The Karnataka Land Reforms Act restricts the transferability of rights and privileges of tenants, emphasizing conditions for registration as an occupant.

( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is an assignee of the interest of the original permanent tenant, has challenged the validity of the order dated 29-7-1976, passed by the Land Tribunal, Kumta, in LRT. SR. 12418, 143,63, 14473, 14276, 16021 and 7224 granting the occupancy right in favour of the second respondent in respect of the lands in question bearing survey Nos. 367/1, 367/3, 367/4, 367/5, 367/6 365/6 and 400 of Muroor village, Kumta taluk.

( 2 ) THE second respondent was the mulgeni tenant of the lands in question and in that capacity, he was in possession and personally cultivated the said lands on 1-3-1971 an which date, the Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1974 came into force radically amending the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The petitioner is the son-in-law of the second respondent. The second daughter of the 2nd respondent came to be married to the petitioner on 18-3-1974. After the marriage, the petitioner started living with the second respondent, who through a registered gift deed dated 15 4-1974 transferred his mulgeni right in respect of the lands in question in favour of the petitioner.

( 3 ) IN pursuance of the Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1974, the 2nd respondent and Iris wife and the two daughters made separate applications in Form No. 7 in respect of the lands in question for being registered as occupants. The petitioner also made an application in Form No. 7 for being registered as an occupant of the lands in question, on the basis of the gift-deed executed in his favour by the 2nd respondent transferring his Mulgeni right in the said lands. The Land tribunal clubbed all these applications and held a common enquiry and has passed a common order dated 29-6-1976. The Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner and also those of the wife and the two daughters of the second respondent and granted the occupancy right in favour of the 2nd respondent.

( 4 ) SHRI T. S. Ramachandra the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in view of the provisions contained in section 21 (1) and section 44 (2) (a) (e) and (g) of the Act, the transfer of Mulgeni right effected by the second respondent through the gift deed dated 15-4-1974 in favour of the petitioner was a vafid transfer and as such, the petitioner was entitled to be registered as an occupant of the lands in question and not the second respondent. He also contended that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be registered as an occupant of the lands in question on the grounds that the gift-deed dated 15-4-1974, was executed after 1-3-1974 and as such, the petitioner was not the permanent tenant and was not cultivating the lands in question personally on 1-3-1974. He placed reliance on the provisions of S. 61 of the Act, which prohibits the transfer after the registration of occupancy right and as such, it was contended that the transfer in the instant case had taken place before granting of occupancy right and therefore it was a valid transfer. He also further relied upon the provisions of Ss 64 and 19 of he act and submitted that the said provisions place certain restrictions regarding the future acquisition of land. A reliance was also placed by him on S. 43 of the Act.

( 5 ) ON the contrary, it was submitted on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the transfer by way of gift having taken place subsequent to 1-3-1974 in favour of the petitioner, such a transfer of Mulgeni rights did not enable the petitioner to claim the occupancy right inasmuch as an interest in the lands in question came to be created in the petitioner for the first time after 1-3-1974 and as such, he was not cultivating the lands in question on 1-3-1974 as a tenant as his right is based only on the gift deed of 15-4-1974 and as such, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the application of the petitioner.

( 6 ) HAVING regard to the respective c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document