Rayappa Basappa Killed Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 227: [r.b. naik, j] offence under section 12 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(d) of prevention of corruption act, 1988 - revision against rejection of application for discharge - allegations of abuse of official position - sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - conspiracy and criminal misconduct - financial loss to the complainant bank - material on record to proceed against the accused - held, since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. with the material available on record, the court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial. indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]section 120-b r/w section 420: [r.b. naik, j] offence under section 12 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(d) of prevention of corruption act, 1988 - revision against rejection of application for discharge - allegations of abuse of official position - sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - conspiracy and criminal misconduct - financial loss to the complainant bank - material on record to proceed against the accused - held, since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. with the material available on record, the court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial indian penal code,1860[c.a.no.45/1860] section 120-b r/w section 420: [r.b. naik, j] offence under section 12 (2) r/w section 13 (1)(d) of prevention of corruption act, 1988 - revision against rejection of application for discharge - allegations of abuse of official position - sanction of credit facilities by corrupt and illegal means - conspiracy and criminal misconduct - financial loss to the complainant bank - material on record to proceed against the accused - held, since it is not obligatory at the stage of the trial to consider in detail and hold that the defence if proved would be incompatible with the offence of the accused or not and standard of test is to be finally applied at the time of judgment while deciding, whether the accused is guilty or not, at this stage the court has to only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case. with the material available on record, the court is satisfied that the grounds made out are sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the trial. - ' (underlining is ours). 5. in a case like this where the alleged tenant has not been in possession of the agricultural land and he has not been cultivating it personally immediately prior to the date of vesting, viz.govinda bhat, c.j.1. this is an appeal against the order made by venkataramiah, j. dated 10-12-1975 in writ petition no. 6701 of 1975 by which the learned single judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the order of the land tribunal, kundgal, rejecting his application for registering him as occupant under section 45 of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 (hereinafter called the act).2. the appellant was admittedly not in possession of the land from 1957 in respect of which he sought registration as occupant under section 45 of the act. the question is whether a person who claims that he had the right of a tenant but not in possession of the agricultural land on 1-3-1974, which is the date on which all lands held by or in the possession of tenant immediately prior to the said date stand transferred to and vest in the state government is entitled to be registered as occupant.3. section 44 (1) of the act as amended by act 1 of 1974 reads:'all lands held by or in the possession of tenants (including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption is made or issued) immediately prior to the date of commencement of the amendment act, other than land held by them under leases permitted under section 5, shall, with effect on and from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in the state government.'4. section 45 of the act provides for registration of the tenant who has been cultivating the land personally before the date of vesting. sub-section (1) of the said section reads:-'subject to the provisions of the succeeding sections of this chapter, every person who was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or where a tenant has lawfully sublet, such sub tenant shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of the lands of which he was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or sub-tenant before the date of vesting and which he has been cultivating personally.' (underlining is ours).5. in a case like this where the alleged tenant has not been in possession of the agricultural land and he has not been cultivating it personally immediately prior to the date of vesting, viz., 1-3-1974, such land does not vest in the state government under section 44, and if it does not vest in the state government, the tenant is not entitled to be registered as occupant. therefore, the tribunal was right in rejecting the appellant's application as the land has not vested in the state government under section 44 (1).6. we see, therefore, no grounds to admit this appeal. accordingly it is rejected.7. appeal dismissed.