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

2019 Supreme(SC) 483

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
MONTHI MENEZES (D) BY LR. – Appellant(s)
Vs.
DEVAKI AMMA (D) BY LR. & ANR. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 3539 of 2009
Decided on : 23-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Advocate, Ms. Harisha S.R., Advocate and Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., Advocate, Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Advocate, Mr. Shiva P., Advocate, Ms. K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Advocate, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Advocate, for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
A judgment without adverting to all the facts of the case cannot be sustained.

Headnote:Constitution of India – Article 226 – Finding of fact recorded by forum below binding on High Court – Instantly High court not agreeing with such well considered finding – High Court also not adverting to all facts – Judgment not sustainable. (Para 7, 10, 11)

       (1994) KLJ 524 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The Land Tribunal allowed the appellant’s occupancy rights as regards 3.07 acres of land in Survey No. 119/2A1.

       The writ petition filed by the landlord was allowed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2008 as passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 2202 of 2006, affirming the order dated 17.11.2006 as passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 11344 of 1999.

1.1. By the said order dated 17.11.2006, learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent of the present appeal (now represented by her legal representative) and set aside the order dated 28.01.1999 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bantwal Taluk, Karnataka in TNC No. 10579 of 1974-95 whereby the Tribunal had declared the applicant Shri Bona Menezes (predecessor of the present appellant - who is also represented by her legal representative) as tenant of 3.07 acres of land in Survey No. 119/2A1 of Kuriyala village.

2. The relevant background aspects of the matter could be taken note of as follows:-

2.1. The Amended Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the 'Act of 1961') came into force w.e.f. 01.03.1974. By virtue of amended Sections 44 and 45 thereof, all the tenanted lands vested with the Government and all the tenants were entitled to be registered as occupants [For ready reference, the relevant provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 44 and sub-section (1) of Section 45 are extracted as under:-
44. Vesting of lands 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.
45. Tenants to be registered as occupants of land on certain conditions.-(1) Subject to the provisions of the succeeding sections of this Chapter, every person who was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or where a tenant has lawfully sublet, such sub-tenant shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of the lands of which he was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or sub-tenant before the date of vesting and which he has been cultivating personally

.]. Every person entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 45 was required to make an application in that behalf before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. Such an application was required to be made in Form 7 appended to the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974.

2.2. Shri Bona Menezes, predecessor of the appellant, made an application in the prescribed Form 7, claiming occupancy rights over various parcels of land while alleging that he was cultivating the land in question for about 40 years on payment of 50 Muras of rice per annum to the landlord; and he was also making payment of land revenue and levy. The landlord (respondent herein) appeared in response to the notice issued on the application so made by Shri Bona Menezes and specifically raised objection in respect of the land in Survey No. 119/2A1, which is the subject matter of dispute in the present appeal. The landlord also raised objection in relation to the land comprising Survey No. 143/2B, Survey No. 144/2 and Survey No. 144/6 while stating no objection in granting occupancy rights to the applicant on other parcels of land. The main plank of the case of the landlord had been that the said parcels of land comprising Survery Nos. 119/2A1, 143/2B, 144/2 and 144/3 were 'Punja' lands, which were not cultivable and were not leased to the applicant.

2.3. After taking necessary evidence and after spot inspection on 06.03.1981, the Land Tribunal came to the conclusion that so far as the land comprising Survey No. 119/2A1






























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
whatsapp-icon Back to top