Y.R.
Veeranna Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors [1997] INSC 527 (7 May 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIRAHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
THE
7TH DAY MAY, 1997 Present:
Hon`ble
Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy Hon`ble Mr. Justice S.Saghir Ahmad Hon`ble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik
G.V.Chandrashekhar and P.P.Singh, Advs.for thePetitioner O R D E R Delay
condoned.
Itis anundisputed
fact thatthe KarnatakaLand Reforms(Amendment) Acthad come into force with effectfrom
March 1, 1974.The petitionerlaid claimed asan occupancy tenant,in respect of13
acres and 24 gunthas of theland situated in K.R. Nagar Taluk,Karnataka
District. When he filed application in Form- 7 for recognition of his rights as
an occupancy tenant, the Tribunal rejectedhis claim on the ground that his sons
werecultivating theland. It was held that since the petitionerhad notbeen
cultivating the land, he couldnot file the application inForm-7and, therefore,
he was not entitledto be treated as a protected tenant.That order came to be affirmedby
the High Court in LRRP No.2179/88 and in C.P. No.499/96on June10, 1996 and
January6, 1997. Thus, this special leave petition.
Inview
of the fact that a tenant in cultivation is entitled to lay the claim under
Section 44 and 48-A of the Karnataka LandReformsAct (for short, the `Act'), on
his own admittedlyshowingthat hehad notbeen cultivating the land ,the
petitioner's right as occupancy tenant was rightlyrejected. His status is that
of the co-owner, Karta of the joint family andas suchon behalf of his sons he
had filed it and the sons were cultivating the landon behalf of the family;
since this land was obtained ata partition betweenthe petitionerand hisbrotherway
back in 1957, it is joint family property. In view of the fact that he is not personallycultivating
theland onhis ownshowing, the findingrecorded by the Tribunal and the HighCourt
is not vitiated by any manifest error of law. However, due to mistaken standthe
application in Form-7 cameto be filed.
He washeld
disentitled to theclaim as a protected tenant.
If thesons
were really occupying the land as tenants prior to theAmendment Act had comeinto
force on March 1, 1974, it maybe opento the sons to make
an application in Form-7 and have the matter adjudicated. Thelimitation that
has been prescribed in the statute, in the peculiar facts, may not be taken asa
ground for rejection of theirclaims.
The
special leavepetition are accordingly dismissed with the above observations.
Back
