Karnataka High Court

Smt Muniyellamma vs The Land Tribunal on 19 June, 2023

Bench: Chief Justice, M.G.S. Kamal

                                          -1-
                                                NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB
                                                      WA No. 759 of 2022




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                    PRESENT
            THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                        AND
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
                       WRIT APPEAL NO. 759 OF 2022 (LR)
            BETWEEN:

                  SMT MUNIYELLAMMA
                  SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

                  SRI M.K.MUNIKRISHNAPPA
                  S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA
                  AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
                  KARIYANNA PALYA
                  SAINT THOMAS TOWN POST
                  BANGALORE - 560 084
                  PRESENTLY R/AT No.99
                  KSFC LAYOUT
                  OIL MILL ROAD
Digitally         LINGARAJAPURAM
signed by         BANGALORE - 560 084.
SUMA B N
Location:                                                   ...APPELLANT
High        (BY SRI. AMARESH A ANGADI.,ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka   AND:

            1.    THE LAND TRIBUNAL
                  BANGALORE NORTH
                  2ND FLOOR
                  KANDAYA BHAVAN
                  K G ROAD
                  BANGALORE - 560 009
                  BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
                           -2-
                                NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB
                                      WA No. 759 of 2022




2.   THE STATE OF KARNTAKA
     BY ITS SECRETARY
     DEPARTEMNT OF REVENUE
     M.S. BUILDING
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BANGALORE - 560 001
     SRI D. VENKASWAMY GOWDA
     SINCE DEAD BY LRS

3.   SRI MUNIVENKATAPAP
     AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
     S/O LATE VENAKATASWAMY GOWDA

4.   SRI MUNIGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
     S/O LATE VENAKATASWAMY GOWDA

5.   SMT ANUSUYAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
     D/O LATE VENAKATASWAMY GOWDA

6.   LAKSHMAMMA
     AGED 48 YEARS
     D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY GOWDA

     RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE
     R/AT ADUR VILLAGE
     BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
     BANGALORE EAST TALUK
     BANGALORE - 560 049.

                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a)SET-ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.38520/2014
                                 -3-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB
                                               WA No. 759 of 2022




DATED:21/07/2022 AND IN CONSEQUENCE. b)SET-ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - LAND
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE IN CASE LRF
NO.B.709/1975-197 DATED 31/07/2014 AND c)PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS.



     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is against the order dated 21.07.2022

passed in W.P.No.38520/2014 (LR) filed by the legal

representative of deceased Smt.Muniyellamma by which

the said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single

Judge declining to interfere with the order dated

31.07.2014 passed by the respondent No.1-Land Tribunal.

2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed contending

that confirmation of occupancy rights in respect of land

bearing Sy.No.110 measuring 2 acres 1 guntas belonging

to the landlady-Muniyellamma in favour of Venkataswamy

NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB WA No. 759 of 2022

Gowda (since deceased represented by respondent Nos.3

to 6) was illegal as there was no tenancy and his

occupation /possession in respect of the subject land on

the basis of revenue entries obtained fraudulently, was

illegal.

3. The learned Single Judge taking note of the

reasoning assigned by the respondent No.1/Land Tribunal,

more particularly, the deposition of the parties therein

came to the conclusion that Venkataswamy Gowda the

predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.3 to 6 was in

possession and also in view of the admission by the

landlady -Muniyellamma with regard to possession of said

Venkataswamy Gowda before Land Tribunal, dismissed

the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, legal

representative of landlady-Muniyellamma is before this

Court by way of this writ petition.

NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB WA No. 759 of 2022

4. Amaresh A.Angadi, learned counsel for the

appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the

memorandum of appeal submitted that impugned order

passed by the learned Single Judge is without taking into

consideration of the fact that there was no lease as known

to law executed between Muniyellamma and

Venkataswamy Gowda. That the entries in the revenue

records for the year 1970-1978 are fraudulent and the

same were not prepared in the manner known to law.

Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NARAYAN

LAXMAN PATIL VS. M/S GALA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

PVT. LTD & ORS. 2016 SAR (CIVIL) 350 submitted that

since the revenue entries are not made in the manner

known to law the same have no legal sanctity and Land

Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge have thus erred in

relying upon the said revenue entries. Hence, he submits

that appeal raises a serious legal question warranting

interference.

NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB WA No. 759 of 2022

5. Heard and perused the records.

6. It is necessary to refer to the findings of Land

Tribunal on the points for consideration framed in its

order. Relevant portion of the order is extracted

hereunder;

"Based on the arguments addressed by the respective the following question arises for consideration.

1. Whether the land bearing Sy No 110 of Adur Village, is vested with the state?

2. Whether the applicant is entitle for grant of occupancy rightes?

3. What order?

The contention of the original applicant is that he is the tenant under smt.muniyellamma and he was giving the WARA in respect of the subject land, who was the resident of Bendiganahalli Village, Hoskote Taluk. On behalf of the applicant D.Munigowda who is the Hoskote Taluk son of original applicant has been examined and he contended that his father was cultivating the land in question as tenant. He further deposed that his father and himself was giving the WARA to land owner. The RTC for the year 1973-1974 and 1975-1976 speaks that Sri Venkataswamy gowda was in possession and he was only cultivating the land as a tenant. In the cross- examination he clearly stated that paying the WARA to the land owner Smt. Muniyellamma by way of ragi, Johar, Horse gram. Further in the cross-examination the respondent failed to make out the case that the applicant is not in possession

NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB WA No. 759 of 2022

of the land in question as tenant. The PW-2- papanna and PW-3. Venkateshappa were examined who have categorically stated that D. Venkataswamy gowda was in possession and cultivating the land in question as tenant and he was paying the wara to the land owner Smt.Muniyellamma. The respondent failed to elicit in cross- examination AW1 to AW3 for disproving the occupancy right claimed by the applicant. The applicant also produced the RTC for the year 1973- 1974 onwards which clearly establishes that Sri Venkataswamy Gowda was cultivating the land in question and the same was not questioned by Smt. Muniyellamma or the present respondent.

The respondent examined one Sri Chandranna as RW2. In his cross examination he categorically admitted that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question. There is a shed in the subject property that is put by children's of Sri Venkataswamy gowda to stay there daily wage worker. Further the RTC produced by the respondent for the year 1968-1969 to 1972-1973 exhibit R (1a) also shows the name of the Sri Venkataswamy gowda in the cultivators' column. In the earlier round the land was granted in favour of the applicant and even form No 10 was also issued. Further, at the time of spot inspection of the land, the tribunal has noticed that there is a shed the subject property used to keep the cultivable things. It clear established that the land in question is the tenant land.

During the course or cross of RW1 he admitted that in Column No 12 (2) of RTC for the year 1973-1974 Sri Venkataswamy gowdas name appeared in respect of the subject property. The RW1 in his cross examination admits that as per Exhibit R (15) RTC for the year 1973-1980 in column No 12 (2) name of Sri Venkataswamygowda is appeared. But he stated that that it is obtained by playing the fraud. But it is not the case of the respondent that they have challenged the revenue

NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB WA No. 759 of 2022

entries in the name of the applicant. Therefore it presumes that the entry in favour of the applicant is to be true. Further the tribunal has no power to go in to the question whether the entries in the record of rights are genuine or not. Hence we are of the opinion that the land in question is the tenanted land and vested in the State. In view of the Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act there is a presumption that the applicant was in possession of the subject property as tenant.

By going through the evidence produced by the parties, It appears that Exhibit P1 and R(1a) the RTC for the year 1968-69 to 1979- 80 clearly establishes that during the relevant period the name of the occupant appeared in the column No 12 (2) of the RTC. The same has been admitted by the respondent in his cross examination but he has stated that the entries are bogus. But he failed to substantiate that against the said entry they have preferred any appeal or challenged before the competent authority. In the absence of the same we can presume that the entry in favour of the applicant. Further it proves that since 1970 onwards the land revenue was paid by the original applicant and after his demise, his legal heirs, till today. Per contra the Respondent had not produced any documentary evidence contradicting the claim of the Original Applicant. The respondent failed to substantiate his possession over the subject property from 1970 onwards. The admission of the respondent RW2 clearly shows that applicant is in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. The respondent in his written argument has taken up a Contention that late grand-mother executed a registered WILL favour on 6-2-1964 vide Exhibit R4 accordingly he has become the absolute owner of the land in question. The will executed by the original land owner in favour of the respondent herein is subject to the tenancy claimed by the applicant. Therefore there no force in the claim made by the respondent in his written arguments.

The Land Tribunal has conducted the spot inspection on 05.07.2014, after giving notice to the

NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB WA No. 759 of 2022

concerned parties in the presence of the villagers. And Land Tribunal found that the LRs of the original applicant are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. In the subject land there are Mango trees and one house was built and they were growing the crop of Johar in middle of the mango trees in the Subject Property and they are also running Dairy Farm which clearly establishes the claim made by the applicant.

The respondent has taken up a contention that land in question is covered with mango trees to the entire extent of the land planted by the original respondent and it is evident that land in question is not cultivable land The respondent himself produced the RTC of the land in question for the year 1980 onwards marked as Exhibits 90 to 92 which shows that along with the Mango trees, other crops were being grown by original applicant therefore it cannot be accepted that the land in question is not cultivable land".

The respondent in support of his contention he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. We are not disputing the ratio laid down by the above said judgement but these judgments not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

7. Learned Single Judge apart from perusing the

reasoning and finding arrived at by the Land Tribunal, has

also gone through the records and the deposition of the

witnesses. The findings of the Tribunal are in inconsonance

with records and the depositions of the parties with regard

to the possession of the land.

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB WA No. 759 of 2022

8. The contention of the appellant with regard to

the revenue records being obtained fraudulently by the

respondents also cannot be countenanced in view of the

provisions of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act, 1964 which reads as under;

"133.Presumption regarding entries in the records.- An entry in the Record of Rights and a certified entry in the Register of Mutations [or in a Patta Book] shall be presumed to be true untill the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor."

9. As rightly taken note of the by Land Tribunal as

well as learned Single Judge the appellant not having

challenged the revenue entries and presumption under

Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 not

having been rebutted, the appellant cannot heard at this

belated stage that the entries made in the revenue records

are not valid. The reliance placed by the learned counsel

of the Apex Court in the case of NARAYAN LAXMAN PATIL

(supra) is of no avail.

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB WA No. 759 of 2022

10. In view of the above factual and legal aspect of