MARUTHI JAIWANT NAKADI versus EKNATH G NAVAREKAR (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 14-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 408 
MARUTHI JAIWANT NAKADI 
v. 
EKNATH G NAVAREKAR (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No 1027 of 2001) 
DECEMBER 14, 2009 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND DALVEER 
BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 
s.121-A - Revisional power of High Court - Application 
seeking occupancy rights by the person claiming himself to 
be tenant of suit land - No documentary evidence led by 
applicant - Application resisted by landlords by producing 
D revenue records - Land Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal 
allowing the application - High Court allowing revision petition 
of landlords and rejecting the application of tenant - HELD: 
High Court has rightly held that statutory presumption arising 
out of revenue records must be given due importance and 
E mere subjective satisfaction of Tribunal was not enough - It 
was for the Tribunal to give reasons to discard entries made 
in revenue records - Powers of High Court uls 121-A of the 
Act and s. 115 CPC to interfere with findings of fact of 
Tribunals below- Explained- There is no infirmity or illegality 
in the judgment of High Court- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 
F - s. 115 - Evidence - Presumption as regards entries in 
revenue records. 
The appellant filed an application in Form No. 7 under 
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 claiming 
G occupancy rights over 11 acres and 17 guntas of land on 
the ground that he was cultivating the said land for many 
years and was paying rent on crop share basis. The 
respondents-landlords resisted the application 
contending that the land was never leased to anybody, 
H 
408 
• • 
. -
MARUTHI JAIWANT NAKADI v. EKNATH G. NAVAREKAR 409 
(DEAD) BY L.RS. 
but was cultivated through labourers as shown in the A 
revenue records from the year 1956 onwards. The 
Tribunal allowed the application of the appellant. The 
Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the landlords. 
However, the High Court allowed their revision petition 
under s. 121-A of the Act and rejected the application of B 
the appellant for grant of occupancy rights. 
In the instant appeal, the questions for consideration 
,, 
before the Court were: (i) whether the High Court, 
exercising jurisdiction u/s 121-A of the Act could re- c 
appreciate the evidence and come to a finding contrary 
to that of the Tribunals below and (ii) whether the High 
Court, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 121-A of the Act 
could set aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded 
by the Tribunals below only because another view was D 
possible . 
. 
~ 
I 
Dismissing the appeal, Court 
HELD: 1.1. The scope of s.121-A of the KarnataKa 
Land Reforms Act, 1961 has been widely discussed in 
E 
the case of Jagdeesh* indicating the power of the High 
Court to interfere with. the concurrent findings of fact 
arrived at by the Tribunals below and to set aside the 
concurrent orders of the Tribunals below. [Para 9] [413-
G-H; 414-A] 
F 
~ ., 
*Jagdeesh vs. State of Karnataka 2008 (2 ) SCR 737 = 
AIR 2008 SC 1304, relied on . 
... 
1.2. From a careful examination of the findings given 
by the High Court in the instant case, it would be clear 
G 
that the High Court, while setting aside the concurrent 
orders of the Tribunals below, has rightly taken into 
'T 
• 
consideration that although the tenant/appellant was 
claiming to be cultivating the land in question, he failed 
to produce any receipt taken from the landlords/ H 
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A respondents in lieu of rent ; whereas, on the other hand, 
the landlords/respondents produced the entries made in 
record of rights relating to the land in question from the 
year 1962 which amply proved that they were cultivating 
the land in question and in absence of any reliable 
B evidence it was difficult to prove that the tenant/appellant 
was in cultivation of the land in question. [Para 12) [417-
E-G] 
1.3. The High Court has rightly held that the statutory 
• 
c presumption arising out of the revenue records must be 
given due importance and mere subjective satisfaction of 
the tribunal was not enough. It was for the tribunal to give 
reasons to discard the entries made in the record of 
rights. The High Court also was fully justified in holding 
D 
that there was absolutely no rebuttal evidence led by the 
tenant/appellant to show that though he was cultivating 
the land in question his name was not entered for some . 
~ 
reason or even due to the high handedness of the 
landlords/respondent

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