Sri Siddappa
& Ors Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors [2000] INSC 288 (4 May 2000)
S. Saghir
Ahmad, & R.P. Sethi.
Sethi,
J.
Invoking
the provisions of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforme Act, 1961
(hereinafter called as "the Act'), the original appellant-tenant
approached the authorities under the Act for conferment of occupancy rights on
the ground of being in possession on the relevant date. His claim was negatived
both by the authorities under the Act and the High Court allegedly on the
ground that he had made a concession in proceedings initiated under Section 14
of the Act for resumption of land by the landlord. It was found that as the
appellant himself had agreed to forego his claim to the extent to 50% of the
land in his occupation, he could not invoke the subsequent amendment made in
the Act vide Section 44.~ It is not in dispute that the appellants' father Shri
Sadappa was a tenant of the land bearing Survey No.14 measuring a areas guntas
situated at hyleganshanti village, Kalagnesi Taluk aimed about 50 years. The
respondents are alleged to have initiated proceeding under Section 14 of the
Act for resumption of half of the land for their personal cultivation in the
year 1967. The application filed by the landlords was partly allowed on
15.10.1968 in RLC No. 348 of 1967 permitting them to resume 2 acres 23 quntas
of the land. It is also not disputed that despite orders in their favour, the
respondents-landlords did not take the possession in execution of the orders of
resumption passed. Instead they preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with a
prayer for resumption of the entire extent of land.
During
the pendency of the appeal, the Act was amended on 1.3.1974 (by Act No. 1 of
1974) by which Section 14 was omitted and section 44 providing vesting of land
in Government was inserted. For rejecting the claim of the appellant, the
Tribunal and the High Court relied upon the orders pased in favour of the
landlords under Section 14 of the Act and did not consider the effect of
Section 44 of the Act, which so far as relevant for our purposes, reads:~
"44. Vesting of land in the State Government, --(1) 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 lands 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.
(2)
Notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate issued by any
court or authority directing or specifying the lands which may be resumed or in
anyy contract, grant or other instrument or in any law for the time being in
force, with effect on and from the date of vesting and move as otherwise
expressly provided in this Act, the following consequences shall ensue,
namely,~ (a) all rights, title and interest vesting in the owners of such lands
and other persons interested in such lands shall cease and be vested absolutely
in the State Government free from all encumbrances:~ (b) xx xx xx xx~ (c) xx xx
xx xx (d) xx xx xx xx (e) xx xx xx xx (f) the land owner, landlord and every
person interested in the land whose rights have vested in the State Government
under clause (a), shall be entitled only to receive the amount from the State
Government as provided in this Chapter:~ (g) Permanent tenants, protected
tenants and other tenants holding such lands shall, as against the State
Government, be entitled only to such rights or privileges and shall be subject
to such conditions as are provided by or under this Act; and any other rights
and privileges which may have occurred to them in such lands before the date of
vesting against the landlord or other person shall cease and determine and
shall not be enforceable against the State Government."~ A perusal of the
Section shows that all lands in possession of the tenants, including tenants
against whom a degree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption had
been made or issued, stood transferred to and vested in the State Government.
The rights, privileges and interests vesting in the owner of such lands stood
extinguished and vested absolutely in the 'State Government free from all
encumbrances. Such owners were held entitled only to receive the amount from
the State Government as provided in Chapter III of the Act. Consequently,
permanent tenants, protected tenants and other tenants holding such lands were
held entitled to such rights and privileges and be subject to such conditions
as were provided under the Act. Under Section 45 of the Act every person who
was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or where a tenant had
lawfully sub-let such sub-tenant was, with effect from and from the date of
vesting, held entitled to be registered occupant in respect of the land of
which he was a tenant.~ There does not appear to be any dispute regarding the
fact that despite passing of order of resumption in their favour, the
respondents-landlords had not taken the possession of the land which continued
to be in possession of the appellant-tenants.
The
Tribunal in its order-dated 22nd March, 1979
noted.~ "The records show the applicant's father and then the applicant's
name as protected tenant and cultivator since 1960 onwards. But there was also
order passed by the Tribunal in RCC 348/67 dated 15.10.1968 according to which
the landlord was allowed to resume 50% of the land i.e. 2 acres 23 guntas. This
was not executed because according to the landlord, he had filed an appeal to
resume the entire land and because he was sick. After 1974 he could not take
any action to resume the land.~ Similarly the High Court also observed:~
"It also noticed that the landlord had not resumed the land on account of
illness and an appeal also had been preferred thereto."~ It appears that
being more influenced by equity than by law, the Tribunal and the High Court
rejected the claim of the appellants-tenants to which he was entitled under
Section 44 of the Act. The orders of the Tribunal and the High Court,
therefore, cannot be sustained and are required to be set aside.~ In view of
what has been stated hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order
of the Division Bench of the karnataka High Court as well as of the Tribunal
are set aside.
Back