ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order dated 31-3-1988 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bilagi have filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bagalkot, in L.R.A. No. 39 of 1988. When the said appeal was pending adjudication before the Appellate Authority, in view of the amendment to the Land Reforms Act, the constitution of Appellate Authority was abolished and parties were permitted to file necessary application under Section 17 of the Amended Act, 1990. Accordingly, the petitioners filed civil petition before this Court in C.P. No. 12282 of 1991. After notice, the said civil petition was converted into present writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for respondent 6(A) and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 at a considerable length of time.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Rules. The name of the petitioners’ predecessor was shown in the relevant documents as on 1-3-1974 and prior to that date as a tenant, cultivating the land in question. The said presumption as per Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act, is bound to be considered by the Tribunal. Further, he has submitted that, to substantiate the case, the petitioners have examined the adjacent landowners who have stated that the petitioners are cultivating the land in question as a tenant. This aspect of the matter has not at all been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the petitioners’ predecessor.
4. In support of his case, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Laxmi Shedthi and Anr. v. Udupi Taluk Land Tribunal and Ors. and in the case of Veerappa Rudrappa Alagawadi v. The Land Tribunal and Anr.
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for respondent 6(A), inter alia, contended and justified the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. He has vehemently submitted that the original landowner Sri Sangappa Badiger had filed O.S. No. 71 of 1967 against one Sri Ningappa, the predecessor of the petitioners’. The said suit was decreed in favour of the landowner by a judgment and decree dated 30-8-1968. Thereafter, execution petition was filed in Ex. C. No. 72 of 1968 which was executed and land was handed over to the owner of the land in question after conducting panchanama on 16-11-1968. After the lapse of 3 years the land in question was leased out to the father of the respondent 6(A)-Siddaramayya Channamallayya Hiremath under the registered lease deed in No. 623 of 1970-71, dated 30th March, 1971 by the landowner. Since then he is cultivating the said land as a tenant. Further, he has submitted that the above documents were considered by the Tribunal and has given a specific finding to the effect that the entry found in ROR cannot be taken into consideration. When through the Court the petitioners’ predecessor was dispossessed which is in accordance with law. Further, he has submitted that he has produced revenue receipts before the Tribunal to show that he is cultivating the land as a tenant. On the basis of the above documents, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the petitioners’ claim.
6. In support of his case, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Marthanda Rao Shankar Rao Patil and Ors. v. The Land Tribunal, Haveri and in the case of Nanjunda Setty M.B. v. Land Tribunal, Somwarpet and Anr.. Therefore, he has submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal carefully and reassessed the matter at threadbare with the assistance of the learned Counsels for both parties.
8. No doubt, it reveals from the RTC for the agricultural years from 1963-64 to 1975-76 that the name of the predecessor of the petitioners was shown in the cultivators column. But, it is significant to note here itself that the mode of cultivation is shown as ‘1’ which indicates that he is cultivating the said land as owner. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the entry found in the RTC on the ground that as per the judgment and decree passed in favour of the original landowner in the year 1968 and by way of execution he was put back into the possession of the land in question in the year 1968 under the panchanama dated 16-11-1968 and after the lapse of 3 years, there was a registered lease agreement between the landowner and the 6th respondent late Sri Siddaramayya Channamallayya Hiremath on 31-3-1971 which rebuts the presumption.
9. To substantiate his case, the learned Counsel for respondent 8(A) has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Marthanda Rao Shankar Rao Patil, supra. Wherein, it is held that:
“The expression used Agavu Lavani in Bombay Karnataka area means that transaction is an advance lease transaction-tenant entitled to occupancy rights”.
Further, the learned Counsel for respondent 6(A) placed his reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nanjunda Setty M.B., supra, wherein, it is held that:
“It is for the Tribunal, which is the final authority on the question of fact, to apply its mind with reference to the material on record and say whether the presumption arising under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act is rebutted or not. The Tribunal has also to state what is the evidence or other material placed before it on the basis of which it came to the conclusion that the applicant was cultivating the land immediately prior to 1-3-1974”.
The law laid down by this Court as stated supra, are directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. In support of his case, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Laxmi Shedthi, supra. Wherein, it is held that:
“The mere subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal cannot sustain its adjudication. The Tribunal must give its reasons for discarding the legal presumption arising under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act. If it fails to do so, it amounts to failure to take into consideration relevant material in deciding the issue of tenancy disputed before it”.
Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed his reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Veerappa Rudrappa Alagawadi, supra, wherein, it is held that:
“If a person in possession of land under such an agreement continues in possession of the property after the expiry of the period of the agreement his possession will not be that of a tenant, in the absence of proof that an agreement of tenancy was entered into after the expiry of the period. Hence, the question of applying the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and declaring him as a tenant would not arise”.
11. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, because, in the present case, as referred to above, the Land Tribunal has taken into consideration the judgment and decree passed by the competent Court and the fact that by way of execution, the landowner was put in possession on 16-11-1968 under panchanama; and after the lapse of 3 years, landowner has executed registered lease deed in favour of father of the respondent 6(A) and therefore, disbelieved the entry found in the RTC. Further, as referred to in the presiding paragraph, the mode of cultivation is shown as ‘1’ in the RTC, which indicates that he is cultivating the said land as owner, but not as a tenant. If these aspects are taken into consideration, the Tribunal has not committed any error in disbelieving the entry found in the RTC. Therefore, I do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by the Land Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
The Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.