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

2020 Supreme(SC) 345

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
STATE OF KARNATAKA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
Y. MOIDEEN KUNHI (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4499-4501 OF 2010
Decided on : 27-04-2020

Advocates Appeared:
for the Appellant :V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate
For the Respondent:Radha Shyam Jena, J. M. Khanna, Sakshi Kakkar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Without determining how forest land shown in sale deed got transformed into plantation land in declaration, decision on ceiling limit could not be taken.

Headnote:

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Section 104 – Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 – Section 66 – Treatment as plantation land – Exemption from restrictions on holding imposed under that statute – State’s contentions are that estate having been purchased by a firm and a large portion of estate being forest land, declaration under Section 66 of Act was not the proper course to be followed for ascertaining position of land vis-à-vis ceiling limit as contemplated under 1961 Act – Stand of State is that status of such land should have been dealt with in terms of provisions of Sections 79A and 79-B of 1961 Act – It has not been explained by declarants as to how estate of firm devolved upon its partners – No legal instrument has been brought to notice through which property of firm became partners’ individual property – Scrutiny on part of authorities in case of declarants’ land was inadequate – Without determining how forest land shown in sale deed got transformed into plantation land in declaration, decision on ceiling limit could not be taken – Judgments of High Court in Writ Petition and also judgment of Review Court set aside – Tribunal’s orders in original and review, also quashed – Tahsildar directed to undertake fresh proceeding on the basis of declaration filed under Section 66 of 1976 Act by predecessors of respondents – It shall be open to authorities undertaking such proceeding to examine as to whether declaration under Section 66 of Act was proper course or not for determining issues in dispute, including question of vesting of land or part thereof in the State. (Paras 5 and 12)

Facts of the Case:

State of Karnataka is in appeal before us primarily assailing a common judgment of the High Court of Karnataka delivered on 7th November, 1990 confirming a decision of the Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 treating a large part of an estate held by the respondents as plantation land. The effect of such treatment would be that such land under plantation would be exempted from the restrictions on holding imposed under that statute.

Findings of the Court:

Neither the High Court nor the Tribunal has considered these important aspects of the subject controversy. Without determining how forest land shown in the sale deed got transformed into plantation land in the declaration, the decision on ceiling limit could not be taken. We accordingly set aside the judgments of the High Court in the Writ Petition No.10920 of 1983 and also judgment of the Review Court in Review Petition No.817 of 2004.

Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Aniruddha Bose, J.

The State of Karnataka is in appeal before us primarily assailing a common judgment of the High Court of Karnataka delivered on 7th November, 1990 confirming a decision of the Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 treating a large part of an estate held by the respondents as plantation land. The effect of such treatment would be that such land under plantation would be exempted from the restrictions on holding imposed under that statute. Such exceptions have been laid down under the provisions of Section 104 of the said Act. The dispute involved in this appeal originated from a declaration filed by three individuals, being Y. Moideen Kunhi (in some documents referred to as Noideen Kunhi), Y. Mohammed Kunhi and Y. Abdulla Kunhi under Section 66(4) of the said Act on 5th December, 1975. As would be evident from the copy of a sale deed made annexure "P-I" to the Special Leave Petition, the subject land was purchased by Y. Mohideen Kunhi and Company, a registered partnership firm by the said deed registered on 24th January, 1957 for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,000/-. From this deed, it appears that the property was known as "NERIYA CARDAMOMS ESTATE". The particulars of such land and its user status would appear from the schedule to the said deed. The relevant extract thereof we are reproducing below:-

    "THE TOTAL ACREAGE IN THE ABOVE SCHEDULE:

    PRICE (RS.)

    1. Cardamom Planted area

    50.89 acres

    25,000-00

    2. Coffee area inter-planted with orange-young-not yield about

    30.00 acres

    10,000-00

    3. Paddy Punam Cultivation (Kumri)

    462.00 acres

    20,000-00

    4. Buildings:-

    The residential Buildings-tiled One Smoke house-tiled

    One set coolly line-tiled Shed and Wall Masonary

    20,000-00

    5. Forest Area:

    Consisting of partially cleared and un cleared area

    3485.83 acres

    Rs.2,75,000-00"

    (quoted verbatim)

2. The declaration under Section 66 of the Act was made by the aforesaid three individuals before the Tahsildar (Land Reforms), Belthangady Taluk. The declaration referred to properties situated in different Taluks, including the estate in Neria village, Belthangady Taluk in South Kanara district. In the "Remarks" column of the declaration, there was disclosure to the effect that though the subject-lands were classified as "dry", the same were being used for plantation purpose. The Land Tribunal at Belthangady considered a spot inspection report dated 25.8.1982 carried out by the Special Tahsildar, which found that out of the whole estate, Cardamom plantation was covering 2500 acres, rubber plantation covered 220 acres and 100 acres was covered by coco. The declarants had claimed exemption of 635.60 acres of land, as Rocks and hill slope, Road, streams and river, buildings and area not covered by plantations. This inspection was followed by another spot inspection by the Land Tribunal at Belthangady carried out on 10th September 1982 before the Tribunal gave its decision. A copy of this report has been made annexure "P-5" to the special leave petition. This report records that 2500 acres of land was covered by cardamom cultivation and 100 acres of land was covered by rubber cultivation, so far as plantation lands were concerned. A revised order bearing No. LRY 167/74-75 was issued on 16th September 1982 to the following effect:-

    "The declaration filed by the declarents, the sketch of the surveyor, the spot inspection report of Land Tribunal Secretary and available other relevant records have been perused. The Chairman and the members of the Tribunal after conducting spot inspection opined that the declarents after exempting are holding 530.16 acres of D class agricultural land and as per their eligibility 162 acres of D class land is to be in their possession and remaining 368.16 acres of D class land or its equivalent land are ord


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