Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8289  OF 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No.14496 of 2006)

CHANNABASAPPA(DEAD) BY LR & ANR. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

    Leave granted.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against  

the judgment and order dated 2nd  June, 2006 passed by the  

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in  

W.A. No.3836/2005(LR). By the impugned judgment the Division  

Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants herein  

and affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge,  

whereby the learned Single Judge directed the Land Tribunal to  

verify the aspect of filing of Form No.7 by the tenant.  

2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

The appellants claim to be the owners of lands in  

Sy. Nos. 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 53 situated in  

village Halligeri, Dharward Taluk, Karnataka, having

Page 2

2

purchased the same in the year 1956. According to the  

appellants, the lands were in their personal  

cultivation since then.  

3. The 2nd  respondent, Gangappa (since deceased)  

filed an application before the Special Tahasildar,  

Land Reforms, Dharwad, contending therein that he had  

sent an application on 23rd  June, 1975 in Form No.7  

for registering him as an occupant of the lands  

belonging to the appellants.  The Special Tahasildar,  

Land Reforms, on 31st October, 1987 replied that there  

was no record of having received such an application  

from the 2nd  respondent in respect of the lands in  

question and no entry was made in the Register of  

Form No.7 maintained by the Land Tribunal.

4. The 2nd  respondent filed Writ Petition  

No.4165/1988 in the High Court of Karnataka at  

Bangalore with the prayer for a direction to the  

Tribunal to conduct enquiry under Section 48­A of the  

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 (hereinafter  

referred to as the “Land Reforms Act”) and to grant  

him occupancy rights. In support of his claim for

Page 3

3

having sent the application, the 2nd  respondent had  

produced a xerox copy of a postal receipt and  

acknowledgment. The High Court by its order dated 5th  

August, 1991 remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal  

to  consider whether in  fact the 2nd  respondent  had  

filed an application in Form No.7, and if it was  

found that he had made such an application, then to  

consider it on merits in accordance with law. The  

said order was challenged before the Division Bench  

of the High Court as well as by way of Special Leave  

Petition before this Court unsuccessfully.  

5. After a detailed enquiry, by the order dated 2nd  

June, 1997, the Land Tribunal found, on evidence  

produced before it, that the 2nd  respondent had not  

proved that he had in fact sent an application to the  

Land Tribunal in Form No.7.

Before the Land Tribunal, the 2nd  respondent  

produced xerox copy of the Form No.7 on 27th November,  

1993, claiming to be the one sent by him by post.

Although, the Land Tribunal came to the  

conclusion that there was no proof of filing of Form

Page 4

4

No.7 by the 2nd respondent, unanimously it decided to  

admit the copy produced by the 2nd respondent on 27th  

November, 1993 for enquiry under Section 48­A of the  

Land Reforms Act and, upon evidence, held that the  

lands were in self­cultivation of the appellants and  

the 2nd  respondent was not a tenant of the lands in  

question as on 1st  March, 1974 or immediately prior  

thereto and as such rejected his application on  

merits.  

6. The 2nd  respondent being aggrieved filed a writ  

petition being W.P. No.15722/1987 challenging the  

correctness of the order of the Land Tribunal. Though  

the learned Single Judge noticed that the Land  

Tribunal had admitted the xerox copy of the Form No.7  

produced by the 2nd  respondent on 27th  November, 1993  

and had conducted an enquiry thereon under Section  

48­A of the Land Reforms Act, learned Single Judge,  

by the judgment dated 3rd  June, 2005 remitted the  

matter to the Tribunal to find out whether the  

application existed in the records and whether in

Page 5

5

fact the 2nd  respondent had filed an application in  

Form No.7.

7. The appellants thereafter filed a review petition  

before the learned Single Judge bringing to the  

notice of the learned Single Judge that the copy of  

the application found in records was the one which  

the second respondent had filed on 27th November, 1993  

and that the remand was unnecessary as the  

application was admitted and enquiry was conducted  

thereon. However, learned Single Judge did not  

appreciate the grounds for the review and dismissed  

the review petition on 1st July, 2005.

8. The appellants being not happy preferred the writ  

appeal in question before the Division Bench which  

dismissed  the  same by  the  impugned  judgment  on  2nd  

June, 2006.  

9. Notices were issued to respondents. The legal  

representatives of the 2nd  respondent who are party  

respondents appeared.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that  

the Land Tribunal having accepted the filing of the

Page 6

6

Form No.7 by the 2nd respondent, there is no question  

of remitting the matter again to the Tribunal to find  

out whether the Form No.7 is available on records and  

whether the Form No.7 was filed by the 2nd respondent.  

11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted  

that the 2nd  respondent had produced the copy of the  

Form No.7 and made it available on records to the  

Land Tribunal and the case was rightly remanded to  

make a detailed enquiry under Section 48­A of the  

Land Reforms Act. However, such submission cannot be  

accepted in view of the finding already recorded by  

the Land Tribunal.  

12. On perusal of order dated 2nd June, 1997 passed by  

the Land Tribunal, we find that the Land Tribunal  

admitted Form No.7 produced by the 2nd  respondent in  

view of the High Court’s direction dated 5th  August,  

1991 passed in W.P.No.4165/1988 and on  enquiry made  

under Section 48­A, held as follows:

“……In spite of this, in view of the directions  dated 5­8­91 in W.P. No.4165, the Form No.7  produced by the applicant is admitted and

Page 7

7

enquiry upon the same is taken up by unanimous  opinion of the Land Tribunal.

Applicant has not produced any document to prove  that he was in possession and cultivation of the  suit lands on 1­3­1974 or immediately prior  thereto. Except his own statement, the applicant  has not produced any evidence to establish that  he held the lands on crop share basis. In this  respect, he has not produced any acceptable  evidence. But on the other hand, the opponents  have produced pahani records for the years prior  to 1974 as well as for subsequent years, in  which nowhere the name of the applicant is  appearing in the cultivator’s column. It is  apparent that all the lands were in self  cultivation.  

Apart from this, the opponents have produced tax  paid receipts in respect of the suit lands. The  opponents have also given a declaration  regarding their holding under Section 86 of the  Karnataka Land Reforms Act, claiming it to be  under self cultivation and vide order  NO.KLR:D:SR:752 dated 25­3­82, this Land  Tribunal has accepted the declaration holding  that he is not in possession of excess lands. In  the said order there is no mention about the  said lands being subject to tenancy.   For all  these reasons, the following order is passed by  unanimous opinion of this Land Tribunal.

ORDER

It is decided unanimously that the applicant was  not in occupation and cultivation of the suit  lands  as  a tenant  on  1­3­1974  or  immediately  prior thereto. This order is pronounced and read out in open  Court on 2­6­97.

Page 8

8

Sd/­ Land Tribunal, Dharwad

Members: 1.Sd/­ 2.Sd/­ 3.Sd/­.”

13. Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal admitted Form  

No.7 produced by the 2nd respondent and on an enquiry  

gave definite finding that the applicant­2nd  

respondent was not in occupation or cultivation of  

the suit land as a tenant as on 1st  March, 1974 or  

prior thereto. In view of such finding of the  

Tribunal it was not open for the learned Single Judge  

to remand the matter again to the Tribunal to enquire  

whether Form No.7 is on record or Form No.7 was  

produced by the 2nd respondent which in fact rendered  

the order dated 2nd June, 1997 passed by the Tribunal  

ineffective for no reason. The Division Bench of the  

High Court also failed to notice the above­said fact  

and thereby erred in affirming the order passed by  

the learned Single Judge.

Page 9

9

14. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the  

impugned order dated 2nd  June, 2006 passed by the  

Division Bench in W.A.No.3836/2005(LR) and order  

dated 3rd  June, 2005 passed by the learned Single  

Judge in W.P. No.15722/1997, order dated 2nd  June,  

1997 passed by the Land Tribunal, Dharwad is  

restored. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no  

order as to costs.  

………………………………………………….J.            (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

……………………………………………….J.              (RANJAN GOGOI)

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 17, 2013.