Naganagouda Gowdappa Gouda Patil ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others 1998 (6) KarLJ 176 Section 63(2) of the Act provides that the ceiling area of a person who is not a member of the family or who has no family or for a family shall be ten units. This special clause provides that a person who is not a member of the family can hold ten units or who has no family or for a family can hold ten units and family can also hold ten units. Therefore when an individual without a family is there, he is entitled under law to hold ten units. The concept of joint family is quite different from the statutory definition of the "family" provided under the Act. By reading Section 2(12) together with Section 63(2) of the Act, it is manifest that an individual whether male or female without a family is also entitled to hold ten units. The mother in this case is an individual, a person without a family and as per the definition, she is not included in the family of her sons. So she is entitled to hold ten units. It is settled principle of law that the interpretation of statutory legislation must be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the mother is entitled for ten units.
ANY ONE HAVING TITLE TO BE SHOWN AS KHATEDAR
T. Siddeshi vs The Deputy Commissioner, AIR 2001 Kant 297, ILR 2001 KAR 488 The normal requirements in the Land Revenue Act as per the provisions of Section 128 any person who possesses title to the land in question has right to be shown as khatedar in the record of rights register and mutation registers. However, by such an entry no inference can be drawn regarding the title to the property. Since the entries in the revenue records are not documents of title and cannot be the sole basis to prove the title by itself. But the said entries may have a corroborative value for proving the title. In that view of the matter, it would be just and appropriate that the name of the title holder namely the 4th respondent who by virtue of the sale in favour of the partnership firm and subsequent thereto by a registered partition between himself and his brother has acquired title to the property, his name is to be entered. However, by entry of such name, it cannot have any bearing on the possessory rights of the parties concerned. Whoever, in possession would continue to be in possession. The question of title and possession if any is in dispute the same is within the domine of the Civil Court to adjudicate.
Mahesh v. Deputy Tahsildar, Nadakaeheri Dambal and Ors. 2003(1) KCCR Sh. N. 3, wherein this Court has held that: Sections 127 to 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Kamataka Land Revenue Rules, 1960 - The Revenue Courts is prevented from recording statement of the parties and their depositions, the question of establishing the genuineness of the sale deed would not arise. Therefore the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to go into the genuineness of the sale deed executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the petitioner.
RTC ENTRIES AND POSSESSION OF TENANT
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS UPPEGOWDA 1997(3) SCC 593 In this case, the land holder has merely asserted that the tenant had surrendered the land and entries in revenue records were received in support thereof. It is easy to have the entries made with the assistance of patwari who had exclusive custody of the records. The object of the Tenancy Act is to protect the tenants to remain in possession and enjoy it subject to compliance of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Contracted tenancy come to an end and statutory tenancy sets in operation and so he would be liable for ejectment only on proved grounds of statutory contravention, the entries of revenue records are self serving. There was no order of a competent authority of eviction of tenant for contravention of the above mentioned grounds. The proviso, though enables a landlord to obtain possession on surrender, it must be proved strictly, as several devices would be used to circumvent the beneficial provision and illiteracy and ignorance of the tenant would be taken advantage of. There is no proof of eviction of the tenant. The stand taken by the land-holder is not supported by legal setting.
Mahesh v. Deputy Tahsildar, Nadakaeheri Dambal and Ors. 2003(1) KCCR Sh. N. 3, wherein this Court has held that: Sections 127 to 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Kamataka Land Revenue Rules, 1960 - The Revenue Courts is prevented from recording statement of the parties and their depositions, the question of establishing the genuineness of the sale deed would not arise. Therefore the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to go into the genuineness of the sale deed executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the petitioner.
RTC ENTRIES AND POSSESSION OF TENANT
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS UPPEGOWDA 1997(3) SCC 593 In this case, the land holder has merely asserted that the tenant had surrendered the land and entries in revenue records were received in support thereof. It is easy to have the entries made with the assistance of patwari who had exclusive custody of the records. The object of the Tenancy Act is to protect the tenants to remain in possession and enjoy it subject to compliance of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Contracted tenancy come to an end and statutory tenancy sets in operation and so he would be liable for ejectment only on proved grounds of statutory contravention, the entries of revenue records are self serving. There was no order of a competent authority of eviction of tenant for contravention of the above mentioned grounds. The proviso, though enables a landlord to obtain possession on surrender, it must be proved strictly, as several devices would be used to circumvent the beneficial provision and illiteracy and ignorance of the tenant would be taken advantage of. There is no proof of eviction of the tenant. The stand taken by the land-holder is not supported by legal setting.
REVENUE ENTRIES - RIGHTS TO PROPERTY - CIVIL COURT IS APPROPRIATE FORUM 2006 KAR
JUSTICE D.V. Shylendra Kumar, of Karnataka High court in the case of Neria Estates Rural Industries ... vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. Reported in 2006 (1) KarLJ 295 The impugned order is one passed by the Tahsildar acting as a Revenue Authority for the purpose of showing the name of the Government in the revenue records. The Tahsildar acts as a functionary under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and any view expressed is only incidental. It is true that the Tahsildar is not the authority to determine the rights of the parties including to record a finding or to express a view as to who is the owner of a particular piece of land or even in respect of the entire extent of land to which the petitioner had sought for conferment of occupancy rights to say that the lands are vested with the State and the Government is the owner. ........... The order under challenge is an order passed by a Revenue Authority for the, purpose of showing the name of a person in the revenue records. It is not an order for determining any rights of any of the parties. .............. If the petitioner is a company and it has leasehold rights in respect of certain lands which according to the petitioner is plantation lands and if the petitioner is keen on getting his rights independently determined by a Competent Court, he has to approach the Civil Court. ................ Examination of the impugned order cannot in any way resolve the basic dispute as to the nature of the land that had vested in the Government. The dispute of this nature is essentially a civil dispute which has to be resolved by a Competent Civil Court and not in Article 226/227 proceedings. ................ The order passed by the Revenue Authority is only for the purpose of showing the entries in the revenue records. It is for this reason, I decline to exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order having regard to the decision of this Court in the case of Payappa Nemanna Huded v. Chamu Appayya Huded 1969(2) Mys. L.J. 198 (DB). .......... Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, this writ petition is dismissed........
PROTECT PUBLIC LANDS TOLD LONG BACK IN 1998 ITSELF BY HIGH COURT
JUSTICE H Narayan of Karnataka High Court in the case of S. Siddappa And Others vs State Of Karnataka And Another Reported in ILR 1998 KAR 2757, 1998 (5) KarLJ 36 has directed in these words "Devarakadu, Urduve, Gunduthope, Tankbed, Phut Kareb Kharab Halla, date reserve, burial grounds can only be found in the revenue records. In fact, one finds it difficult even to locate a Gunduthope or a Tankbed in the villages. The gomal lands and the gunduthope is a gift to the villagers. They have been tampered with successfully from time to time by the special orders of the Deputy Commissioners unmindful of the strength of the cattle, the need of the people and the purpose for which the lands have been reserved. Though, relevant provisions are very much found in the statute book, the authorities empowered to enforce these provisions under the Land Revenue Act and Rules have failed to take special care to preserve these lands for the purpose they have been specifically assigned. The quality of the rural life can only be maintained by providing free pasturage to cattle, preserving Gokatte for providing drinking water to the cattle, protecting and preserving Gunduthope where the villagers find some shade for the people and the livestock. It is true that civilisation has entered the life of the rural people by way of roads, electricity, water, rural health and education. These are absolutely necessary for improving the quality of life of the rural people. But, the very essence of village life consists in preserving the lands reserved under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. We hardly find a plot consisting of a few well grown trees in the villages. Those are the realms of the past. It, therefore, becomes an urgent necessity for this Court to remind all those concerned who are empowered to enforce these statutory provisions of Land Revenue Act and Rules made thereunder to act and to give effect to every word and letter of statute. The Deputy Commissioners of the districts who are directly incharge of these lands have to be reminded of their duty to protect and preserve these lands specially reserved by the Government. The newly constituted panchayaths in the Panchayath Raj Act are duty bound to protect and preserve and to raise Gunduthope and to maintain Sarkari gomals. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioners are now directed to give effect to the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and to preserve and reserve all these lands specified in the Act for the very purpose specified therein. The Deputy Commissioners shall direct the respective panchayaths to protect and raise these Gunduthopes situated in the respective villages and to further direct the Tahsildar of the Taluk to preserve the gomals for free pasturage. The Deputy Commissioners shall take action through the Tahsildar to evict persons who have been in unauthorised occupation of these reserved lands forthwith. It is needless for this Court to direct in this particular case not to regularise any land in favour of the alleged encroachers since they are Sarkari gomals which are specifically reserved for free pasturage.
PROVISIONS OF CPC NOT APPLICABLE TO LAND TRIBUNAL
K. Somashekara Shetty vs Devaki And Ors. ILR 2005 KAR 3534, 2005 (5) KarLJ 248 It is clear from the provisions of Section 2(a) and Section 2(35) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act that the provisions of the CPC are applicable only to Courts as defined under the Act and are not applicable to the Land Tribunals. Section 48-A of the Act provides for enquiry by the Tribunal. Sub-section (5) of Section 48-A of the Act States that where an objection is filed disputing the validity of the applicant's claim or setting up a rival claim, the Tribunal shall, after enquires, determine, by order, the person entitled to be registered as occupant after holding an enquiry. Therefore the provisions of CPC are not applicable to the Land Tribunal. Therefore, adopting the procedure prescribed in the CPC as amended by Act No. 22/2002 in the matter of examination-in-chief of the witness by way of affidavit is contrary to mandatory procedure prescribed in Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. The Tribunal is required to record evidence as provided in Rule 17(5) of the Rules. It is not permissible to the Tribunal for accept examination-in-chief by way of affidavit.
It is not permissible to record evidence in English language not understood by all the members of the Tribunal because Rule 17(1) clearly states that the record of the proceedings shall be maintained in a language understood by all its members. Summary enquiry as provided in Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is prescribed for determination of the question in controversy. The procedure prescribed by the Act and the Rules referred to above has to be followed by the Land Tribunal while holding inquiry.
The Land Tribunal being a creature of statute, has to follow the procedure prescribed in the Rules while determining any question by or under the Act. Merely because there is no prohibition to do it in any other manner, the Tribunal cannot adopt a different procedure, which would defeat the aim and object of the legislation.
It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question is a punja land and is not capable of cultivation. There is no finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter. When the landlord contends that the land is not capable of being cultivated, it is incumbent upon the Land Tribunal give a finding on this point, if necessary by holding a spot inspection. Further, the Land Tribunal is not justified in accepting the examination-in-chief of the witnesses by way of affidavits, particularly in English. It has not recorded a finding whether its members understand English language. In my view, the procedure followed by the Tribunal is contrary to law.
QUOTED CITATIONS
This Court in Bheemappa v. Land Tribunal, Jamakhandi, 1977 (2) Kar.LJ 190 has held that the combined effect of Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules and Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act is that evidence should be recorded in the hand-writing of the officer conduting an inquiry. This is a clear obligation imposed upon officers or authorities entrusted with the duty of holding a formal inquiry, recording of evidence on cyclo-styled pro-forma is impermissible.
In Dattatraya Pandit v. Land Tribunal, Hukkeri, 1997 (2) Kar. L.J 209, this Court has held that under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, the Tribunal has to follow the procedure laid down by Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for holding enquires. It is further held that the said provisions do not permit the Tribunal to dispose of the cases merely on affidavits. It is as follows; "According to Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, the Tribunal has to follow the procedure laid down by Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for holding enquiries. Section 34 read with Sections 35 and 36 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act requires that the proceedings of the Tribunal should be held in open and it does not permit the Tribunal to dispose of cases merely on affidavits of parties in which case, the opposite party will have no opportunity of contesting the evidence by cross-examination. No following the above procedure is an illegality which vitiates the proceedings."
In Byrappa and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1981 (2) Kar.L.J.1 a Division Bench of this Court has held that having regard to the requirements of Rule 17 of the Rules, the summary of the evidence in an inquiry before the Tribunal should be recorded by its Chairman and this is mandatory. Any breach of the requirement vitiates the proceeding before the Tribunal.
In Seetharamaiah B.N. and Ors. v. Land Tribunal, Virajpet and Ors., 1985 (1) Kar.L.J. 369, a Division Bench of this Court has held that if the Chairman of the Tribunal is not in a position to write down the deposition of the parties and therefore, dictates the summary of the deposition either to a member of the Tribunal or to a member of the staff of the Tribunal who records the same accurately, any order passed on the basis of the evidence so recorded shall not be interfered with by the High Court.
In Sanna Karibasappa v. Mudegowdra Mahadevappa and Ors., 1978 (2) Kar.L.J. 26 this Court has held that maintaining the order sheet and recording the final order in English, a language not understood by all the members of the Tribunal is a clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 17.
It is not permissible to record evidence in English language not understood by all the members of the Tribunal because Rule 17(1) clearly states that the record of the proceedings shall be maintained in a language understood by all its members. Summary enquiry as provided in Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is prescribed for determination of the question in controversy. The procedure prescribed by the Act and the Rules referred to above has to be followed by the Land Tribunal while holding inquiry.
The Land Tribunal being a creature of statute, has to follow the procedure prescribed in the Rules while determining any question by or under the Act. Merely because there is no prohibition to do it in any other manner, the Tribunal cannot adopt a different procedure, which would defeat the aim and object of the legislation.
It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question is a punja land and is not capable of cultivation. There is no finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter. When the landlord contends that the land is not capable of being cultivated, it is incumbent upon the Land Tribunal give a finding on this point, if necessary by holding a spot inspection. Further, the Land Tribunal is not justified in accepting the examination-in-chief of the witnesses by way of affidavits, particularly in English. It has not recorded a finding whether its members understand English language. In my view, the procedure followed by the Tribunal is contrary to law.
QUOTED CITATIONS
This Court in Bheemappa v. Land Tribunal, Jamakhandi, 1977 (2) Kar.LJ 190 has held that the combined effect of Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules and Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act is that evidence should be recorded in the hand-writing of the officer conduting an inquiry. This is a clear obligation imposed upon officers or authorities entrusted with the duty of holding a formal inquiry, recording of evidence on cyclo-styled pro-forma is impermissible.
In Dattatraya Pandit v. Land Tribunal, Hukkeri, 1997 (2) Kar. L.J 209, this Court has held that under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, the Tribunal has to follow the procedure laid down by Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for holding enquires. It is further held that the said provisions do not permit the Tribunal to dispose of the cases merely on affidavits. It is as follows; "According to Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, the Tribunal has to follow the procedure laid down by Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for holding enquiries. Section 34 read with Sections 35 and 36 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act requires that the proceedings of the Tribunal should be held in open and it does not permit the Tribunal to dispose of cases merely on affidavits of parties in which case, the opposite party will have no opportunity of contesting the evidence by cross-examination. No following the above procedure is an illegality which vitiates the proceedings."
In Byrappa and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1981 (2) Kar.L.J.1 a Division Bench of this Court has held that having regard to the requirements of Rule 17 of the Rules, the summary of the evidence in an inquiry before the Tribunal should be recorded by its Chairman and this is mandatory. Any breach of the requirement vitiates the proceeding before the Tribunal.
In Seetharamaiah B.N. and Ors. v. Land Tribunal, Virajpet and Ors., 1985 (1) Kar.L.J. 369, a Division Bench of this Court has held that if the Chairman of the Tribunal is not in a position to write down the deposition of the parties and therefore, dictates the summary of the deposition either to a member of the Tribunal or to a member of the staff of the Tribunal who records the same accurately, any order passed on the basis of the evidence so recorded shall not be interfered with by the High Court.
In Sanna Karibasappa v. Mudegowdra Mahadevappa and Ors., 1978 (2) Kar.L.J. 26 this Court has held that maintaining the order sheet and recording the final order in English, a language not understood by all the members of the Tribunal is a clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 17.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)