained.

32. It has to be stated here that there is absolutely no

evidence indicating that the land was not cultivable. The

son of the tenant, who deposed before the Land

Tribunal, has specifically denied the suggestion that

there were no agricultural activities being carried out in

Sy.No.97. The son of the tenant has also stated that a

portion of the land is measuring 97 cents. The son of the

petitioner has also deposed as follows:

" . . . 97 ¸ÉAlì eÁUÀ ªÉÆzÀ°UÉ UÀÄqÀØ EzÀÄÝ FUÀ ¸ÀªÀÄvÀlÄÖ ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. EzÀÄ ±ÉÃrªÀÄtÄß eÁUÀ C®è PÀA¥ÀĪÀÄtÄß. ..."

"... 97 ¸ÉAlì eÁUÀzÀ°è 50 vÉAV£ÀªÀÄgÀ 70 CrPÉ ªÀÄgÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10 ¨Á¼ÉVqÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥sÀ®ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ½gÀÄvÀÛªÉ. F eÁUÀzÀ°è ¨sÀvÀÛ ¨É¼É¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ..."

" ... 97 ¸ÉAlì eÁUÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀȶ E®èzÀ ±ÉÃrªÀÄtÂÚ£À eÁUÀ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."

33. The 97 cents the tenant's son referred to is, in fact,

the 97 cents that was sought in Sy.No.97/1A1A2B. This

assertion of the tenant's son is not disproved by

production of credible evidence. It would, therefore,

have to be held that the Land Tribunal was justified in

coming to the conclusion that the land bearing above

mentioned survey number was also cultivable land and

the registration of the tenant as an occupant in respect

of 46 cents of the above mentioned land cannot be found

fault with.

34. It has to be borne in mind that the Land Tribunal

has, after assessing the evidence, recorded a finding that

the lands were agricultural lands and contained coconut

and areca-nut trees and this finding of fact cannot be

doubted and reviewed by this Court in exercise of

extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India.

35. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that

there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is

accordingly dismissed both on the grounds of delay as

well as being devoid of merit.

SD/-

JUDGE

RK CT:AN*