GOWDARA NANJAPPA versus MATADA BASAIAH & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 15-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
I 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 971 
...,.. 
GOWDARA NANJAPPA 
A 
v. 
MATADA BASAIAH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8060 of 2001) 
FEBRUARY 15, 2008 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
.... 
.... 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961: 
Grant of occupancy rights - Entries in record of rights -
c 
Ignored by High Court and emphasis given on spot inspection 
• 
- High Court also ignored finding recorded by Appellate 
Tribunal - HELD: High Court overlooked the fact that spot 
inspection made much later was not relevant to decide basic 
issues - Revenue entries spread over a number of years 
continued till appointed date - Order of Hig_h Court set aside D 
;;.l 
-ii 
and that of Appellate Tribunal restored. 
Certain lnam lands were endowed to the diety. The 
appellant, respondent nos. 1 and 2 and another person 
filed applications for grant of occupancy rights over the 
E 
said lands. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights 
in favour of respondent no. 1 and another over certain 
portion of the suit land. However, the Appellate Authority 
allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside 
the order of the Land Tribunal in so far as it related to 2 
4~ 
acres 26 guntas of land which was conferred in favour of F 
respondent no. 1. The High Court did not accept 
presumptive value of the entries made in R.T.C. extracts, 
but relied upon certain spot inspection made by the 
Tribunal and allowed the claim of respondent no. 1. 
' 
In the instant appeal it was contended for the G 
--. _ 
.. .,, 
appellant that the R.T.C. record showed him as the tenant 
and the High Court erred in ignoring the R.T.C. record and 
placing reliance on the spot inspection. 
971 
H 
·i-
972 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
"'V r
HELD: 1.1 There was no material before the High 
r 
I 
Court to by-pass the presumption to be drawn from the 
~ 
record of rights. The High Court appears to have placed 
~ 
B 
emphasis on the sport inspection made by the Tribunal. 
r 
Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the fact that the 
spot inspection made in 1986 did not have a relevance to 
J.. 
decide the basic issues. The revenue entries related to 
""' 
• 
past period and were spread over a number of years and 
r-• 
continued till the appointed date. Further, the High Court 
t 
c ignored the finding recorded by the appellate authority. 
~ . 
' 
[para 5] [975-D, E, F] 
I-
.. 
1.2 The High Court also failed to .notice that 
.\. 
respondent no. 2 himself has no right or title or interest in 
) 
the land and his application for grant of occupancy right 
D had been rejected. There was no evidence of respondent 
No. 1 being a tenant in lawful possession of the land. The 
). 
~·
Pahani Extract proved tenancy of the appellant and 
possession as on 1.3.197 4 which is the relevant date for 
t--
consideration. The order of the High Court is clearly 
} 
E unsustainable and is set aside, and the order passed 
t-
by the Appellate Tribunal stands restored. [para 6 and 7] 
' 
[976-8, C, D] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8060 
of 2001. 
.
J. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2000 of the 
~~ 
t-
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in L.R.R.P. No. 5998 of 
r
1988. 
R.S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash and P.P. Singh for the 
i 
G Appellant. 
.;L
M. Gireesh Kumar, S.K. Kulkarni, Kh. Nobin Singh, Vikrant 
-< .... ,.,., 
Yadav, Amit Kr. Chawla and Sanjay R. Hegde for the 
I 
Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
f-
GOWDARA NANJAPPA v. MATADA BASAIAH & ORS. 
973 
[PASAYAT, J.] 
+ 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to 
A 
the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High 
Court allowing the revision filed by Respondent No. 1 under 
Section 121 (A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in 
short the 'Act'). In the revision petition challenge was to the order 
passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Shimoga (in 
B 
short the 'Appellate Tribunal'). By the impugned order before 
the High Court the Appellate Tribunal had.set aside the order 
passed by the Land Tribunal, Shimoga Taluk (in short the 
'Tribunal'). 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
c 
The lands in Sy. Nos. 3,6/2, 20 and 41/2 situated at 
Venkatapura village are the lnam lands endowed to Sri Kudli 
Rameshwara Devaru. In respect of the said lands, the 
applicants-Sri Subbaraya, Gowdara nanjappa, Matada Basaiah D 
and Smt. Vrundamma filed applications for grant of occupancy 
' ,;: 
---
rights

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.