IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 5"' DAY op EE3mAIa$*, A *
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A %
WRIT PETITION No."i§:898 OF
_BB_'I'.._\..7£E..E_._Ni
S10 late "
Aged sham 67'yé.ars, j
Residanllapf Clhikkst Viliagc,
Varthurflcrlyli,' _ %
Bangalore: Eés:i_VTz:luk;_ PETITIGNER
= By Advocate)
1. '
Sfelate Yijaya Raghava Pillai,
AMaj0t. b§0.6, 2!" cross,
V. ACub§>onpeL
' --. Ba.n.ga1ote.
' VA -- S£atc offiamaiaka,
to
By its Scctetaxy to the Government,
Revenue Department,
M.S.B1:iIding,
Bangalore ----- 560 001.
3
3. The: Land Tribunal,
Bangalore East Talulg
(Fosmcfiy Bangalore South Taluk)
Bangalore
By its chairman. .
(By Sim' S.Shckar Shelty. Adv, ro;%Fj:§¢spond¢;;¢-;% %
Shzi R.B.Satixyanaraya::a Singh; Court ("iovmnmmt
Plcadcr for Respondent.-g2:and'_
This W:it:!>a<§;i1i;»n ,aLre;¢1g:s%226 and 227 or the
Ccnstitution qf to__ tiie order cf the Land
Tribnanl, Bmiguigénj Eéisai i,:0.=3 .2003 wide Anncx.E.
on for pr;1r:c:unce1:3v.3{r:;tu(r£{ir£i_e'rs this day, the Caurt deiivered the
followingf-'~ " _ ' .
{)Rm5:R
., ‘ for the petitioner and the mspondcni.
._ claims as a tenant uflagxicuitural land in
V -V suwtéy measuring 3 acres 10 gtmias and survey m3.24:’3
u x V 3 aunts 10 gum.-as of Child; Beliandtsr Viilagc,
East Taluk since the year 3970.
5
3
It is stated that the land belonged to one Shri N.Rama
Raddy under whom the petitioner was cultivating the taqds on
warm basis. The petitioner has pnxiuoed RTC extracts”
that the pctitic.mcr’s name appcars in the
consistently {mm the year 1970 unwargism”upts1A_ti’1;: XItvt.i;~;
statcd that a fl3!’ttDt:.{,tf trees and in
has pnxignmd that he had obtained
loan tzultivate the land, which would
furt}1t:r_cvidtV-triut: and pt’!Sh’oBS!Si0!1 of land. The
ttifttnisr-Astate that Rama Roddy, in turn, had wtd
1971 if! favuur of the first rcspundent and the
pctiti1;_t1cr’,~;. of the land as at tenant was to the
t t 1 i” — 10f the first mspondcnt.
it is the pt3ttit£JIlt3!”‘1~; case that but had continued tn mcupy
uu land as a tenant even alter such purchazstc and that he had paid
wara. to the [irst %p0micnt. Though the khata of the land was
6
changed in the name uf the firsi respondent,
column in the RTC extracts ‘i«ljt:’i :é;e:1_.§rr:t:V»,_t:ii”V’V
peiitioncr. The petitioner ha&iV,T’:epugh{“*.fi§r’–
respect of the land under the 01: Land
Raibnns Act, 1961. g the first
rcspnmdcnt had a writ petition
before this was alluwed and
the mal1er–rcm§i12;i6;i*1 The Tribunal now
having rgggcagj ,5j¢§;g,ggg§§%g;;;p;p1ica:son, the present petition is
filed.
‘A Ctgunescl for the petitioner would t30I!lt.’:l}d that {he
would cleafly demonstrate the pciiti0m:r’s
é of the land, more particularly, as on the
tiégtc, nmnely 1.3.1974. The petitioner was 133::-my a
‘.”tcfi;an% in mspeci of the land. The Tribunal has ignored Ex?-30,
. fwhcrcin the erstwhile Iand-owner Rama Raddy has adm.it.te:d
i3ti3,i»i’¢2iL§i}fl of Hit? lam} by that gvtiiitagers Tbs: Tribunai has alsu
é
failed it} consider that the petitioner had raised
casuarina trees and even the ‘vatcm cultifléated the
ptztitiuner. The finding that sim.>t:_.thcrc ‘§vs;r:6–¢;asuar:it;a!’A’ti:*cesv “ttxE::’
land, there was no cultivatian Vtinding.
Thc Tribunal has aim éiaimisétttxt Eerdppfi
Roddy, who was :i as to the
pc:titit.mer’s Tlibunai has 3139
um1uoxui£x;:a+t: the first respondent .
{hr the mspondcnt would conttznd
that Rama of the lands, but this petitioner
_-_was . as the land had test its agriculturai
it tsunsisted only 0? casuariraa trees which did
nutgifiqtrirgi.éi_f;V..t:i:tJitivation, Rama Raddy was in possession till
pfiitiuntr hatch} had himself negotiated to purchast:
Them is my document pnxinoed it} shew that ht’: was a
tgflant and that he was paying wara.
%
I1 is stated by the first respondent that in 1978, file
knowledge and consent of the [inst respondent,
out easuzuina trees in respeci of whielfg”he–.had u ‘
before the jurisdictional police a(:l mi1VV£Ving that
he had wrongfully cut ‘es damages,
which would cieafiy The entries
in the RTC in flavour of the
petitioner. tenancy. The
presumoiion’ 4′ * petitioner is a rebullabie
571}! L*t;nter§§iet§v–..!.Irv;5i1 in Form no.7 fifed by the petitioner, it
that the first respondent is only a nominal
peliiioeer himself is ihe real owner . This is a
»mumdic.s;§3n which would defizat the claim of the petitioner as be
A ‘v.#¢Juid:£1<3 longer be in a positien to claim as; a tenant if he seeks to
' himself as 21 tenant as the owner of the land and therefore,
" {he application for occupancy rights was mi:-zeomzeived and the
Tyzibenal wuld not be to be in Intsafar as E223-1; said
Q
– In Durga Dans vs. Collector and o£her:_g (19935 sex: ;413g ‘Q16
Supnsme Court has bald that mutation
suflicient to establish tenancy.
I – Htmibaiarrmm vs. 1’v’irzgzmmag,, 3 ‘ Vt
– mam Balm Paiil mi etgm at gamma
Hwu1re,(2000)1SCC 513g$ V V
To support that under snction
133 at’ the 1964 as tn the:
§; Rigms could be dispiatmi
by a
wéutii éiitphasizc that the pctitiuncr is making
” extant wnsmgacnasm that the land is an image: agzmama:
is being utilised presently in concrete: block
_ maltiieg aubmit tlmt the {mutt may appoint a
t H H u whu could visit the spot and ascertain this fact and
that the petition be dismissed.
9
6. It is seen that the RTC extracts eeusistentty reflect that
the petitioner was in occupation as cultivator under
the erstwhiie owner ef the landlerqt, on *’
of the ma by rm 1esp<3mientttv'vt't'i:e t:et reiteetett it; the RTC
extracts. His name has T1'teApetitit:mer's
evidenee to el§:§r:1':.f{§af Ex.R-l, whieh
is an petitioner and the
same on the gmund that
it has Such a finding mid not
have been on the baid aflegation by the
V' «-fimt in When on the faee of it, there is no
»v4§§ig;:!ii;:.1ure, the presumption week} neeessariiy flow
that has in fact been executed. Any eentenliun to
wuuld have to be established at a trial. Hence, the
of EXR-I whieh clearly acknowledges gmsseéasien at the
Vt iaziti by the petitioner could not have been :set at naught. The
V relevant date of sue}: pesawssion and txreepation was l.3.}9'?4.
The revenue entries cezztinuuesly indicati%the petititmer as being
10
in uecupaliun of the land under the erstwhile owner, coupled wilh
EXR-I would certainly have to be read in favuur of the petitioner.
Though the evideniieuy value of
the presumption arising “a in V
the absence efany entries and the
fact that the petitioner of land by the
under _ ” approach of the
tribunal [an 1.. {his View of the matter, the
several judgineifis would not advanee cam: of the
“Tht:..«a:i}nlention that the land consisted of
lherefone, (here was as cultivation is also
V. the cultivation of trees amid be Ierrrml as
mculxm-g2:e as ihe definition of ‘agriculture’ does 110% exclude such
« Signifieanliy, the respondenfs awn ameriion that the
f A x mguarsna trees had been harvested by the peiiiioner and that on a
A V ” Veompiaini, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.l0,O002′- and with
which he was zrcttisfied and not havin pursued the criminal