http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  8060 of 2001

PETITIONER: Gowdara Nanjappa

RESPONDENT: Matada Bassaiah & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8060 OF 2001

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment  of a learned  Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the  revision filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 121(A) of the  Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the ’Act’).  In the  revision petition challenge was to the order passed by the  Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Shimoga (in short the  ’Appellate Tribunal’).  By the impugned order before the High  Court the Appellate Tribunal had set aside the order passed by  the Land Tribunal, Shimoga Taluk (in short the ’Tribunal’).

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The lands in Sy. Nos. 3,6/2, 20 and 41/2 situated at  Venkatapura village are the Inam lands endowed to Sri Kudli  Rameshwara Devaru.  In respect of the said lands, the  applicants-Sri Subbaraya, Gowdara nanjappa, Matada  Basaiah and Smt. Vrundamma filed applications for grant of  occupancy rights.  Subbaraya filed Form No. 1 claiming to be  an Inamdar to the entire extent of 27 acres 29 guntas in the  above survey-numbers. Gowdara Nanjappa also filed Form  No.1 claiming 2 acres 6 guntas in Sy.No.41/2 as a tenant  under the temple. The present petitioner Matada Basaiah also  filed application for grant of occupancy right as tenant under  Subbaraya in respect of the land measuring 2 acre 6 guntas.  Another person Manjappa, husband of Vruddamma also filed  an application for grant of occupancy right in Sy.No.41/2 to  the extent of 1 acre 20.guntas. The Land Tribunal by its order  dated 11.9.1981 granted occupancy right in favour of  Gowlara  Nanjappa to the extent of 2 acres 6 guntas and in respect of  other applicants who are not parties in this petition. The said  order was questioned by the present petitioner in W.P.  No.17043/83 before this Court. This Court, in so far it relates  to Sy.No.41/2 quashed the order of the Land Tribunal and  remitted back the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with  law. The Land Tribunal took up the matter for consideration  by permitting the parties to lead evidence, recorded the  evidence of Manjunatha, Subbaraya, Gowdara Nanjappa,  Vrundamna and the evidence of the petitioner Matada

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Basaiah. After considering the report and the entries made in  the property and income of Muzrai Institutions maintained in  the Taluk Office and also the entries found in the quit rent  register, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 17.4.1986  granted occupancy rights in favour of Matada Basaiah to an  extent of 2 acres 26 guntas and an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas  in favour of Smt.Vrundamma. The order of the Land Tribunal  was questioned by Gowdars Nanjappa, who is respondent No.1  in W.P. No.9587/86 before the High Court. The High Court by  an order dated 29.9.1986 transmitted the records to the  Appellate Authority, Shimoga in view of the amendment and  the same was registered as LRA (W) No. 749/86 before the  Land Reforms Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by  its order dated 27.10.1988 allowed the appeal of Gowdara  Nanjappa setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated  17.4.1986 in so far as it. relates to an extent of 2 acres 26  guntas which was conferred, in favour of Matada Basatah.   Being aggrieved of the order of the Appellate Authority, the  petitioner who is a rival tenant has come up with this revision.

2.       Respondent No. 1’s stand before the High Court was that  Inamdar  Subbaraya, Respondent No. 1 was a tenant in  respect of land measuring 2 acres 26 guntas in Survey No.  41/2A.  It was held that the Tribunal had rightly granted  occupancy right in his favour.  Stand of the present appellant  before the High Court was that occupancy has been granted  based on the entries in the R.T.C. extract and presumption  arises regarding the possession and cultivation.  Therefore, the  Appellate Tribunal had rightly interfered with the order of the  Tribunal.  The High Court formulated two issues for  consideration: 1.      Whether the jurisdiction exercised by the Land  Tribunal in so far as the adjudication of the  matter involving the Inam lands prior to  rendering of the judgment in Shri Kudli  Sringeri Maha Samsthanam v. State of  Karnataka reported in ILR 1992 Kar 1827  dated 24.4.1992 is bad and thereby the matter  requires to be remanded to the Special Deputy  Commissioner for adjudication? 2.      Whether the Appellate Authority is justified in  interfering with the finding of the Land  Tribunal setting aside the grant of occupancy  right in favour of the petitioner Matada  Basaiah? 3.      It appears that the High Court did not accept the  presumptive value of the entries made in the R.T.C. extract  but relied upon certain spot inspection made by the Tribunal.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the  approach is clearly erroneous.  It is pointed out that the  appellant appears as a tenant in the RTC record.   

5.      Learned counsel for the respondents supported the High  Court’s order. Initially claim of respondent No. 1 was to be a  lessee and an application was filed which was rejected.   Subsequently he claimed that he was a tenant.  The High  Court relied only on Subbaraya’s evidence.  It failed to notice  that initially the name of respondents and/or Subbaraya  appeared in the  R.T.C.  There was no material before the High  Court to by- pass the presumption to be drawn from the  record of rights.  The High Court appears to have placed  emphasis on the spot inspection made by the Tribunal.   Unfortunately the High Court overlooked the fact that the spot  inspection was made in1986 and such spot inspection did not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

have a relevance to decide the basic issues.  The revenue  entries related to past period and were spread over a number  of years and continued till appointed date.  A finding recorded  by the appellate authority has also relevance: "\005..It is significant to note that the  name of Subbaraya who claims himself to be  the landlord of the suit land does not appear  in the pahanies and RTC extracts of the suit  land at any time either as owner or as a  tenant.  As discussed above, Rameswara  Devaru Deity is admittedly Khatedar of the  suit land and there is no material on record  to show that the 4th respondent Subbaraya  was authorized to lease the suit land on  behalf of Rameswara Devaru Deity\005\005\005\005.   Therefore the Land Tribunal was not justified  in conferring the occupancy rights in favour  of 3rd respondent matala Basaiah to an extent  of 2 acres 26 guntas on the version of  Subbaraya who himself had claimed  occupancy rights of the suit land, and who  had no authority to lease the lands on behalf  of Rameswara Devaru Deity."

6.      The High Court also failed to notice that Subbaraya  himself has no right or title or interest in the land and his  application for grant of occupancy right was rejected.  There  was no evidence of the respondent No.1 being a tenant in  lawful possession of the land.  The Pahani Extract proved  tenancy of the appellant and possession as 1.3.1974 which is  the relevant date for consideration.    7.      Above being the position, the impugned order of the High     Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside, and the order  passed by the Appellate Tribunal stands restored.

8.      Appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.