MALLAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA TALWAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

- 5 -

N. P. Vivekmehta, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 7 and 8. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the petitioners were owners of the land in question. The contesting respondents filed Form No.7, claiming occupancy right in respect of the lands in question contending that they were in occupation and cultivation of the land as tenants. They sought for conferring occupancy right. Respondent No.2 held an enquiry on Form No.7 so filed by the claimants, and rejected their claim by passing order dated 10.09.1980. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants preferred W.P.No.19282/1980. The said writ petition came to be allowed, the impugned order of the Land Tribunal was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal.

4. After remand, the Land Tribunal, again held an enquiry, and rejected the claim of the claimants by passing the order dated 20.03.1982. The claimants again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.12977/1996. The

- 6 -

writ petition came to be allowed, and the impugned order of the land Tribunal was set aside. The matter was again remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. It is thereafter, the land Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 20.08.2011 granting occupancy right in favour of the claimants. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that, initially, the Land Tribunal had rejected the claim of the claimants by recording its specific finding that the land in question is an Inam land, and the claimants cannot be conferred with occupancy right. However, when the Tribunal considered the claim of the claimants for the third time, it granted occupancy right ignoring its finding recorded earlier.

6. Learned counsel further contended that, a bunch of documents containing 246 documents were produced by the tenants before the Land Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal held sittings irregularly. Suddenly the matter was

- 7 -

posted for orders, and the impugned order came to be passed. Even though the additional documents produced by the tenants were taken into consideration by the Land Tribunal to pass the impugned order, no opportunity was given to the petitioners to cross-examine the tenants on those documents. Therefore, the matter requires to be remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition and remanding back the matter for fresh consideration.

7. Per contra, it is the contention of the contesting respondents that, the petitioners are not the legal representatives of the original landlord, and they have no locus-standi to file and maintain this petition. Secondly, it is contended that even though the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the claimants solely on the ground that, the land in question is an Inam land, and the claimants are not entitled for grant of occupancy right, the position of law is entirely different.

- 8 -

8. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narayana Rao, M. Vs. Land Tribunal, Honnali & Anr.¹, to contend that Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (for short, "Act of 1961") recognizes continuation of the lease, if any, existing on the date of vesting of the land and thus, the relationship between the regrantees and their tenants could be governed by the existing tenancy laws. Therefore, the Land Tribunal was right in granting occupancy right even though the land in question was an Inam land. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

9. The Court in Narayan Rao M. (supra) has also referred to the decision of this Court in Hanuma Reddy B.G. Vs. Land Tribunal, Bengalore South², wherein it was held that the prohibition to transfer the land under Section 5 of the Act of 1908 cannot be made applicable to

1

1980 (1) KLJ 39

1979 (1) KLJ 265

2

- 9 -

lease of Service Inam lands as it does not amount to transfer in common parlance. The Court has also referred to Section 8 of the Act of 1961, to hold that it extents protection of tenancy laws to tenants of Service Inam lands. Thus, the position of law is very well-settled.

10. The first contention taken by the parties is as to whether the claimants are entitled for confirmation of occupancy right when the land in question was governed by the Act of 1961. The decision of this Court in

Narayana Rao M. (supra) highlights the position of law. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, considered the fact that, the Inam land was being cultivated by the tenant after coming into force of the Act of 1961, and the land was granted in favour of the claimants when the validity of such grant was challenged. Placing reliance on the decision in Mariyappa Vs. The Land Tribunal, Mandya,³wherein it is held as following:

1978 (1) KLJ 418

3

- 10 -

"5…..The main object with which the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act was brought into force was to abolish hereditary rights to village offices and the emoluments appertaining to such offices. This Act, unlike other Inams Abolition Acts, does not provide for conferment of ownership or occupancy rights in favour of tenants and other inferior holders. On the other hand, that Act envisages the continuation of such leases, if any, existing on the date of vesting. The relationship between the regrantees and their tenants would be governed by the existing tenancy laws...."

11. The Court held that, when a tenant cultivates the land in question prior to abolition of the Inam, and if he continues to cultivate the land as on 01.03.1974, he is entitled to claim occupancy right under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short, 'KLR Act'). Thus, the contention taken by the petitioner that, the tenant cannot claim occupancy right since the land in question is an Inam land, and creation of lease is barred under the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908 (for short, "Act of 1908") can not be accepted.

- 11 -

12. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the claimants have produced a bunch of 246 documents before the Land Tribunal and thereafter there were no regular sittings. But, one fine morning, order was passed without affording an opportunity for the petitioners to cross-examine the claimants on those documents.

13. On seeing the order sheet maintained by the Land Tribunal, it discloses that claimant has produced as many as 246 documents on 10.03.2010, on which date both the parties were present. On the next few days of hearing, the parties were present but none of them have led evidence. From 08.09.2010 to 25.05.2011 there was no sitting of the Land Tribunal for one or the other reasons. On 08.06.2011, both the parties and their counsel were absent. Then the matter was posted for orders. On 20.08.2011, the impugned order was pronounced.

- 12 -

14. On consideration of all these sequence of events, and the contentions taken by the petitioners that, the claimants have, even though produced as many as 246 additional documents in support of their contentions, they have not led any evidence. Thereby, the petitioners herein did not get an opportunity to cross-examine the claimants on those documents. On perusal of the impugned order, the Land Tribunal places reliance on those additional documents.

15. The learned counsel for the respondent has produced several documents before this Court in support of his contention. The land in question was not an Inam land. It vested with the Government on coming into force of Inam Abolition Act, and in view of the decision in

Narayana Rao M. (supra), the tenant who continued to be in possession and cultivation of the land is entitled for grant of occupancy right. The Tribunal will have to consider the additional documents which are produced by the tenant before it. Hence, I find considerable force in the

- 13 -

contention taken by the petitioners. Under such circumstances, the impugned order requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

16. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that they are in possession and cultivation of the land in question as on today. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has no objection to maintain status quo as on today with regard to the possession and entries in the record of rights.

17. The Land Tribunal, after providing reasonable opportunity to prove the additional documents relied on by the claimants, and also by the owners, if any, must give a finding as to whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the original land holder, and as to whether claimants are entitled for grant of occupancy right.

- 14 -

18. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 20.08.2011 passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Haveri in TEN/OCP/SR114 vide Annexure-E, is set aside.

(iii) The matter is remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration by providing reasonable opportunity to both the parties.

(iv) It is made clear that the parties to the litigation are required to appear before the Land Tribunal, Haveri on 12.05.2025 without

- 15 -

(v) The parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the properties and entries in the record of rights as on today, till disposal of the matter before the Land Tribunal.

Sd/-

(M.G.UMA)

JUDGE

MKM

CT:ANB

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5