SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 564

AIR 20058 SC 2076
TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.
Honnamma & Ors. — PETITIONER
Vs.
Nanjundalah since dead by his Lrs & Ors. — RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 5312-5318 of 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/03/2008

Headnote:

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Claim of tenancy - Appeals by special leave are directed against judgment – Application claiming occupancy rights on specified surveys numbers in Village - He thereafter filed an application on April seeking to amend Form on plea that some of survey numbers given therein had not been correctly re-produced - This application was straightaway allowed by Land Tribunal without notice to opposite party and necessary changes in Form including some land falling in Revenue Estates of Villages and were made - landowner was owner land in question - One had also filed an application in Form in year for same piece of land for which had filed his application in year application was dismissed by Land Tribunal - Held, A person who derives his right to cultivate land from owners would normally be a contractual tenant and he will obviously not be a deemed tenant - Persons such as licensees from the owner may certainly be regarded as falling within class of persons lawfully cultivating land belonging to others but it cannot be assumed there from that they are only persons who are covered by section Act affords protection to all persons who hold agricultural lands as contractual tenants and subject to exceptions specified all persons lawfully cultivating lands belonging to others and it would be unduly restricting intention of the legislature to limit the benefit of its provisions to persons who derive their authority from the owner either under a contract of tenancy or otherwise - In our view all persons other than those mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 4 who lawfully cultivate land belonging to other persons whether or not their authority is derived directly from owner of land must be deemed tenants of lands - Appeal Allowed

JUDGMENT:

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 27th July, 2000 whereby the orders of the Appellate Tribunal conferring occupancy rights on the appellants, have been reversed. The tenant-claimants are before us in these appeals.

2. The facts of the case are as under:-

3. One Nanjundegowda since deceased filed an application on 2nd January. 1976 before the Land Tribunal, Nagamangala in Form No.7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") claiming occupancy rights on specified surveys numbers in Village Anakanahalli. He thereafter filed an application on 8th April, 1981 seeking to amend Form No. 7 on the plea that some of the survey numbers given therein had not been correctly re-produced. This application was straightaway allowed by the Land Tribunal without notice to the opposite party and the necessary changes in Form No. 7 including some land falling in the Revenue Estates of Villages Mylanahalli and Honnenahalli were made. The landowner, K. Balalingaiah (now represented by his legal representatives) was the owner of the land in question. One Javarappa had also filed an application in Form 7 in the year 1975 for the same piece of land for which Nanjundegowda had filed his application in the year 1981. Javarappas application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal. He thereafter filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which too was dismissed on 4th December, 1980. After the rejection of the aforesaid application Balalingiah sold the land in dispute to the respondents herein. The purchasers were impleaded as parties before the Land Tribunal and they contested the claim of Nanjundegowda on various grounds. The tribunal, after taking evidence, documentary as well as oral, concluded that the claim of tenancy rights made by Nanjundegowda was untenable and accordingly rejected the claim. This order was challenged by Nanjundegowda by way of a writ petition but on the constitution of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority by an amendment of the Act, the writ petition was remitted to the Appellate Authority for disposal. The Appellate Authority crystallized the points for consideration as under:

1. Whether the lands in dispute are agricultural lands

2. Whether the action of the Land Tribunal permitting amendment of form No. 7 on 8.4.1981 by including the lands in Milanahalli and Honnenahalli was valid

3. Whether the inclusion of Survey No. 12 of Milanahalli village in form no. 7 by the amendment application dated 8.4.1981 was valid

4. Whether the lands in question were tenanted or not on 1.3.1974

5. Whether the appellant was in occupation as a tenant of the lands in question as on 1.3.1974

6. Whether the order of the Land Tribunal was correct and whether it was liable to be interfered with and after an elaborate discussion of the evidence, allowed the appeal with respect to the land except that covered by survey Nos.64 and 12 of villages Anakanahalli and Mylanahalli respectively vide order of 3rd June 1988 observing that the land was agricultural in nature that Nanjundegowda was indeed a tenant on the land mentioned in Form No. 7 as his uncle Kallumaligegowda had brought him from Kenchanahalli to Anakanahalli where the land was situated and built a house for him with a promise to give the lands to him, and that after the death of Kallumaligegowda, his relatives had assured Nanjundegowda that he could work on the land and bring credit to his uncles family. The Authority also held that the amendment application pertaining to Form No. 7 filed on 8th April, 1981 could not be said to be beyond limitation. K. Balalingaiah filed a revision petition against the order of the Tribunal before the High Court of Karnataka (CRP No. 3582 of 1988). One Smt. Lakshmamma, a respondent herein, also filed a revision petition against the order of the Tribunal before the High Court of Karnataka (CRP No. 3553 of 1988). The High Court dismissed the revision







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top