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
NC: 2024:KHC:30383
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
NC: 2024:KHC:30383
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
NC: 2024:KHC:30383
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
NC: 2024:KHC:30383
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
NC: 2024:KHC:30383
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
NC: 2024:KHC:30383
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
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
