IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.26012/2018(LR-RES) BETWEEN SMT. RADHA MADIVALTHI AGRICULTURIST AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS GUNDA KAMATH COMPOUND BEEJADI VILLAGE KOTESWARA, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 576101 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KUNDAPURA, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576101.
2. SRI. GANAPATHI KAMATH S/O GUNDAPPA KAMATH BEEJADI VILLAGE KOTESWARA, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT No.1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN CASE No.LRF-7A-5188/98-99 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND APPEAL No.822/2010 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No.1.
2. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the judgment dated 19.01.2018 (Annexure ‘A’ to the petition) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.822/2010 (revenue), wherein the said appeal filed by her has been dismissed by confirming the order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure ‘B’ to the petition) passed by the first respondent – Authorized officer and Assistant Commissioner in proceedings No.LRF.7A.5188/98-99.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she was tenant under the father of the second respondent in respect of land measuring to an extent of 0.20 Acre in Sy. No.172/6A situate in Beejadi village, Kundapura Taluk, since the year 1960. It is sated that she was paying geni to the father of the second respondent and after his death, she continued to pay ‘geni’ to the second respondent. She inadvertently had not filed any application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights, however, she filed an application in Form No.7A under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as amended by the Karnataka Act No.23 of 1998 with effect from 01.11.1998, seeking tenancy rights in respect of 0.20 Acre of land in Sy. No.172/6A under the second respondent herein – Sri Ganapathi Kamath before the first respondent - Authorized Officer and Assistant Commissioner. The said application was registered in proceedings No.LRF.7A.5188/98-99 before the first respondent.
4. In the said proceedings, the Authorized Officer and Assistant Commissioner after conducting enquiry and considering the material on record, opined that the applicant – petitioner herein had not produced any document to show that she was tenant under the respondent – Sri Ganapathi Kamath and that the said land was a tenanted land as on 01.03.1974 i.e., the appointed date under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and accordingly, rejected the said application.
5. The said order of the first respondent was the subject matter of challenge in Appeal No.822/2010 (revenue) preferred by the petitioner herein before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The said appeal was filed with some delay. The Tribunal has condoned the delay in filing the appeal and after considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, has dismissed the said appeal vide judgment dated 19.01.2018. As against the concurrent finding of both the Assistant Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, this writ petition is filed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the second respondent – Sri Ganapathi Kamath not appearing before the first respondent and opposing the application filed by the petitioner, same was rejected by the first respondent ignoring the survey report, which indicated that she was in possession of the land in question. However, as admitted by the petitioner herself, there is no document to show that she was tenant in respect of the land in question as on 01.03.1974 the appointed date under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. As against that, opinion of the surveyor to the effect that she is in possession of the said property cannot be construed as her occupation of the land in question as on the appointed date under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Tribunal in para No.7 of its judgment has observed that in column No.12(2) of the extracts of RTC for the period from 1978-79 to 1988-89, the name of the cultivator was left blank and only from the year 1997-98 onwards, the name of the second respondent – Sri Ganapathi Kamath was shown as cultivator in column No.12(2) of the RTC. The Tribunal further observed that the appellant – petitioner herein had not produced documents such as geni chit, geni paid receipt or kandayam paid receipt to show that she was tenant under the father of the second respondent. It is also seen that no reasons are assigned for non-filing of the application in Form No.7A at the earliest point of time.
8. In that view of the matter, the Prescribed Authority has rightly considered the application in Form No.7A filed by the petitioner and passed an order rejecting the same vide order dated 28.12.2007 in proceedings No.LRF.7A.5188/98-99 which has been rightly confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.822/2010 (Revenue) vide judgment dated 19.01.2018. No grounds are made out by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order and judgment.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
10. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE Sma