Case: NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. &amp; ORS Vs. PILLAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. &amp; ORS

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:Smt. Pillamma w/o Late Mariyappa and her children (respondents herein) filed Writ Petition No(s).27230/2002 and 23034/2002 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore challenging the order dated 27.02.1989 passed by the Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the Order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 and also the Notice dated 24.05.2002 issued by the Land Tribunal for correcting the extent of land found in the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982. They are the owners of the lands bearing Survey No(s).4/7, 4/2 and 1/11 measuring 35 guntas, 25 guntas and 1 acre 14 guntas respectively of Srigandadakaval Village, Bangalore North Taluk. Smt. Pillamma died during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. Her children who were already on record continued the proceedings before the High Court. Their father, late Mariyappa s/o Channappa had purchased the lands under a deed of sale dated 30.08.1954 from one Venkatappa.3. Appellants are the legal representatives of one Nadakerappa. Nadakerappa claiming to be the tenant of the said lands filed two applications in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights of the said lands along with two other lands i.e. Survey No(s).4/14 and 65. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 30.04.1982 granted occupancy rights in favour of Nadakerappa in respect of the lands bearing Survey No.4/7 to an extent of 35 guntas, Survey No.4/2 to an extent of 25 guntas and Survey No.1/11 to an extent of 25 guntas. Certificate of registration was issued in favour of Nadakerappa in respect of these lands on 08.09.1982 to the extent indicated above. Nadakerappa paid an amount of Rs.462/- towards premium for the grant of certificate of registration. The compensation in respect of the granted lands was ordered to be paid to the land owners on 27.11.1984 by Nadakerappa. It is to be noticed here that Mariyappa was not made party to the said applications filed by Nadakerappa. In the application dated 31.12.1974, the name of one Ramakrishnappa s/o Byrappa was shown as land owner and, in another application dated 30.10.1974, the ownership column was left blank.4. Mariyappa filed Writ Petition No.12461/1984 before the High Court challenging the order of the Land Tribunal which came to be transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the same was numbered as LRA No.179/1986. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 27.02.1989, dismissed the appeal for default. Mariyappa died in the year 1993.5. Mariyappa, during his life time, had filed an application before the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, to rectify the revenue entry for the year 1989--90 and to show his name in respect of 29 guntas of land in Survey No.1/11. However, on 25.04.1992, the Tahsildar passed an order adverse to the interest of Mariyappa. Mariyappa filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.196/1992--93 challenging the said order which was also dismissed on 26.10.1995. Since Mariyappa died in the year 1993, his legal representatives filed Revision Petition No.118/2001 before the Special Deputy Commissioner challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The said Revision Petition was allowed by the Special Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 19.04.2002. Nadakerappa challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.20187/2002 before the High Court which was allowed on 01.07.2002. Consequently, the order of the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner, as also the Special Deputy Commissioner, were set aside. The order in Writ Petition No.20187/2002 stood confirmed in Writ Appeal No.3971/2002.6. In the meanwhile, Nadakerappa filed a suit bearing O.S.No.7459/1991 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, seeking injunction in respect of 1 acre 14 guntas of land in Survey No.1/11 of Srigandadakaval Village. The Civil Court granted an order of temporary injunction in the said suit. This order was challenged by the land owners in MFA No.319/1993 before the High Court. The said appeal was disposed of by the High Court on 08.07.1998 restraining the parties from cutting and removing the trees standing thereon to an extent of 29 guntas. Finally, O.S. No.7459/1991 was decreed by the Civil Court on 21.05.2003. The land owners challenged this judgment by filing an appeal, RFA No.1134/2003 before the High Court. After considering the matter in detail, the High Court has dismissed the appeal on 10.01.2014.7. Nadakerappa had filed a memo in the year 2002 before the Land Tribunal seeking correction of a clerical mistake found in the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982. On receipt of the memo, the Land Tribunal issued a notice to the land owners for an enquiry. The land owners filed Writ Petition No.23034/2002 challenging the validity and correctness of the said notice. They also filed Writ Petition No.27230/2002 challenging the Appellate Authoritys order dated 27.02.1989 dismissing LRA No.179/1986 and also the order dated 30.04.1982 passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of Nadakerappa.8. Learned Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 25.07.2007 dismissed Writ Petition No.27230/2002 filed by the land owners on the ground of delay and laches. The other writ petition, i.e. W.P.No.23034/2002 filed by the land owners was allowed and the notice dated 24.05.2002 was quashed by the High Court.9. Nadakerappa represented by his legal representatives challenged the order passed in Writ Petition No.23034/2002 by filing Writ Appeal No.1563/2007. The land owners challenged the other order passed in Writ Petition No.27230/2002 by filing Writ Appeal No.1950/2007. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed Writ Appeal No.1950/2007 and the order passed in Writ Petition No.27230/2002 was set aside. Consequently, the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority in LRA No.179/1986 were quashed and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. In view of this order, the High Court held that Writ Appeal No.1563/2007 has become infructuous. As noticed above, these orders are under challenge in these appeals.

Court's reasoning:
Materials on record clearly establish that Venkatappa was the original owner of these lands. He had executed a sale deed dated 28.08.1954 in favour of Mariyappa which was registered on 30.08.1954. However, Venkatappa sold these properties again in favour of Sharabaradhya by a deed of sale dated 07.07.1954 registered on 21.10.1954. As the sale deed executed in favour of Sharabaradhya was subsequent to the sale deed executed in favour of Mariyappa, Sharabaradhya could not get any right, title or interest over the said properties. Sharabaradhya executed registered lease of deeds dated 29.04.1955 and 23.05.1956 in respect of the lands in question in favour of Nadakerappa. It is relevant to note here that Sharabaradhya executed the registered deed of relinquishment on 24.09.1964 in respect of these properties in favour of Venkatappa. It is no doubt true that when these lease deeds were executed in favour of Nadakerappa, Sharabaradhya had no right, title or interest in respect of these properties. However, after the execution of these lease deeds, the name of Nadakerappa was entered in the RTC. It is also clear that after execution of the lease deeds, Nadakerappa was put in possession of the properties as a tenant.16. Materials on record would clearly indicate that Nadakerappa was in possession and cultivating the lands from the date of the aforesaid lease deeds. In fact, this position has been admitted by the landlord which is evident from the documents produced by the appellant along with IA No.103954 of 2021. The appellant has produced the certified copy of an application in Form No.7 dated 27.12.1974 filed by Mariyappa seeking grant of occupancy rights of some other lands in Sajjepalya Village, Bangalore, North Taluk dated 27.12.1974. While filing application in Form No.7, the applicant is not only required to give the description of the land in respect of which he seeks registration of occupancy rights under Section 45 of the Act but is also required to give details of the lands held by him or his family for the purpose of considering ceiling on land holdings under Chapter-IV of the Act. The form of the application is statutorily prescribed under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 (for short the Rules).19. Form No.7 filed by the appellant is a certified copy. Having perused the said document, we have no hesitation to hold that it is not a fabricated document. Form No.7 requires the applicant to disclose the other lands held by him and the members of his family. When the landlord himself admits that Nadakerappa was a tenant as early as on 27.12.1974, there is no question of holding that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between Mariyappa and Nadakerappa. Perusal of the materials on record, makes it clear that Nadakerappa was in possession and cultivating the said lands from the year 1955 and was qualified to be treated as a protected tenant.21. As mentioned above, it is clear that though LRA was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 27.02.1989, Mariyappa did not choose to challenge the said order. Even otherwise, the respondents were aware of the order of the Land Tribunal which is evident from different proceedings initiated by them against the appellants. The dismissal of LRA No.179/1986 was accepted by Mariyappa. In fact, in the year 1992, Mariyappa filed an application to rectify the entry for the year 1989--90 by entering his name in respect of 29 guntas of land in Survey No.1/11. The Tahsildar dismissed the said application of Mariyappa on 25.04.1992. This order was challenged by Mariyappa by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner which was also dismissed on 26.10.1995. In the meantime, Mariyappa died. After a lapse of seven years a review petition i.e. R.P.No.118/2001 was filed by the legal representatives of Mariyappa before the Special Deputy Commissioner which was allowed on 19.04.2002. Nadakerappa challenged this order by filing W.P.No.20187/2002 before the High Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 01.07.2002. A writ appeal, W.A.No.3971/2002, filed by the legal representatives of Mariyappa was dismissed on 02.08.2002. After the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Nadakerappas name was entered in the RTC to the full extent of 1 acre 14 guntas of land in Survey No.1/11. When attempts were made by the landlord to dispossess him of the said land, he filed a civil suit bearing O.S. No.4171/1991. The Trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the Nadakerappa. This order was modified by the Order in MFA No.319/1993. These proceedings would clearly show the grant of occupancy rights in favour of Nadakerappa. Therefore, they cannot plead ignorance of grant of occupancy right on 30.04.1982. There is also no merit in the contention of the respondents--landlords that on account of ill health and financial problems, they could not approach the Court within a reasonable time. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay.23. We have already noticed that in the first application though the name of Nadakerappa was not shown in the landlords column, the same was mentioned at its concluding portion. Therefore, it was unnecessary for him to file the second application wherein the land owner was shown as Ramakrishnappa. These applications were filed as early as on 30.10.1974 and on 31.12.1974. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is a beneficent legislation for granting occupancy rights to cultivating tenants of agricultural lands. It is a well--settled canon of construction that in construing the provisions of such enactments, the court should adopt a construction which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the Act rather than the one which would defeat the same and render the protection illusory. The object of the Act was mainly to confer ownership on the tenants of the lands. Section 45 was introduced by Act No.1 of 1974 w.e.f. 01.03.1974 providing for registration of occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. Rules have been framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 137 of the Act to effectuate the purpose of the Act. Rule 19 provides for the form of application and notice. This rule clearly states that on receipt of an application, the Tahsildar shall send extracts of the application to the Tribunals concerned. So far as the lands in his Taluk are concerned, the Tahsildar has to verify the particulars mentioned in the application with reference to the revenue records including the record of rights wherever they are prepared and also note the same on the application.24. It is common knowledge that most of the tenants during the relevant point of time i.e. nineteen seventies were underprivileged and illiterate villagers hailing from remote and far-flung areas. A large number of tenants were lacking from the adequate and basic necessities of life and were suffering from the acute poverty. Legislature has recognized this aspect and has cast responsibility on the Tahsildar to verify the particulars mentioned in the application with reference to the Revenue Records and to note the same on the application. Therefore, it was the duty of the Tahsildar to verify the Revenue Records and other documents and incorporate/record the name of the owner of the land in Form No.7. Having perused the materials on record, we are satisfied that the tenant in the instant case has not practiced any fraud in order to get the occupancy rights registered in his name.25. The Division Bench, without assigning any cogent reasons, has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and has remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal. It is settled law that the order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of remanding a proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal. An endeavour has to be made by the Appellate Court to dispose of the case on merits. Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or the Tribunal. We are of the view that, in the instant case, the Division Bench has remanded the matter without any justification.26. In view of our finding, as above, it is unnecessary to consider the other contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants on the first question.28. In view of the above proviso, it was permissible for the tenant to make an application seeking correction of the extent of land in the order of the Land Tribunal. The proviso was inserted on 20.10.1995 and the memo seeking correction of the order of the Land Tribunal was filed in the year, 2002. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified in quashing the Notice issued by the Land Tribunal on the ground of delay of about 20 years. We have already noticed that most of the tenants are villagers from remote areas and most of them are illiterate persons and that the Act is a beneficent legislation. This aspect has to be kept in mind while deciding cases under the Act. Whether the order requires correction or not has to be decided by the Land Tribunal, after hearing the parties. In fact, the learned Single Judge, while disposing of W.P. No.20187 of 2002 on 01.07.2012 which arose out of the dispute relating to entries in revenue records, had observed that whether Nadakerappa is entitled to the entire extent of 1 Acre 14 Guntas in Sy.No. 1/11, and whether his application for correction is maintainable are matters to be decided by the Tribunal. This order of the learned Single Judge has been confirmed by the Division Bench. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the Notice. The Division Bench has held that in view of setting aside the Order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982, the Writ Appeal has become infructuous. In our view, the matter requires adjudication by the Land Tribunal on this question.