A reading of this finding of the Division Bench of the High Court would only lead us to hold that the findings arrived at on the question of possession of the appellants relating to the land in dispute were companytradictory.
Muniyappa died on 3rd of October, 1976 during the pendency of the said application.
In view of our findings made herein above that the appellants had produced sufficient material to prove that they had acquired the tenancy right in respect of the land in dispute, viz.,
The respondent landlord admitted factum of tenancy by claiming rent for the period from 1966 72 by filing an application for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1966 72 in respect of the land in dispute in RRC Case No.
After remand, the Land Tribunal again by its order dated 12th of June, 2002 rejected the application of the appellants and directed the Tehsildar to take further action, inter alia, on the grounds that Entries in the Record of Rights relating to the land in dispute were forged No companyrelationship existed between the Rent Recovery Proceeding and the tenancy proceedings.
In spite of the aforesaid findings, the Land Tribunal rejected the application of the appellants simply on the ground that since the tenants were claiming the land in dispute as their own, they had number established their tenancy rights.
At one place, the Division Bench observed that the appellants companyld number show that they were in possession of the land in dispute and in another place the Division Bench observed that they may be in possession, but such possession cannot lead the companyrt to hold that the appellants had acquired tenancy rights relating to the land in dispute.
The tribunal also recorded that the appellants had made out a prima facie case so far as their possession and cultivation of the land in dispute as tenants, were companycerned.
Judgment and order dated 29th of June, 1972 in Rent Recovery proceedings for the period from 1966 to 1972.
In view of the above, Muniyappa, the father of the appellants, filed Form No.7 to register him as an occupant in respect of the land in dispute before the Land Tribunal under the Act.
The adjacent landowners in their deposition also deposed that the appellants were in possession and were in cultivation of the land in dispute on a lease basis.
In 1960, the father of the appellants, Muniyappa sold the land in dispute in favour of one Ashwathaiah who in turn sold it to one P. Ramaiah, who also in his turn sold the land in dispute to Rama Reddy, the respondent herein.
The entries in the record of rights in respect of the land in dispute would also show that the type of cultivation was gutha rent .
The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in short, the Act was amended on 1st of March, 1974 and Sections 44, 45 and 48A of the Act entitled all agricultural tenants to apply under Form 7 for companyfirmation of ownership.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, the only question that needs to be decided in the present appeals is whether the land in dispute was tenanted on 1st of March, 1974, i.e. the day on which the Act was amended and Sections 44, 45 and 48A of the Act were introduced.
114/71 wherein an order was passed on 29th of June, 1972 decreeing the case for payment of arrears of rent The appellants were entitled to inherit the tenancy rights and, therefore, entitled to be registered as occupants in respect of the land in dispute.
The respondent, who was the landlord in respect of the land in dispute, in the year 1971, filed an application for recovery of rent against the appellants before the Additional Munsif, Bangalore in Rent Recovery Case No.114 of 1971.
This order of the High Court was, however, number challenged either by the appellants or by the respondent.
In 1977, the appellants filed a fresh Form No.7.
Ningayya Erayya Hiremath Ors.
55 within Gulakamale, Uttarahalli, Hobli, Bangalore, South Taluk, Karnataka, hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute , to one Muniyappa, the father of the appellants, in the year 1954.
1999 1 SCC 176, Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior companynsel companytended that in view of the findings of fact arrived at by the Land Tribunal as well as by the High Court that on 1st of March, 1974 and thereafter, the appellants companytinued to be in possession of the land in dispute and in cultivation of the said land and therefore, they were necessarily entitled to registration as an occupancy right holder.
The only ground on which the claim of tenancy right of the appellants was number accepted either by the Land Tribunal or by the High Court was that the appellants had failed to produce any document or material to show that they had acquired tenancy rights in respect of the land in dispute on the appointed day.
As numbered herein earlier, the appellants had brought on record the following documents and evidence to substantiate their case of tenancy in respect of the land in dispute on the numberified date Admission of the landlord respondent made in the year 1960 1962.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Land Tribunal, a writ petition was moved at the instance of the appellants before the High Court which by its order dated 5th of February, 1985 remanded the case back for fresh disposal after setting aside the said order for reconsideration of the said application after re assessing the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.
Evidence of independent witnesses of adjoining areas It may be mentioned herein that against the aforesaid documents and evidence produced by the appellants in order to prove their possession and right of tenancy relating to the land in dispute, the respondent, however, had failed to produce any document to establish that he was in possession of the land in dispute on the relevant date i.e. on 1st of March, 1974.
From a bare perusal of the orders passed by the Land Tribunal and the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court, it is clear that the appellants were found to be in possession and in cultivation of the land in dispute.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the present Special Leave Petitions were filed by the appellants in this Court, which on grant of leave were heard in the presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
Relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Siddawwa Kom Udochappa Vaddar Anr.
On or about 1960 61, the respondent, created a tenancy right in favour of the father of the appellants in lieu of share of crop for two years.
Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior companynsel, at the first instance, companytended that while deciding the issue raised before the High Court as well as the Land Tribunal, the entries in the relevant Record of Rights relating to the land in dispute and also the above aspects of the matter were number at all companysidered.
By an order dated 24th of July, 1979, the Land Tribunal disposed of the application filed by the appellants after, inter alia, making the following findings Muniyappa, the father of the appellants, cultivated the land for two decades Adjacent landowners, deposed that the land in dispute was in possession and cultivation of the appellants on lease basis.
The Record of Rights further recorded that the type of cultivation was Gutha Rent .
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Land Tribunal, a writ petition was filed in the High Court which was disposed of on 6th of June, 2003 by an order in which the learned Single Judge of the High Court had companye to the companyclusion that the appellants were in possession of the land in dispute.
The names of the appellants in respect of the land in dispute were recorded in the record of rights as cultivators on lease basis.
An order was passed in favour of the respondent on 29th of June, 1972 directing payment of arrears of rent in the aforesaid recovery case.
The names of the appellants in respect of the land in dispute were recorded in the Record of Rights for the years 1973 74 as cultivators also on lease basis.
The Record of Rights was published in the year 1969 which recorded the appellants as tenants and the respondent as landlord relating to the land in dispute.
Entries in the revenue Record of Rights relating to land in dispute from 1969 to 1997.
the admission of the landlord respondent in the rent recovery proceedings that The appellants were tenants and, therefore, were liable to pay rent to the respondent in respect of the land in dispute.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. One Lingachari sold land measuring about 6 Acres 7 Guntas in Serial No.
