1. Landlord seeking resumption of land from tenants under Section 14 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961, involving a compromise regarding possession. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 473
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Navin Sinha, JJ.
Raghunath Prasad Pande – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3621 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 28906 of 2013]
Decided On : 06-04-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Courts should not be hyper-technical and too sophisticated.
Courts should not be hyper-technical and too sophisticated.
Subject
Land Reforms - Resumption of Land
Act Referred
MYSORE LAND REFORMS ACT: S.14(5), S.14(1), S.14, S.15, S.16, S.17, S.18, S.19, S.20, S.21, S.41, S.111
Headnote
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Sections 14(1) and 14(5) – Compliance of procedures – Tribunal passing composite order based on compromise entered into between the parties – Possession of land already given to petitioner acting upon the compromise – Tribunal’s order indicative of petitioner’s possession of the land on date of order – High Court wrongly deciding that possession was not handed over to petitioner. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
Both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have concluded against the appellant mainly on the ground that the possession, as required under Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961, as it then existed, was not handed over in favour of the landlord.
Finding of the Court:
Decision of the High Court is hyper-technical and too sophisticated.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether strict adherence to procedural requirements for possession under Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 is mandatory despite a recorded compromise. (Para 4 )
3. A composite compromise recorded by the Tribunal and acted upon by handing over possession overrides hyper-technical procedural requirements under the Act. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 )
4. Where a compromise is entered into before a competent Tribunal and possession is actually delivered, strict procedural formalities for dispossession are dispensed with. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeal allowed and impugned judgments set aside. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Does a compromise deed recorded by a Tribunal satisfy the requirements for resumption of land under the Mysore Land Reforms Act?
Yes, if the compromise is composite—covering both the right to resume and the delivery of possession—and is acted upon by the actual handing over of possession, it satisfies the legal requirements. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Is strict adherence to the procedural steps of Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act mandatory when possession is voluntarily surrendered via compromise?
No, the court held that requiring a party to repeat procedural formalities when possession has already been undisputed and delivered is hyper-technical and unnecessary. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. What is the role of the Land Tribunal in the resumption of land under Section 14 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act?
The Tribunal determines the land the landlord is entitled to resume, issues a certificate of reservation for resumption, and handles applications for possession to ensure tenants are not dispossessed prematurely. (Para 3 )
ORDER :
Despite service, none appears for respondent nos. 2 to 9. Leave granted.
2. Both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have concluded against the appellant mainly on the ground that the possession, as required under Section 14 (5) of the MYSORE LAND REFORMS ACT , 1961, as it then existed, was not handed over in favour of the landlord.
3. Before proceeding further it is relevant to note the provisions of Sections 14 (1) and 14(5) of MYSORE LAND REFORMS ACT , 1961 (now called as Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961) as they existed in the year 1961-1970, the relevant years for the purpose of this case:-
“14. Resumption of land from tenants –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 22 and 43, but subject to the provisions of this Section and of Sections 15 , 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 41, a landlord may, if he bona fide requires land, other than land held by a permanent tenant,-
(i) For cultivating personally, or
(ii) For any non-agricultural purpose,
file with the Tribunal a statement indicating the land or lands owned by him and which he intends to resume and such other particulars as may be prescribed. On such statement being filed, the Tribunal shall, as soon as may be, after giving an opportunity to be heard to the landlord and such of his tenants and other persons as may be affected, and, having due regard to contiguity, fertility and fair distribution of lands, and after making such other inquiries as the Tribunal deems necessary, determine the land or lands which the landlord shall be entitled to resume, and shall issue a certificate to the landlord to the effect that the land or lands specified in such certificate has been reserved for resumption; and thereupon the right to resume possession shall be exercisable only in respect of the lands specified in such certificate and shall not extend to any other land.
Explanation – Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the Tribunal within the jurisdiction of which the greater part of the land held by the landlord is situated shall be the Tribunal competent to issue a certificate under this Section.
14(5) Where a certificate is issued in respect of any land under sub-section (1)
(a) In the case of tenancies existing on the appointed day, the landlord shall make an application to the Tribunal for possession of such lands within twelve months from the date of issue of the certificate, but the tenants shall not be dispossessed before the 31st March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar year in which the application for possession is made;
(b) In the case of tenancies created after the appointed day, the landlord shall not be entitled to resume the land before the expiry of five years from the date of creation of the tenancies concerned and the tenants shall not be dispossessed before the 31st March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar year in which the application for possession is made.”
From the scheme of afore-mentioned provisions it is clear that the landlord could have filed an application if he needed the land for bona-fide use and occupation before the Tribunal seeking resumption of the land from the tenants. The order was to be passed by the Tribunal under Section 14 (1) of the Act on such application being filed by the landlord. A certificate would be issued by the Tribunal in case the application of the landlord for resumption was allowed. The landlord would take possession of the property by making further application before the Tribunal with support of the certificate issued as mentioned supra. Pursuant thereto, the tenants would be dispossessed before the 31st March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar year in which the application for possession was made. In the matter on hand the compromise entered into as well as the order accepting the compromise passed by the Tribunal was a composite order made under Sections 14 (1) and 14(5) of the MYSORE LAND REFORMS ACT , 1961. It is relevant to note herein itself
