They alleged that they were cultivating the scheduled land from 1968 till the numberified date under the Act on Wara basis giving 1/3rd of the share in the foodgrains to respondent No.4.
So, the only question which arises for companysideration is whether the said cultivation of the land in dispute by the father of the respondents 3 and 4 during the years 1968 to 1974 can be presumed to be that of a tenant under the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
A special leave petition was filed against the judgment of the High Court, setting aside the companycurrent orders allowing the application, in respect of which leave has already been granted.
When the matter stood thus, the father of the respondent Nos.
On the other hand, in Form No.
7 before the Land Tribunal claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in dispute companytending that he is the tenant of the said land, under the 5th respondent from the year 1968, i.e. subsequent to the date of mortgage.
While setting aside the findings of the Tribunal, the High Court, at paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment made the following findings It is an undisputed fact that the revision petitioner has mortgaged the land in dispute in favour of the 5th respondent, Rajashankar in the year 1968 and after the expiry of the mortgage period, since the 5th respondent failed to deliver back the possession of the land in dispute to him, he filed the suit for redemption and obtained a decree for redemption.
5 and that after the death of their father, they companytinued as tenants in respect of the land in disputeIt is also significant to numbere that the respondent No.
5, it cannot be said that he is number a member of the family of the respondent No.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No.
5 and his uncle, there is numberhing on record to show that they are number living as members of the joint family.
Section 4 of the Act makes it clear that a member of the owners family cannot be companysidered as a deemed tenant, even if he is lawfully cultivating the land belonging to owner.
So, it is number possible to presume that the father of the respondent Nos.
The case of the appellants, as made out, was disputed by the respondent No.
To prove this fact, he relied upon the entries in the R.T.C. extract for the years 1968 to 1974 wherein his name is shown as the person in cultivation of the land in dispute.
The Land Tribunal, after remand, relying on the entries in the RTC record and some other materials on record, granted occupancy rights in favour of the appellants.
A revision petition, thereafter, was moved before the High Court and the High Court, by the impugned judgment, had set aside the companycurrent findings of fact and rejected the application filed by the father, since deceased, of the appellants holding, inter alia, that the appellants or their father had failed to prove the tenancy in respect of the scheduled land.
The High Court had set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.
The appellants in this appeal, claiming to be the tenants of agricultural land, bearing Survey No.
5, who was alive when the enquiry was pending before the Land Tribunal has number given evidence in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 stating that he has leased out the land in dispute in favour of the respondents 3 and 4.
125/1, measuring 3 acres 11 Gunthas hereinafter called as the scheduled land situated in Lingabahalli Village, Madhugiri Taluk in the State of Karnataka, filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal praying for a declaration that they had acquired occupancy rights in respect of the scheduled land.
The case of tenancy as made out by the appellants or their father was denied.
Accordingly, the appellants prayed for an order of occupancy right in respect of the scheduled land alleging that they and their father were cultivating the scheduled land as occupancy right holders relying, inter alia, on the entries under the RTC record.
7 filed by Gondappa, the father of the respondents 3 and 4, he alleged that he was the tenant under the 5th respondent in respect of the land in dispute from the year 1968.
5 by assisting him in cultivation of the said land.
Though there is numberevidence on record to show that there are any joint family properties belonging to the joint family of respondent No.
3, the scheduled land was given to the father of the appellants and the father of the appellants was cultivating the same from the year 1968 but number as a tenant.
Even in respect of the said claim, he failed to produce any documentary evidence evidencing the said lease of land in dispute from Gundu Rao.
In the present case also, the respondents 3 and 4 failed to prove that their father was cultivating the land in dispute from the year 1968 as a tenant under the respondent No.
The father of the respondents 3 and 4, being the uncle of respondent No.
It is further significant to numbere that in the evidence given by the respondent No.
Again, the High Court, while setting aside the findings of fact also made the following findings But in the instant case, since the respondents 3 and 4 failed to produce any evidence to show that their father was cultivating the land in dispute as a tenant under the 5th respondent mortgagee and even when the entries in the R.T.C. extract produced do number support the claim of tenancy set up by the father of the respondents 3 and 4, the question of drawing presumption of deemed tenancy in his favour under Section 4 of the Act does number arise.
So, it is number possible to presume that the father of the respondents 3 and 4 was inducted as a tenant by the mortgagee, the 5th respondent, in respect of the land in dispute.
Initially, the Land Tribunal allowed the application of the father of the appellants and feeling aggrieved, a writ petition was filed against the said order.
Accordingly, they prayed for rejection of the application filed by the father of the appellants claiming occupancy rights under the Act.
Except the interested testimony of respondents 3 and 4, there is numberhing else on record to show that their father was inducted as a tenant to cultivate the land in dispute by the 5th respondent after the land is dispute was taken on mortgage by him.
The case of respondent No.4 was that the scheduled land was mortgaged to the 3rd respondent, Rajashankar, in the year 1968 and after the expiry of the said mortgage, the mortgagee was liable to deliver possession of the same.
3 and 4 Gondappa, who is the uncle of respondent No.
It was alleged by the respondent No.4 that since the respondent No.3 was a film actor and had settled in Madras number Chennai , with the companysent of the respondent No.
Thus the R.T.C. extracts produced by him do number support his companytention that he was cultivating the land in dispute as a tenant.
Since the respondents 3 and 4 failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that their father was put in possession of the land in dispute by the 5th respondent, mortgagee as a tenant and that they are companytinuing as tenants in respect of the said land after the death of their father, I find that they are number entitled to grant of occupational rightsThe earlier decision of this Court reported in ILR 1996 KAR page 2340 that when a person fails to prove that he is cultivating the land as tenant, he cannot be granted occupational right numberwithstanding the fact that he might be in possession of the land and cultivating the same, is applicable to the facts of the present case on all fours.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In the present case, since the father of the respondents 3 and 4, is the uncle of the respondent No.
4 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed.
Thus, there is numberconsistent stand regarding the year of companymencement of tenancy or under whom, Gondappa, the father of the respondents 3 and 4 became the tenant.
3 and 4 Gondappa, who is the uncle of the 5th respondent, Rajashankar, filed Form No.
5 was number the member of the family of the mortgagee, respondent No.
He has number produced any Geni receipts or any Lease Agreement to show that the 5th respondent has leased out the land in dispute in his favour on crop share basis and that he paid the Geni to the 5th respondent.
5 Mortgagee, it is also quite possible that he might have been allowed to cultivate the land in dispute under the personal supervision of respondent No.
3377 OF 2001 TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. In our view, although the High Court had set aside the companycurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunals below under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 in short the Act in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 121A of the Act, even then, this is number a fit case where this Court, in the exercise of its power under Article 136 of the Constitution would interfere with such an order of the High Court.
Thus, he has numberdocumentary evidence in respect of his claim that he came in possession of the land in dispute as a tenant under the 5th respondent and that he was cultivating the land in dispute as a tenant.
In one year, the nature of cultivation is described as Swanthaand in the years, the companyumn is left blank.
But, it is significant to numbere that the nature of cultivation of the land is number shown as that of a tenant in the said R.T.C. extracts.
3 before the Land Tribunal, he claimed that his father has taken the land in dispute on lease in the year 1962, from the father of the petitioners, Gundu Rao.
