HC terms tenent's rights on Shanbhog land wrong

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Occupancy rights granted to a tenant of a Shanbhog land four times over the last few decades has finally been found wrong by the High Court. A division bench of the HC upheld a single-judge order which had set aside the rights. Chikkachowdappa, 87, from Kolar, had approached the High Court’s division bench against the order of the single judge bench. The bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anant Ramnath Hegde heard and disposed of the appeal.

Chikkachowdappa’s contention was that one Chandrashekar Dixit owned the 'Shanbhog Inamathi' land in Markandapura village in Kolar measuring 2 acres and 3 guntas. Dixit’s father was the Shanbhog for seven villages during his lifetime till 1962. Thereafter, Chandrashekar Dixit was the Shanbhog till the Village Offices Abolition Act did away with the office of the village Shanbhog. Chikkachowdappa filed an application with the authorities seeking occupancy rights on the said land claiming he was the tenant.

The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights to him on August 10, 1981. This was challenged in the HC by Dixit which set aside the grant and sent the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal again granted the occupancy rights to Chikkachowdappa which was challenged again. The HC once again set it aside and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

For the third time the Tribunal granted the land to Chikkachowdappa and this was also challenged by Dixit in 1992 before the HC. The HC directed the claimant to produce the lease agreement dated 12.07.1957 based on which he was claiming occupancy rights and sent the matter back to the Tribunal. On February 13, 2004, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights to Chikkachowdappa for the fourth time. This was challenged by Dixit in the HC.

A single judge bench quashed the Tribunal’s order but did not remit the matter back to the Tribunal. Chikkachowdappa filed an appeal which was heard by the division bench of the HC. Dixit had died in the meantime and his legal heirs were made parties to the appeal. The HC upheld the single judge order after noticing that the said lease deed was only for five years.

“In the instant case, the appellant (Chikkachowdappa) is relying on the copy of lease deed executed on 12.07.1957. The aforesaid lease deed contains a stipulation that the land in question has been leased out to the appellant for a period of 5 years and on expiry of the aforesaid 5 years, the appellant shall handover the possession of the land only after 1968. Thereafter, for a period from 1968 onwards till 1974-75, there is no endorsement to show that the appellant had paid rent to deceased respondent No.3 (Dixit) in respect of the land in question.”