Skip to content


Abdulsab Rajasab Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner, District Dharwar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Kant4; 1976(2)KarLJ117
ActsKarnataka Land Reforms Act, 1962 - Sections 133; Karnataka Land Revenue Act; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114
AppellantAbdulsab Rajasab
RespondentThe Special Deputy Commissioner, District Dharwar and ors.
Advocates:R.U. Goulay, Adv.
Excerpt:
- religious endowments act, 1863 [repeal by act ii /1927] section 6 of act ii of 1927 & section 8; [a.s. bopanna, j] application of the repealing act held, section 8 would clearly indicate that the repeal of religious endowments act would apply in so far as hindu religious endowments to which the act applies. but in so far as the jain religious endowments, the repeal by act (ii) of 1927 is not applicable. further, the religious endowments act 1863 has been repealed only in so far as it applies to hindu religious endowments and the repeal is specific to that extent and therefore the applicability of the act to the jain religious endowments act, 1863 is still applicable to the jains of dakshina kannada. section 10; maintainability of application under power of the district judge to..........is that which determines the rights of the parties. i n the dispute under chapter 11 of the land revenue act, what is decided is the dispute in regard to making of entries in the record of rights. the entries in the record of rights are made for the purpose of land revenue act and the presumption arising out of such entries as is clear from section 13 of the land revenue act, is a rebuttable presumption. it is open to the parties, as and when the record of rights are produced in evidence, to lead evidence in rebuttal and to persuade the tribunal or court, as the case may be, not to rely upon the entries in the record of rights. hence, it follows that when a revenue officer makes an order under chapter 11 of the land revenue act that the name of the particular person should or.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. What has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition is the order made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar, in proceedings pertaining to making entries in the record of rights.

2. This Court has consistently taken the view that the entries made in the record of rights are not conclusive 1and are subject to the decision in a suit or other appropriate proceedings. This Court does not ordinarily interfere with the entries made in the record of rights. But, it was contended by Sri R. U. Goulay, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in view of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as substituted by Act 27 of 1976 the authorities functioning under the Act are required to refer the issues which are required to be decided by the Tribunal for its adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 133 of the Act as substituted, reads as follows:

'133. Suits, Proceedings, etc., involving questions required to be decided by the Tribunal - (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force-

(i) No Civil or Criminal Court or officer or Authority shall, in any suit, case or proceedings concerning a land, decide the question whether such land is or is not agricultural land and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said land from prior to 1st March, 1974;

(ii) Such Court or officer or Authority shall stay such suit or proceedings in so far as such question is concerned and refer the same to the Tribunal for decision;

(iii) All interim orders issued or made by such Court, officer or Authority, whether in the nature of temporary injunction or appointment of a Receiver or otherwise, concerning the land shall stand dissolved or vacated, as the case may be;

(iv) The Tribunal shall decide the question referred to it under clause (1) and communicate its decision to such Court, officer or Authority. The decision of the Tribunal shall be final;

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall preclude the Civil or Criminal Court or the officer or authority from proceeding with the suit, case or proceedings in respect of any matter other than that referred to in that sub-section.'

What the said Section provides is that no Civil or Criminal Court or officer or authority other than the Tribunal can decide whether a person claiming to be in possession prior to 1st March. 1974, is or is not a tenant. Decision is that which determines the rights of the parties. I n the dispute under Chapter 11 of the Land Revenue Act, what is decided is the dispute in regard to making of entries in the record of rights. The entries in the record of rights are made for the purpose of Land Revenue Act and the presumption arising out of such entries as is clear from Section 13 of the Land Revenue Act, is a rebuttable presumption. It is open to the parties, as and when the record of rights are produced in evidence, to lead evidence in rebuttal and to persuade the Tribunal or Court, as the case may be, not to rely upon the entries in the record of rights. Hence, it follows that when a Revenue Officer makes an order under Chapter 11 of the Land Revenue Act that the name of the particular person should or should not be entered in the record of rights as a tenant in Possession of the land, he cannot be regarded as deciding whether the person is or is not a tenant. If the Tribunal which has jurisdiction to decide the issue pertaining to tenancy gives its finding which is inconsistent with the entry in the record of rights, it is the decision of the Tribunal that prevails and the entry in the record of rights will have to be corrected so as to bring it in consonance with the finding of the Tribunal. Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, as substituted by Karnataka Act 27 of 1976, has no application to proceedings under Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, pertaining to record of rights. Hence, revenue officers while discharging their functions under Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, are not required to refer any issues pertaining to tenancy to the Tribunal under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

3. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere. The writ petition is rejected.

4. Petition rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //