Sri Siddappa
& Ors Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors [2000] INSC 290 (4 May 2000)
S.
SAGHIR AHMAD, & R.P. SETHI.
SETHI,J.
L.I.T.J
Invoking the provisions of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms 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 5 acres 6 guntas situated at Hulaganakatti Village, Kalaghatgi Taluk since about 50 years. The respondents are alleged to have initiated proceedings 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 guntas 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 passed 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
any 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 save 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 decree 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
appellants-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. The appellants are held entitled to the conferment
of rights on the whole land in their occupation under Section 44 read with
Section 45 of the Act. As no-one has appeared for the respondents to seriously
contest the appeal, the appellants are left to bear their own costs.
Back