CHANNABASAPPA(DEAD) BY LR Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA .
Bench: SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: C.A. No.-008289-008289 / 2013
Diary number: 18945 / 2006
Advocates: RAJESH MAHALE Vs
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.