CHANNABASAPPA(DEAD) BY LR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA .

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) CHA NNABASAPPA(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  nd the   judgment   and   order   dated   2   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  JUDGMENT 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 1 2 purchased the same in the year 1956. According to the  appellants,   the   lands   were   in   their   personal  cultivation since then. 

filed an application before the Special Tahasildar,  Land Reforms, Dharwad, contending therein that he had  rd sent an application on 23   June, 1975 in Form No.7  for   registering   him   as   an   occupant   of   the   lands  belonging to the appellants.  The Special Tahasildar,  st Land Reforms, on 31  October, 1987 replied that there  was no record of having received such an application  nd from   the   2   respondent   in   respect   of   the   lands   in  question   and   no   entry   was   made   in   the   Register   of  JUDGMENT Form No.7 maintained by the Land Tribunal. nd 4. The   2   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 2 3 nd having   sent   the   application,   the   2   respondent   had  produced   a   xerox   copy   of   a   postal   receipt   and  th  acknowledgment. The High Court by its order dated 5

nd to   consider   whether   in   fact   the   2   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.  nd  After a detailed enquiry, by the order dated 2 5. June,   1997,   the   Land   Tribunal   found,   on   evidence  JUDGMENT nd produced before it, that the 2   respondent had not  proved that he had in fact sent an application to the  Land Tribunal in Form No.7. nd Before   the   Land   Tribunal,   the   2   respondent  th produced xerox copy of the Form No.7 on 27  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 3 4 nd No.7 by the 2  respondent, unanimously it decided to  nd th  admit the copy produced by the 2   respondent on 27 November, 1993 for enquiry under Section 48­A of the 

lands were in self­cultivation of the appellants and  nd the 2   respondent was not a tenant of the lands in  st question as on 1   March, 1974 or immediately prior  thereto   and   as   such   rejected   his   application   on  merits.  nd 6. The 2   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  JUDGMENT Tribunal had admitted the xerox copy of the Form No.7  nd th produced by the 2   respondent on 27   November, 1993  and   had   conducted   an   enquiry   thereon   under   Section  48­A of the Land Reforms Act, learned Single Judge,  rd by   the   judgment   dated   3   June,   2005   remitted   the  matter   to   the   Tribunal   to   find   out   whether   the  application   existed   in   the   records   and   whether   in  Page 4 5 nd fact the 2   respondent had filed an application in  Form No.7. 7. The appellants thereafter filed a review petition 

notice of the learned Single Judge that the copy of  the application found in  records was  the one  which  th the second respondent had filed on 27  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  st the review petition on 1  July, 2005. 8. The appellants being not happy preferred the writ  JUDGMENT appeal   in   question   before   the   Division   Bench   which  nd  dismissed   the   same   by   the   impugned   judgment   on   2 June, 2006.  9. Notices   were   issued   to   respondents.   The   legal  nd representatives   of   the   2   respondent   who   are   party  respondents appeared. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that  the Land Tribunal having accepted the filing of the  Page 5 6 nd Form No.7 by the 2  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 

11. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   submitted  nd that the 2   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.  nd 12. On perusal of order dated 2  June, 1997 passed by  JUDGMENT the   Land   Tribunal,   we   find   that   the   Land   Tribunal  nd admitted Form No.7 produced by the 2   respondent in  th view of the High Court’s direction dated 5   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 6 7 enquiry upon the same is taken up by unanimous  opinion of the Land Tribunal.

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. JUDGMENT 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 7 8 Sd/­ Land Tribunal, Dharwad Members: 1.Sd/­ 2.Sd/­ 3.Sd/­.”   13. Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal admitted Form  nd No.7 produced by the 2  respondent and on an enquiry  nd  gave   definite   finding   that   the   applicant­2 respondent   was   not   in   occupation   or   cultivation   of  st the suit land as a tenant as on 1   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  JUDGMENT nd produced by the 2  respondent which in fact rendered  nd the order dated 2  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 8 9 14. For   the   reasons   aforesaid,   we   set   aside   the  nd impugned   order   dated   2   June,   2006   passed   by   the  Division   Bench   in   W.A.No.3836/2005(LR)   and   order 

nd Judge   in   W.P.   No.15722/1997,   order   dated   2   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) JUDGMENT NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 17, 2013. Page 9