Back
Karnataka High Court
Y.V.SRINIVASA RAO - Appellant
Versus
ERANAIKA - Respondent
Decided On : 01-03-02
W.P. : 29284 of 1991
Land Tribunal - Karnataka Land Reforms Act - Section 5, Section 44, Section 15, Section 58 - The court held that the lease of land in favor of the respondents was governed by Section 5 of the act, and there was no automatic vesting of the land under Section 44. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights over such land as there was no transfer and vesting of the tenanted land in the state government. The court referred to the pronouncement of the division bench in the case of Narasing Gopalrao Desai v Land Tribunal, Khanapur, which held that a tenant of a soldier or seaman cannot get occupancy right unless the land is vested in the government by a special declaration made to that effect by the tahsildar as required under Section 15(6) of the act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the land tribunal granting occupancy rights to the contesting respondents. The petitioner contended that the lease created or continued by soldiers should be kept out of the purview of 'automatic vesting' as per Section 44 of the act. The respondents opposed this contention, stating that there was no material evidence to show that the lease was created by a soldier and that the lease was in their possession for over 30 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lease of land in favor of the respondents was governed by Section 5 of the act, and there was no automatic vesting of the land under Section 44. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights over such land.
Issues: The main issue was whether the land tribunal had jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights to the respondents, considering the lease created or continued by soldiers and the provisions of Sections 5, 44, 15, and 58 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lease of land in favor of the respondents was governed by Section 5 of the act, and there was no automatic vesting of the land under Section 44. The court referred to the pronouncement of the division bench in the case of Narasing Gopalrao Desai v Land Tribunal, Khanapur, which held that a tenant of a soldier or seaman cannot get occupancy right unless the land is vested in the government by a special declaration made to that effect by the tahsildar as required under Section 15(6) of the act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the land tribunal granting occupancy rights to the respondents, stating that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights over such land. The court also mentioned that the respondents could make an application for declaration of vesting of the land as prescribed under Section 15(6) of the Act, and only after such declaration, the tribunal would have jurisdiction to consider such application. All contentions of the parties were left open, and there were no orders as to costs.
( 2 ) THE petitioner in this petition has challenged the order of the land tribunal, yelandur taluk, dated 19-2-1989 granting occupancy rights to the contesting respondents 1 to 10 herein. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner-sri sridhar and the deceased petitioner-srinivasa rao who is the father of sridhar were the landlords of the lands in dispute and it is also not in dispute that these lands have been leased to respondents 1 to 10 almost 30 to 40 years back.
( 3 ) AFTER coming into force the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as amended by Karnataka act 1 of 1974 these respondents have filed an application in form 7 praying for grant of occupancy rights in respect of these lands leased to them. On issuance of notice by the land tribunal, the petitioners, both father and son appeared before the tribunal and contested the claim on the ground that both being soldiers serving in the Indian Air force and army respectively, the lease created or continued by them is permissible under Section 5 of the act. Further it was contended that the land leased or continued by soldiers will not automatically vest with the government as per Section 44 itself. There is a special machinery provided and as there was no automatic vesting of the land, on coming into force of act 1 of 1974 the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the case of grant of occupancy rights to the respondents. Evidence in this regard was recorded by the tribunal and by the impugned order the tribunal rejected the contentions of the petitioners on the ground (a) that there is no evidence produced by the petitioners herein to show that the land in question had been inherited first by srinivasa rao and then by his son sridhar; (b) that they had admitted tenancy of the respondents; (c) the case of the petitioners that even though said srinivasa rac retired in 1966 he has entrusted the management or ownership to his son sridhar is surprising and an afterthought; (d) it is not established that sridhar, the petitioner herein was not looking after the land in question; ana (e) that it is not established that srinivasa rao, the father of the present petitioner was looking after the land. The tribunal also rejected the contentions of the petitioners on the ground that as under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 srinivasa rao, should have filed an application for resumption of the lands immediateiy after his retirement and as he has not done so, the tenancy is deemed to be continued and as such the Provisions of Section 5 (2) of 1961 act are not attracted. Accordingly, the tribunal proceeded to grant occupancy rights to respondents 1 to 10 herein.
( 4 ) IT is this grant of occupancy which came to be initially challenged before the Karnataka land reforms appellate authority and when the matter was pending, by virtue of abolition of appellate authority the matter came to be transferred to this court in the present writ petition.
( 5 ) SRI mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order of the land tribunal granting occupancy rights is basically illegal and without jurisdiction. It is contended that once a lease is created or continued by a soldier, such leases have been accepted under the Provisions of the act either under 1961 act or under the present amendment act and as such leases have been kept out of the purview of "automatic vesting" as per Section 44 of the act. It is also submitted that by looking into the Provisions of sections 5, 44, 15 and 58 of the Act, as the act of declaration of vesting has to be done by the tahsildar since it is not automatic vesting under Section 44 and as there is no such declaration the land is not vested with the state government and in turn
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
