ORDER
1. Both the above L.R.R.Ps. arc interconnected, inasmuch as both the petitioners in filing the revision petitions had challenged the common order dated 28-2-1990 in RA 712 of 1986 on the file of the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bellary. In passing the said order, the Appellate Authority while rejecting the claims of the petitioners in both the revision petitions, had allowed the claims of the respondents 3 and 4 in both the revision petitions.
2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions – Sri V.T. Rayareddy and Sri Mahantesh Hosmath appearing along with Sri H.G. Maheshwaraswamy and the learned Counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent 6, Sri R.B. Guttal and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 7(a) to 7(h) Sri G. Basavanagouda in the first petition. The respondents 3 to 5 in the first petition having been served with the notices had remained absent before Court. I have also perused the case records both of the Appellate Authority as well as that of the Land Tribunal.
3. The petitioners and the respondents 6 and 7 in the first petition (they are respondents 3 and 4 in the second petition) had claimed occupancy right by filing Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal. Since the contending opposite parties in both the petitions are common, I feel it
convenient to refer to them as they occur in the first petition. The petitioners in both the petitions are referred to as the ‘petitioner in the first petition’ and ‘petitioner in the second petition’.
4. The facts of the ease relevant for our purpose are as hereunder:
That an extent of 4 acres 52 cents in Sy. No. 95/B and 13 acres 48 cents in Sy. Nos. 167 (portion) and 168 (portion) originally belonged to the respondents 6 and 7. They had sold the same to one Laxmamma, daughter of Lokha Gouda Doddabasappa by way of registered sale deed in the year 1954. The respondents 6 and 7 claimed that despite there being a regular deed of sale in favour of the said Laxmamma, they continued to hold on the lands as tenants under the said Laxmamma. The respondents 6 and 7 had filed joint Form No. 7 claiming occupancy right in respect of the said extents of land on 12-1-1976 and 16-1-1976. Likewise, one Siddalinganagouda, the petitioner in the first petition and one R. Veerabhadragowda, the husband of the petitioner in the second petition had filed independent Form No. 7 claiming occupancy right. When the former had put forth claim in respect of 10 acres 78 cents in Sy. No. 167 and 2 acres 13 cents in Sy. No. 168 in his Form No. 7, dated 25-12-1975, the abovesaid R. Veerabhadragowda had filed Form No. 7 on 31-12-1974 claiming occupancy right in respect of 4 acres 60 cents in Sy. No. 95/B, both of Challagurki Village.
5. The Land Tribunal had registered the case in respect of the claim of the petitioner in the first petition in case No. 1461 and it had registered the case in respect of R. Veerabhadragowda in case No. 2661. It had also registered the joint claim of the respondents 6 and 7 in case No. 1764. The Land Tribunal had tried all the claims in the above 3 cases commonly and at the first instance while it had granted occupancy right to the petitioners in both the petitions, it had rejected the claims of the respondents 6 and 7 by its common order dated 24-10-1983 in the first round. The said order came to be challenged by the respondents 6 and 7 in W.P. No. 17206 of 1984 before this Court, but on constitution of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the writ petition was transferred to the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bellary (henceforth referred to as the ‘Appellate Authority’) to be treated as a deemed appeal and further to dispose of the same. That, thereafter, the Appellate Authority registered the appeal in No. (Writ) RA 712 of 1986. That the Appellate Authority did not approve the manner in which the Land Tribunal held its enquiry in the matter of claims of the three sets of the claims of the contending parties aforementioned for the reasons, firstly that the statement of the parties before the Land Tribunal were not recorded by the Chairman himself, inasmuch as the statements were in different hands, secondly that the joint statements of the parties were recorded and thirdly that the Chairman of the Land Tribunal had cross-examined some of the parties himself as if he was biased as against the respondents 6 and 7. It is because of that, the Appellate Authority held that the enquiry held by the Land Tribunal in the matter of claims of the contending parties before it was illegal and for that reason, it had independently recorded the evidence of the contending parties before it;
of course interlocutory applications also came to be filed by the contending parties before the Appellate Authority for adducing evidence, both oral and documentary.
6. Before the Appellate Authority, the respondents 6 and 7 being the appellants had examined in all three witnesses. They are the respondent 6 as A.W. 1, one Channabasavanagouda, son of the respondent 7 as A.W. 2 and one Nagappa, a coolie as A.W. 3. They also marked 9 documents. They include Exs. A. 1 to A. 6, the copies of the RORs and certified copy of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 360 of 1978 as A.8. and a sentence in Ex. A. 8 as Ex. A. 9. Per contra, the petitioner in the first petition had examined himself as R.W. 3, the petitioner in the second petition as R.W. 1, R.W. 2, the owner of the land and R.Ws. 4 to 6, the independent witnesses who were the adjacent owners of the subject lands. They also marked 7 documents and they include Ex. R. 2, a ‘patta’ receipt book, land revenue receipts, Exs. R. 3 to R. 6 in the name of the petitioner in the second petition and Ex. R. 7, the land revenue receipt of the petitioner in the first petition.
7. Based on the material evidence, both oral and documentary on the file of the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority had passed the impugned order as above.
8. Having been aggrieved thereto, the petitioners are before this Court in two independent revision petitions.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in the first petition Sri Rayareddy had taken me through the facts of the case and also the impugned order under challenge. He had also taken me through the order that came to be passed by the Land Tribunal which was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 7206 of 1984. At the outset, he submitted that his party had claimed 10 acres 78 cents, a portion of land in Sy. No. 167 and 2 acres 73 cents, again a portion in Sy. No. 168. It was also argued by him that his party in examining himself as R.W. 3 and further examining independent witnesses in R.Ws. 3, 4 to 6 had also proved the claim made in the Form No. 7 by his party. He had also pointed out that the owner examined as R.W. 2 before the Appellate Authority had also supported the claim of his party inasmuch as he had deposed before the Appellate Authority that the lands applied for by his party was cultivated by himself, i.e., the petitioner in the first petition and that he was paying gutta to R.W. 2. It was further argued by him that his party being not worldly wise, did not get his name entered in the ROR. While turning to the evidence of the contesting party on the other side, the respondents 6 and 7, Sri Rayareddy pointed out that the said respondents were not at all the tenants cultivating the land as they claimed in their Form No. 7 and that in support of their claims they had examined R.W. 2, an interested witness in the cause of the respondents 6 and 7 as he was the son of the respondent 7 and his evidence according to him was not at all dependable. It was also argued by Sri Rayareddy that in producing the so-called pahanis for the years from 1966 to 1973, the respondents 6 and 7 had not proved their case, for in no part thereof it had been shown that they were cultivating the lands as tenants.
Furthermore, he had pointed out that though his party-had produced the revenue receipts for the period subsequent to the year 1974, it could not be said that the same could not be looked into by the Authorities. To support that argument of his, he had also cited before me a decision of this Court in Sarojini Shedthi v Putta Naik and Others , wherein this Court held that, in order to decide whether a person is a tenant or not as on 1-3-1974, it cannot be said in absolute terms that the documents that have come into existence after 1-3-1974 are totally irrelevant. He had also argued that the respondents 6 and 7 had not produced any document in support of their claim in the Form No. 7. With reference to Exs. A. 8 and A. 9, the decree in O.S. No. 360 of 1978 and a portion marked therein, Sri Rayareddy submitted that the decree in question was of the year 1978 and as such, the same was of no consequence to find out as to who was the tenant as on 1-3-1974. He had also relied upon a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Chandrasekharaiah v Land Tribunal, Shimoga . The same is with regard to the presumptive value of the entries in the pahanis under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act. To sum up his argument, Sri Rayareddy submitted that the Appellate Authority had not properly weighed the evidence adduced by his party on the one side and the counter evidence adduced by the respondents 6 and 7 on the other and because of that, it had entered into an error in rejecting the claim of his party and further granting occupancy right to the respondents 6 and 7 as it did in passing the impugned order. He therefore prayed that the revision petition filed by his party be allowed in setting aside the impugned order insofar as the same related to the claim of his party and further grant of occupancy right in respect of the second item of the land to the respondents 6 and 7. He also prayed that in allowing the revision, his party be granted with occupancy right in respect of items of the lands i.e., 10 acres 78 cents (portion) in Sy. No. 167 and 2 acres 73 cents in Sy. No. 168 (portion).
10. Sri Rayareddy had relied upon the following other decisions in support of his case. They are:
1. Muniyallappa u B.M. Krishnamurthy and Others;
2. Dasarath Panda v Land Tribunal, Belgaum;
3. Basayya v Land Tribunal, Hungund and Another ;
4. Bakilana Chinnappa u Land Tribunal, Mercara Taluk and Others;
5. Sarojini Shedthi’s case, supra;
6. Chandrasekharaiah’s case, supra.
11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in the second petition Sri Hosmath argued that the claim of his party was in pursuance of the claim made by her husband one Veerabhadragowda who had claimed 4 acres 60 cents of land in Sy. No. 95-B. He had also pointed out that the said Veerabhadragowda was also the paternal uncle of the respondents 6 and 7. Sri Hosmath had yet again taken me through the backdrop of the case. In doing that, Sri Hosmath argued that the respondents 6 and 7 bad executed a deed of sale in the year 1954 in the name of the above said Lakshmamma. While turning to the Form No. 7 filed by his party, Sri Hosmath argued that the abovesaid Lakshmamma died in the year 1969 and it is thereafter, the right, title and interest on the subject lands had devolved on one Chandanagouda, the cousin of the above said Lakshmamma and it is because of that, his party had filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy right under the said Chandanagouda. He had also submitted that the said Chandanagouda was collecting the gutta from his party.
12. Sri Hosmath also argued that the respondents 6 and 7 having sold the land, had at no point of time cultivated the same. In this context, he had pointedly drawn my attention to Ex. R. 1 that was marked by his party through the respondent 6 before the Land Tribunal. The same is a public notice dated 12-2-1955 put out by way of hand bill by one K. Channabasappa, an Advocate at Bellary published at the instance and under instructions of the respondents 6 and 7. While taking me through the contents of the said public notice, Sri Hosmath had also pointed out that the execution of the sale deed dated 24-12-1954 in the name of Lakshmamma, daughter of Doddabasappa and her daughter by name Gangamma for valid consideration was very well-conceded thereto in Ex. R. 1 and he further pointed out that in no part of the said notice, the respondents 6 and 7 had claimed right of tenancy under the said Lakshmamma and on the other hand, the petitioners claimed that, the deed of sale in question was a nominal deed of sale and that they continued to hold the subject land unto themselves and further cautioned the public at large that no right, title and interest had vested in the said Lakshmamma and that they further cautioned the public at large that none shall either purchase or have the same for gain from the said Lakshmamma.
13. While taking me through the evidence of R.W. 6 (examined as A.W. 1 before the Appellate Authority), Sri Hosmath had also pointed out that the said respondent 6 had admitted that he was a party for publication of the notice at Ex. R. 1. While referring to the pahanis produced by the respondents 6 and 7 marked as Exs. A. 1 to A. 6 Sri Hosmath submitted that for the years 1966-67 the name of the respondent 7 and his brother Bheemanagowda were shown, whereas for the years from 1967-68 to 1973-74, the name of the cultivator had not at all been shown, inasmuch as the said columns were left blank and furthermore, for the year 1974-75 it had been shown therein as ‘swanta’. Therefore, he submitted that the pahanis at Exs. A. 1 to A. 6 were of no assistance to the respondents 6 and 7 to prove their tenancy under the purchaser of the land, the abovesaid Lakshmamma. While referring to
Exs. A. 1 to A. 6 and further to Ex. R. 1, the above referred public notice, Sri Hosmath submitted that the respondents 6 and 7 were blowing hot and cold, for in the year 1955 when the petitioners claimed that they were the owners in possession of the land, in filing the joint Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, they claimed that they were cultivating the same on tenancy basis under the abovesaid Lakshmamma. According to him, it was totally impermissible for the petitioners to put forth such a false claim before the Land Tribunal to deprive his party who was legitimately entitled to for grant of occupancy right in respect of 4 acres 60 cents of the land in Sy. No. 95-B, since the same was under cultivation, at the first instance under the husband of the petitioner 2 and at the second and after his demise, under her.
14. Sri Hosmath had also pointed out that the respondent 6 being an official working in the Judicial Department and later working as a Court Officer in this Court was misusing his position and he was writing personal letters to the Deputy Commissioner, the Land Tribunal and governmental authorities in the Karnataka Government Secretariat with regard to the case, only to put pressure on the authorities to decide the case in a particular way. In this regard he had also drawn my attention to the personal letters the respondent 6 had written to the Land Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner and the Governmental Authorities found at page Nos. 341 to 361 of the records. Sri Hosmath had also pointed out that the respondent 6 in examining himself as A.W. 1 had also deposed that his family was owning 75 to 80 acres of land and therefore according to him, under Section 45(2) of the Land Reforms Act, there was a bar for the Land Tribunal to grant occupancy right to the respondents 6 and 7 inasmuch as they were holding the land beyond the ceiling limit. That argument Sri Hosmath had advanced with reference to Section 63 of the Land Reforms Act wherein it is provided for, that an individual or a family cannot hold more than 10 units of the land. Sri Hosmath had also relied upon the decisions in Muniyallappa’s case, and Basayyas case, supra, on the point that the statement made in one case cannot be an admission in another case.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, Sri Hosmath prayed that this Court he pleased to allow the second revision petition of his party in setting aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority granting occupancy right to the respondents 6 and 7 in respect of the land his party had applied for and he further prayed that his party be granted with occupancy right in allowing the Form No. 7 filed by her husband one Veerabhadragowda.
16. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent 6 Sri R.B. Guttal at the outset argued with reference to the pahanis for the years from 1966-67 to the year 1974-75 marked as Exs. A. 1 to A. 6, that the respondent 6 had proved the case before the Appellate Authority that it is he and his elder brother, respondent 7 herein who were cultivating the land and therefore according to him, there was a presumption available in their favour under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act. It was also argued by him that the petitioners in both the petitions had not
produced rebuttal evidence to dislodge that presumption available to his party and respondent 7 and according to him, the Appellate Authority had rightly appreciated that legal position and granted the occupancy right to the respondents 6 and 7 in their joint names in allowing their joint Form No. 7, Sri Guttal had also submitted that the petitioners had not proved their claim in pursuance of the Form No. 7 filed before the Land Tribunal. While placing reliance on Section 121-A of the Land Reforms Act, Sri Guttal also argued that while this Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction under the said section, it is only the illegality or irregularity that had to be looked into by this Court and that both the petitioners in filing the instant revision petitions had not pointed out neither before this Court. Hence, his submission was that there is no good reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority granting occupancy right to his party and on the respondent 7. While referring to Ex. R. 1, a public notice, Sri Guttal argued that the contents of the same was the view of the lawyer who had put out that public notice by way of hand bills and therefore according to him, the same cannot be looked into by this Court to deny the claim of the respondents 6 and 7, particularly when the claim of the respondents is against the State for grant of the land that was under their occupation as tenants. Sri Guttal had also reminded this Court that the Land Reforms Act is a beneficial piece of Legislation for conferment of the occupancy right to the tiller of the soil and in the instant case in hand when his party and respondent 7 had proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt that it was they who were cultivating the lands as tenants, it was just and proper for the Appellate Authority to confer occupancy right in their names. Sri Guttal had also cited decisions of this Court in C.P. Mahadeva Setty v Ningamma and Nage Gowda v Basavana Gowda and Another .
17. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 7(a) to 7(h) is none other than the respondent 6 herein. He had taken me through the history of the case yet again in his own way. He had also adopted the argument of Sri Guttal who incidentally appeared for him in the instant writ petition. To keep the record straight, I should also add here that the respondent 6 after his retirement either as a Court Officer or Section Officer in the Office of this Court, started practicing as an Advocate in Bangalore. That is how he had appeared before this Court in the case, representing his elder brother’s L.Rs respondents 7(a) to 7(h) herein.
18. I heard the learned Counsel appearing for the contending parties at length and in the light of the above, I have carefully and meticulously gone through the records of the Appellate Authority as well as the records of the Land Tribunal. In doing that, one thing solitarily I have observed is the conduct of the respondent 6 who incidentally happened to be an official working in the Judicial Department for considerably long time, finally to retire in and around the year 1989 as Court Officer or Section Officer of this Court.
19. At the threshold, I have to point out that the respondent 6 had meddled with the Form No. 7 originally filed by the respondent 7 without he being an applicant in the matter of claim before the Land Tribunal. As I see, it is the respondent 7 who had filed Form No. 7 on 16-1-1976 in duplicate. Those two Forms No. 7 we find at page Nos. 237 and 241 of the records of the Land Tribunal. The said two Forms No. 7 appeared to be in one set, for a Court fee of Rs. 2/- which had to be affixed whenever Form No. 7 were to be filed, is not found in the Form No. 7 found at page No. 241, whereas the Court fee of Rs. 2/- had been affixed on Form No. 7 found at page No. 237. In both the copy of the Forms No. 7 found at the said page numbers, the claim was originally shown in respect of one half of the extent of 4 acres 52 cents in Sy. No. 95-B and one half of the extent of 13 acres 48 cents in Sy. Nos. 167 and 168. Both the said Forms No. 7 were originally dated as 16-1-1976, whereas in the Form No. 7 wherein Court fee of Rs. 2/- is affixed found at page No. 237, but from a close scrutiny, it is observed that the extents were corrected to show that the claims were not in respect of one half of the said two extents but in respect of the entire two extents (that was done by striking the figure ‘2’ below the two extents written), whereas the claims in the copy of the Form No. 7 at page No. 241, the claims were shown as, ‘4-52/2 and 13-48/2’. The date in the copy of Form No. 7 at page No. 237 there below in the left hand side bottom is overwritten and corrected as 10-2-1976 in the place of original date 16-1-1976, furthermore, when in that form the signature of the respondent 6 in the bottom had occurred below the signature of the respondent 7, in the Form No. 7 at page No. 241, the signature of the respondent 6 had occurred right above the signature of the respondent 7 as if it had been subsequently affixed adjusting space carefully, since certain notings were done thereon by the Special Tahsildar of the Land Tribunal on 20-7-1978. Both the notings in both the forms were identically made by the Special Tahsildar together with some other official on the common date, i.e., 20-7-1978. That, in Column No. 1 of the Form No. 7 at page No. 237, wherein the name of the owner had to be written, certain things what were originally written were scored off and for the said scoring, initials were put, might be by the respondent 6. It is relevant to mention here that the initial for the scoring of the figures ‘2’ written below the extents ‘4 acres 52 cents’ and ’13 acres 48 cents’ in two places were scored off and the said place of scoring also bore initials ‘R.K.’, might be to refer to the respondent 7, his name being ‘R. Karibasa-vanagouda’ together with another initial, might be of the respondent 6. However, the initials ‘R.K.’ as if of the respondent 7 were not found in the place of additional writing scored off in the column meant to write the name of the owner in Form No. 7 at page No. 237, That, in Form No. 7 found at page No. 237, the words were written as, ‘and my brother younger R. Basavanagouda’ as if to add to the name of the respondent 7 and that came to be added in a different ink and hand to appear as if the Form No. 7 were jointly filed by the respondent 6 and the respondent 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the name written in the top in Form No. 7 and the style of putting the signature there below in the bottom,
20. On close scrutiny of the above insertions and interpolations at times by scoring off what were written earlier in the two applications at page Nos. 237 and 241 of the Land Tribunal records, I have also carefully gone through the two affidavits those were filed by the respondent 7, one found at page Nos. 239 to 240, another at page Nos. 243 and 244 of the records of the Land Tribunal.
21. On going through the affidavit at page Nos. 239 and 240 of the respondent 7, it is clear therefrom that the said affidavit was filed accompanying an application dated 16-11-1976 by the said respondent 7. It is relevant to note here that the date in the Form No. 7 found at page No. 241 and the date originally written in the Form No. 7 found at page No, 237 was 16-1-1976 (it was corrected later as 10-2-1976 by overwriting in the Form No. 7 at page No. 237) and furthermore, the affidavit I referred to above found in between the said two Forms No. 7 in the records of the Land Tribunal was also dated 16-1-1976 and the same was sworn to only by the respondent 7 and by careful reading of the said affidavit, I was not left with any doubt that the said affidavit was filed on 16-1-1976 only by the respondent 7 to accompany the said Form No. 7 filed in duplicate by him and the said forms filed in duplicate were the two forms found at page Nos. 237 and 241 referred to above and by no stretch of imagination it was filed by the respondent 7 along with the respondent 6 as it later turned out to be before the Land Tribunal at the second instance by meddling with the said two Forms and that meddling with by interpolations might be by none other than the respondent 6 herein. In this context, I feel it proper to quote the entire affidavit of the respondent 7 found at page Nos. 239 and 240 of the Land Tribunal records, wherein the respondent 7 had claimed the tenancy in his exclusive name. The contents of the same read as hereunder:
“BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL AT BELLARY AFFIDAVIT
I, R. Karibasavanagouda, son of R. Channabasavanagouda, major, of Chellagurki Village, Bellary Taluk do solemnly affirm and state as follows:
I am presenting the enclosed declaration in Form No. 7 of Rule 19(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules.
The lands for which declaration is applied for are ancestral and hereditary properties and they were allotted to me along with my yonger brother R. Basavanagowda in the year 1940 on partition. I have been in possession and cultivation of the properties allotted to my share.
The lands bearing Sy. Nos. 95-B, 128-A, 167 and 168 were mortgaged to Smt. Gonchegaru Lakshmamma, daughter of Labhagonda Doddabasappa of Y. Ramapuram, Rayadurga Taluk, Anautapur District in Andhra Pradesh, and later on lands bearing S. Nos. 95-B, 167, 168-A, etc. were sold conditionally in the year 1954 to the said woman with possession remaining with us as tenants. She orally agreed and conveyed the lands to us for cultivation, except the ownership, which she agreed orally, to convey later, when she unexpectedly died.
The right of pre-emption vests with us. I have been paying the land revenue every year through my cousin brother R. Veerabhadragowda, S/o. R. Hanuman Gowda and cousin brother’s son R. Naganagouda and his sons R. Siddalinganagowda of Challagurki Village, Bellary Taluk.
Due to misunderstanding, I learn that the above named R. Veerabhadragowda and R. Naganagouda and his son N. Siddalinganagouda, have filed declarations before this Hon’ble Tribunal as tenants.
I swear that these persons have no manner of right, title or interest in the above mentioned lands.
I pray that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly declare that I am the lawful tenant of the above mentioned lands and protect the interest of myself and my huge family consisting of my wife and children.
Bellary, Sd/-
Dated 16-1-1976. R. Karibasavanagouda,
Deponent-declarant".
22. It is further relevant to observe in this context that in the end part of the said affidavit, the respondent 7 prayed that he be declared as a lawful tenant to protect the interest of himself and his family consisting of his wife and children.
23. In this context it is also relevant to point out here that the respondent 6 had also filed an affidavit dated 8-1-1976 found at page Nos. 243 and 244 of the Land Tribunal records, wherein he had declared that it is he who was cultivating the lands in question and that he be therefore declared as the lawful tenant to protect his and his family's interest. The said affidavit of the respondent 6 reads as hereunder:
"BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL AT BELLARY AFFIDAVIT
I, R. Basavanagouda, L.C. and S.E., B.A., B.L., Sheristedar, District and Sessions Court, Shimoga, solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:--
I am presenting the enclosed declaration in Form 7 of the under Rule 19(1) of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, as per Section 45 read with 48-A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
The lands in question are ancestral and hereditary property were allotted to my share on partition in the year 1940. I have been in possession and cultivation ever since then.
The lands bearing S. Nos. 95-B, 128-A, 167 and 168 were mortgaged to Smt. Gonchegaru Lakshmamma, daughter of Labhagouda Doddabasappa of Y. Ramapuram, Rayadurga Taluk, Ananthapur District in Andhra Pradesh and later on lands bearing Sy. Nos. 95-B, 167, 168-A, etc. were sold conditionally in the year 1954 to the said woman with possession remaining with us as tenants. She orally agreed and conveyed the lands to us for cultivation, except the ownership which she agreed orally, to convey later, when she unexpectedly died.
The right of pre-emption vests with us. I have been paying the land revenue every year through my cousin brother R. Veerabhadragowda, son of R. Hanuman Gowda and cousin brother’s son R. Naganagowda and his sons R. Siddalinganagouda of Challagurki Village, Bellary Taluk.
Due to misunderstanding, I learned that the above named R. Veerabhadragowda and his son R. Siddalinganagouda have filed declarations before this Hon’ble Tribunal as tenants.
I swear that these persons have no manner of right, title or interest in the above mentioned lands.
I pray that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly declare that I am the lawful tenant of the above mentioned lands and protect the interest of myself and my family consisting of my wife and four children.
I swear accordingly.
Shimoga Sd/- Dated: 8-1-1976 Deponent-declarant".
24. From the above, I am of the considered view that the respondent 6 at no point of time joined the respondent 7 to claim occupancy right jointly with him and he had intervened only after the filing of the original Form No. 7 in duplicate by the respondent 7 on 16-1-1976 as at page Nos. 237 and 241 and that he did by meddling with the said Form No. 7 originally filed by the respondent 7 by adding, overwriting, rewriting, attesting, etc. The above position or situation was further strengthened by way of confirmation by the evidence of A.W. 2 who had been exam-
ined for and on behalf of the respondents 6 and 7. Incidentally A.W, 2 examined by them was none other than the son of the respondent 7, whereas A.W. 1 was the respondent 6 himself. In his evidence (in the cross-examination part) A.W. 2 had deposed that at the time of filing the Form No. 7, the respondents 6 and 7 had separated themselves and that his father i.e. the respondent 7 had filed Form No. 7 in respect of Sy. Nos. 95-B, 67 and 68 (might be he meant Sy. Nos. 167 and 168). To quote the said part of the evidence of A.W. 2, found in the Land Tribunal records, the same reads as hereunder:
25. It is pertinent to mention here that A.W. 2 and yet another witness A.W. 3 were examined in support of the so-called joint applications by the respondents 6 and 7 and that being so, the above piece of evidence of A.W. 2 that it is his father alone who had filed the Form No. 7 assumes importance. Therefore, I was left with no iota of doubt that the respondent 6 had not put forth any claim in respect of the subject ]ands as he had presented and further claimed before the Land Tribunal at the first instance and before the Appellate Authority at the second as well as before this Court now in these two L.R.R.Ps. The contradictions in the case of the respondent 6 and the respondent 7 were writ large in the Form No. 7 at page Nos. 237 and 241 and two independent affidavits filed by the respondent 6 and the respondent 7, reproduced as above and further by the evidence of the son of the respondent 7 now arrayed as respondent 7(b). It was to be stated here that when in Form No. 7, respondent 6 and respondent 7 had claimed joint tenancy in their names, in filing the two separate affidavits in question, they had fallen apart and claimed independent tenancy in their exclusive names in respect of both the items of the lands.
26. The Appellate Authority, as I see, in passing the impugned order had placed its reliance mainly on the documentary evidence in Exs. A. 1 to A. 6 marked before it. The said documents were found on the records of the Land Tribunal at page Nos. 201, 203, 205 and 251 to 255. As I further see, the pahani extracts at Ex. A. 1 at page Nos. 201 and 202 of the Land Tribunal records were written in two different inks. The columns at 1 to 16 for the period from 1966 to 1973 in both the pages therein were filled up in blue ink, whereas right above those entries at page No. 201 were filled up in black ink and both the entries appear to have been filled up in dot pen; furthermore, the survey number had not been clearly written, but it was quite possible, it might have been written as 95-B.
27. There is yet another aspect of the case to be mentioned here, That is with regard to the entries in Column No. 2 therein. In the said column, wherein name of the cultivator had to be mentioned, it was written in black ink as ‘swanta’. But the extent again had been shown therein as ‘7 acres 4 cents’ and the same stood in the name of Bhimanagouda at ‘kabjedars’ column in Col. No. 9, who appeared to be the deceased brother of the respondents 6 and 7, whereas the pahanis at page Nos.
203 and 204, also for the said period from 1967 to the year 1973 in respect of Sy. No. 167, extent was shown therein as ’10 acres 78 cents’ once again stood in the name of the said deceased brother of the petitioner.
28. It is interesting to note here that in the cultivator’s column at 12(2), the name of the said Bhimanagouda had appeared. To turn to the entries in the pahanis in respect of Sy. No. 168 found at Ex. A. 3, it has to be pointed that kabjedars column at Col. No. 9 was left blank, whereas the extent had been shown as 8 acres 19 cents and whereas in the Column 12(2) it had been written therein as ‘swanta’ in karnnada and below that, the name of the respondent 7 and the name of Bhimanagouda had been entered.
29. Now I come to the pahanis at Exs. A. 4 to A. 5 which were found in page Nos. 251 to 255 of the Land Tribunal records.
30. The pahani at Ex. A. 4 was produced in respect of 10 acres 78 cents in Sy. No. 167 for the year 1967-68 and in the cultivators column therein the name of the respondent 7 had been written; so also in Ex. A. 5 the extent had been shown as ‘8 acres 19 cents’ in Sy. No. 168-A and that again was for the year 1967-68, written in the name of the respondent 7. So also, in copies of the pahani Ex. A. 6 in respect of Sy. No. 168-B, the extent had been shown therein as ‘8 acres 83 cents’ for the year 1967-68 and the name therein was written as ‘Goudra Bheema’, might be referable to the elder brother of the respondents 6 and 7 Bhimanagouda. What was important was it took away the very effect of Exs. A. 1 to A. 6 which were claimed to be the supporting documents of the case of the respondents 6 and 7 and to crown all the above, none of the pahanis at Exs. A. 1 to A. 6 were authenticated documents obtained by the respondents 6 and 7, for all that what I saw in page No.” 2 of all the Exs. A. 1 to A. 6 documents were that it had been written therein as true copy’ and ‘prepared by’ and below that, I found some signatures and below the signatures, it was written: ‘For’, thereby connoting that somebody had affixed signature in all of them, for and on behalf of somebody. Interestingly enough in no part there below, I found the authentication by the authority who had issued Exs. A. 1 to A. 6. To me, it therefore appeared that Exs. A. 1 to A. 6 were all bogus records, at times, not co-relating to the survey numbers and the extents in question. Furthermore, Ex. A. 1 had been written in two different hands and in two different inks. That being the position, it appeared to me that it was not just and proper for the Appellate Authority to place its reliance on any one of the said exhibits/documents for passing the impugned order in favour of the respondents 6 and 7 to grant occupancy right, In my considered view, Exs. A. 1 to A. 6 were worth no better than scrap of papers and as such had no credence.
31. Before the Appellate Authority, as I saw, the respondent 6 had examined himself as A.W. 1 on behalf of himself and the respondent 7, A.W. 2, son of respondent 7, he being the Power of Attorney Holder of his father and furthermore, they had also examined yet another witness A.W. 3 before the Appellate Authority. The said A.W. 3 claimed to be a
coolie who worked for the respondents 6 and 7. What is important to be noted in his evidence was that, though he had deposed before the Appellate Authority that the respondents 6 and 7 were cultivating the subject lands, in the cross-examination part, he had deposed that it was he i.e. A.W. 3 who was cultivating the subject land on share basis 2:1; i.e. two parts to the respondents 6 and 7 and one part to himself. Furthermore, he had also deposed before the Appellate Authority (in the cross-examination part) that he had not seen what the respondents 6 and 7 had grown the year last. He had also deposed finally and fatally that he had not gone to see the disputed lands at all. I feel that, the interesting piece of the evidence of A.W. 3 is to be quoted and to do that the same reads as hereunder:
32. The fatal blow to the case of the respondents 6 and 7 was in Ex. R. 1 produced by the respondents 6 and 7 before the Appellate Authority. The same was a public notice, admittedly put out by the respondents 6 and 7 through their Advocate, one K. Channabasappa of Bellary on 12-2-1955. In the said public notice, it was informed to the public at large by the respondents 6 and 7 that they sold the subject land, more fully set out in the Schedule therein, on 24-2-1954 to one Lakshmamma and her daughter Gangamma for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,000/- and that the same was a nominal sale and further that they continued to be in possession as owners thereof. They further cautioned the public not to purchase or have it for gain and in the event anybody were to purchase or go for it for gain, the same would not bind on the respondents 6 and 7. In this context, I felt it proper to reproduce the said public notice put out by the respondents 6 and 7, particularly, when the respondent 6 examined as A.W. 1 in his evidence before the Appellate Authority had admitted that such a notice was put out by him and respondent 7. The same reads as hereunder:
33. If one goes through the above public notice, one gets an impression that the respondents 6 and 7 were the owners in possession of the land and that the deed of sale was a nominal deed of sale and no right, title and interest had passed on to the vendee-Lakshmamma, If it is true that the respondents 6 and 7 immediately after sale of the subject land to Lakshmamma on 24-12-1954 had taken the same on tenancy basis, nothing prevented the respondents 6 and 7 to say that they had the tenancy right in respect of the said extents of land, consequent to the said deed of sale that came to be made in the year 1954, more so, when there was no dispute between the petitioners on the one side and the respondents 6 and 7 on the other as to the tenancy and furthermore, the claim of tenancy by the petitioners had arisen only in the year 1955 as claimed by respondents 6 and 7 in the Form No. 7. It is that important fact that is found to be missing in the above public notice Ex. R. 1. It is to be reminded here that in the evidence of respondent 6 examined as A.W. 1, he had also deposed that after the sale of the lands by Lakshmamma, she had leased the lands to respondent 6 and respondent 7 on an annual rental of Rs. 600/-. But interestingly, in the Form No. 7 found at page No. 237, it was shown therein that the lands were cultivated as owners thereof, whereas in the Form No. 7 found at page 241, it was written by meddling therein that the subject lands were cultivated by way of tenancy. It is pertinent to mention here that in doing that, what were originally written therein were scored off with the initial thereto of respondent 6, but in both the Forms No. 7 at page Nos. 237 and 241 it was commonly written below the column: commencement of tenancy as, ‘from the year 1955’.
34. In the light of all the above, it does not occur to me that the respondents 6 and 7 were ever the tenants in respect of the subject land under the original owner Lakshmamma and on her demise in the year
1965, they continued to be tenants under the successors-in-title of the said Lakshmamma at any point of time.
35. In passing the impugned order under challenge, though the Appellate Authority had discarded the evidence recorded by the Land Tribunal, the Appellate Authority, time and again discussed the very evidence before the Land Tribunal for the purpose of the conclusion it had arrived at to say that the respondents 6 and 7 had proved their claim for grant of occupancy right. If the Appellate Authority discarded the evidence recorded by the Land Tribunal for the reasons, firstly that joint statements were recorded, and secondly that the Chairman of the Tribunal had shown bias as against the respondents 6 and 7, it would have totally relied upon the evidence and the counter evidence adduced by the parties before it for passing the impugned order. Strangely, the Appellate Authority for the reasons best known to it, had relied upon the discarded evidence, at times discussed at length, for passing the impugned order in favour of the respondent 6 and the respondent 7. I do not think the said approach of the Appellate Authority can be approved by this Court.
36. The learned Counsel for the respondent 6 Sri Guttal vehemently argued that this Court had to be slow while interfering with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority. That he did on the main contention that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited to satisfy itself as to the legality of the order and further to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceedings. In my view when the Appellate Authority in passing the impugned order had erroneously relied upon the discarded evidence recorded by the Land Tribunal and further relied upon unauthenticated RORs Exs. A. 1 to A. 6, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority was legal and furthermore, it can be said that the procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority is also regular; let apart, the above argument of Sri Guttal would have been befitting, had the two Authorities below i.e., the Land Tribunal at the first instance and the Appellate Authority at the second had concurrently held that the respondents 6 and 7 had proved their case in the matter of grant of occupancy right to them. But that was not the position here. In the instant case in hand, as pointed out by me, the Appellate Authority totally rejected the evidence recorded by the Land Tribunal for the reason that it was totally opposed to the provisions of law in Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules in the matter of conducting of the proceedings by it and as such it had recorded the evidence itself and passed the impugned order as if it was the Authority at the first instance to deal with the matter. Therefore, I have got no hesitation to reject the argument of Sri Guttal that this Court has to be slow in the matter of intervention of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority. Furthermore, for the reasons morefully discussed as above, to me it appears that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority was totally untenable and therefore liable to be set aside in allowing both the revision petitions.
37. While dealing at length, the meddling and interpolation with the original Form No. 7 filed by the respondent 7, I have observed that the respondent 6 originally had not applied for the Form No. 7 and he got his name inserted and further affixed his signatures by adjusting the same vis-a-vis the space available in Form No. 7, one at page No. 237 and another at page No. 241 somewhere in the mid but before the enquiry proceedings were commenced before the Land Tribunal. It is therefore obvious that the respondent 6 was not at all a party to the very filing of the Form No. 7 to claim any sort of right, title and interest to get the subject land granted in his name also. The very act of meddling with the Form No. 7 filed by the respondent 7 had vitiated the solemnity of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and further the solemnity before the Appellate Authority too. With reference to the two Forms No. 7, one at page No. 237 and another at page No. 241 of the records, I have also observed that it was the respondent 7 alone who had applied for grant of occupancy right in respect of one half of the land in Sy. No. 95/B i.e. one half of 4 acres 52 cents and another one half of the extent in Sy. Nos. 167 and 168 (portions) i.e., one half of 13 acres 48 cents and further that by meddling with the copy of the Form No. 7 at page No. 237, the extents had been corrected by the respondent 6 to show that the claim by the respondent 6 and the respondent 7 were in respect of the entire extents in the said two survey numbers. But the act of showing so was incomplete in the hands of the respondent 6, for he had failed to do that correction in the second Form No. 7 at page No. 241. It is well-said that there is no perfect crime; I just recall that in this context.
38. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it was quite a possibility that the respondent 6 might have struck a deal with the respondent 7, firstly to share the lands granted by way of occupancy right equally and secondly to take up the responsibility of pursuing the claims before the Land Tribunal himself and it was because of that deal struck, the claim made by the respondent 7 in respect of one half of the two items in two survey numbers were corrected in the Form No. 7 by the respondent 6 to be the joint claims in respect of the entire extents in both the survey numbers. After all, in that deal, the respondent 7 stood to gain, for he was destined to get what he had applied for in his Form No. 7 at the cost and labour of the respondent 6 and even otherwise, having applied for one half of the two items of the lands, he had to get just that in the hands of the Land Tribunal on trial. Therefore, it also appeared to me that it is because of that, the respondent 6 was all in all, although the litigation carried from the Land Tribunal right up to this Court. Man’s greed for pelf and pleasure knows no bound; what a fall! I so observe without rancour or prejudice, but in a lighter vein in the context.
39. If the claim in the case was in respect of one half of the extents by the respondent 7 alone and subsequently meddled with and corrected by the respondent 6 as if the claims were made both by the respondent 6 and the respondent 7 jointly in respect of the entire two extents, it could not be said that the evidence adduced by the respondents 6 and 7 by examining the respondent 6 as A.W. 1, the Power of Attorney Holder of
respondent 7 as A.W. 2 (now respondent 7(b)) and yet another witness A.W. 3, a coolie from their side in support of their original claim, would lead their case to a logical conclusion to grant occupancy right to them as the Appellate Authority did in passing the impugned order. To me it appeared in the given case in hand, that the claim was one by the respondent 7 and the evidence was another in the hands of the respondent 6 before the Appellate Authority.
40. In the said view of the matter, it appeared to me further that the Appellate Authority was not justified in granting occupancy right to the respondents 6 and 7. As a matter of fact, I had come to a conclusion that the respondent 6 was not a party to the claim before the Land Tribunal at all, and as such, question of his adducing evidence before the Land Tribunal did not arise at all. To put it bluntly, the respondent 6 had no business to be before the Land Tribunal either as a claimant or for that matter as a prosecutor of the claims, when factually, the respondent 7 alone had filed exclusive claims in his own name in Form No. 7 in duplicate, found at page Nos. 237 and 241 together with his affidavit found at page Nos. 238 to 240 of the Land Tribunal records.
41. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the strong view that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority was totally untenable and unjust, and as such, has to be set aside at the earliest opportunity.
42. Now I come to the case of the petitioners. As I see, in support of the claim of the revision petitioners, the petitioners had produced ample evidence both oral and documentary before the Appellate Authority. They have not only examined themselves, but also examined other independent witnesses to support their case. They had also examined R.W. 2, the owner of the subject lands, the successors-in-title to the original owner Lakshmamma, from their side who had totally supported the case of the revision petitioners for the grant of occupancy right, inasmuch as R.W. 2 had denied in clear terms that the respondents 6 and 7 at any point of time had cultivated the subject land and further that they were not the tenants under the original owner Lakshmamma at the first instance and under the successors-in-title at the second. The revision petitioners had also produced the land revenue receipts, of course they are for the subsequent year; nevertheless, just because they were for the subsequent years to the year 1974, one could not easily turn them away, particularly when this Court in the case of Sarojini Shedthi, supra had observed that the subsequent documents also could be relied upon in the matter of grant of occupancy right claimed in Form No. 7. The said decision was aptly relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the first revision petition Sri Rayareddy. The revision petitioner in the second case had also examined independent witness to substantiate her claim.
43. In the light of the above evidence adduced by the revision petitioners before the Appellate Authority, I feel that the revision petitioners had proved their claim for grant of occupancy right they had put forth in filing their respective Form No. 7 and that being so, they had
qualified themselves for grant of occupancy right by the Appellate Authority and despite that, the Appellate Authority rejected their claim and on the other it had granted the occupancy right to the respondents 6 and 7 erroneously.
44. In that view of the matter, I feel that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority has to be reversed by granting occupancy right to the revision petitioners and further rejecting the claim of the respondents 6 and 7.
45. The revision petitioners in both these petitions were fighting for their right considerably for long, at the first instance before the Land Tribunal, at the second before the Appellate Authority and thereafter before this Court. The root cause for their legal battle all through was the mischief of the respondent 6 in meddling with the Form No. 7 filed by the respondent 7 found at page Nos. 237 and 241, and further by pressurising the Land Tribunal, by writing to different Authorities, including the Land Tribunal itself and further wrongly presenting the case, both before the Land Tribunal as well as before the Appellate Authority suppressing the fact that the Form No. 7 originally filed was by the respondent 7 alone in respect of one half of the two extents of lands in two survey numbers and further by misrepresenting that the original Forms No. 7 were filed in duplicate by both of them, i.e. the respondent 6 and the respondent 7, in respect of both the items of the lands entirely by enjoining to the original claim made by the respondent 7 by adding his name i.e. the name of the respondent 6 subsequently. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it also appeared to me that, the respondent 6 might have done all that by winning over certain officials of the respondent 2-Land Tribunal. He might have manoeuvred as he was working in the Judicial Department in different capacities. But for that, I say with certainty, he would not have meddled with the Form No. 7 in page Nos. 237 and 241 filed in one set by the respondent 7 and further got his affidavit dated 8-1-1976 also entertained to find its place in the Land Tribunal records. He being a Law Graduate, besides working in the Court, might have taken the petitioners herein, less worldly wise for a ride.
46. Therefore, in my considered view the petitioners richly deserve costs all through. That cost I assess at Rs. 5,000/- each. Since the root cause for all these litigations was the respondent 6 himself and as such, has to be awarded only as against him and not as against the L.Rs of the respondent 7. Both the original respondent 7 and his L.Rs respondents 7(a) to 7(h) herein, appeared to be innocent persons, totally under the influence of the respondent 6, he being reasonably well-educated and well-placed officially and socially at the relevant point of time.
47. Therefore, I pass the following:
ORDER
The impugned order dated 28-2-1990 in RA No. 712 of 1986 passed by the Appellate Authority in rejecting the claim of the revision petitioners on the one hand and further granting occupancy right in respect of the subject lands to the respondents 6 and 7 on the other is hereby set aside.
The common order dated 24-10-1973 passed by the respondent 2 Land Tribunal, Bellary, in Nos. 1539, 1461 to 1925, 76, 266 and 1764 of 1974-75, whereby it had granted occupancy right in respect of 4 acres 52 cents in Sy. No. 95-B to the petitioner in the second L.R.R.P, and further granted 13 acres 48 cents, both in Sy. Nos. 167 and 168 to the petitioner in the second petition stands restored, not for the reasons set out therein but for the conclusions this Court had reached as above in these two revision petitions.
The Land Tribunal is directed to cause for issuance of the Form No. 10 by the jurisdictional Tahsildar to both the revision petitioners herein in consequence of the orders herein passed in these petitions, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, if it had not done so earlier.
48. In the result, both the revision petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed, with cost of Rs. 5,000/- each to be paid by the respondent 6. Let him pay the same to the petitioners separately within a period of 3 months from the date of this order, failing which, the petitioners are at liberty to recover the same from him in the process known to law.
49. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the order herein passed to the respondent 2-Land Tribunal, Bellary forthwith, for compliance of direction to it in the matter of issuance of Form No. 10.