Back
KARNATAKAHIGH COURT
N. Kumar, B.S. Patil and S.N. Satyanarayana, JJ.
Lokayya Poojary and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 28203 of 2004 connected with Writ Petition No. 27528 of 2005
Decided on : 22.1.2011
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 - Section 77-A: [N. Kumar & B.S. Patil & S.N. Satyanarayana, JJ] Enquiry under - Vesting of the tenanted land in the State Government - Held, The vesting of the tenanted land is by operation of law. No written order is needed under the provisions of the Act for completion of vesting. Once vesting takes place, the right of the owner of the land stands extinguished and the property vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Notwithstanding such vesting the tenant may continue in possession of the property. In fact the condition precedent for vesting is, the land in question must be a tenanted land. Even if the tenant is not in possession, but if it is a tenanted land, land vests in the Government. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that law does not prescribe any written order for giving effect to the intention of the Legislation. If a tenant makes an application, the question that arises for consideration is how he proves that it is vested land. The vesting of the land is by operation of law. No order of vesting need be passed. There cannot be an order declaring the vesting the land. Therefore, production of order of vesting is not the requirement of law and it is not possible and it cannot be insisted upon. However, it is for the applicant who comes to the Court to establish, that the land in question is a vested land. While establishing such fact, it is necessary that he should rely on undisputed documents and such undisputed documents may be in the nature of some official record showing vesting of the land of favour of the State Government. The Government record referred to in the judgment is not an order of vesting. It is record in proof of vesting. It may vary from case to case and depends upon the stand taken in each case. But, unless there is some official record evidencing the vesting of the land, the authorities under Section 77-A would get no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry and grant land under Section 77-A to the applicant. The official record referred to therein may be in the form of Land Revenue Receipts, Record of Rights, Index of Land, Mutation Orders, Consequent Mutation Entries or any other record which is maintained by a Public Officer as opposed to private documents. The observations made in Hosabayya Nagappa Naik & ors., vs State of Karnataka & ors., [2002 (3) KLJ 53]; S.C. Chandrappa vs State of Karnataka & ors., [ILR 2005 Kar 3637]; and (3) Aboobakkar vs Authorised Officer under Section 77-A of the KLR Act (H.Q. Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, D.K) Puttur & anr., [2007 (2) KCCR 817], cannot be read as new conditions prescribed by the Judges in Section 77-A by the process of judicial interpretation as sought to be urged by the Counsel for the petitioner. The judges do not legislate. They only interpret the provisions. Therefore, the argument that under the guise of interpretation, the Judges have re-written the section is not well founded. It is a case of misreading the judgment. Under these circumstances, the interpretation placed by the Division Benches is proper and legal. There is no need to clarify what has been already said.
N. Kumar, J.
Three Division Benches of this Court in
(1) Hosabayya Nagappa Naik and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2002 (3) Kar. L.J. 53;
(2) S.C. Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, Secretary to Government and Others, (2005 (4) KCCR 2299): ILR 2005 Kar 3637; and
(3) Sri Aboobakkar Vs. The Authorised Officer under Section 77A of the KLR Act (H.Q. Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, D.K.J Puttur and Anr., 2007 (2) KCCR 817
have held that the Government records should reflect the factum of vesting of the land in the State, to attract the provisions of Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by Act 1997. The correctness of the interpretation placed on Section 77A by the aforesaid three Division Benches is doubted by the learned single Judge. The learned Single Judge has expressed the view that this aspect requires reconsideration by a Larger Bench of this Court. Accordingly, this reference is made to the Full Bench by the learned Chief Justice.
2. It is not necessary to advert to the facts of any of these eases, as we are concerned with only the question of law. It is clear from the order of reference that the learned single Judge did not agree with the observation in Hosabayya's case, that the aspect of vesting of the land in the State Government should find place in some official record and that in the absence of any such record, the factum of vesting becomes a disputed fact and an enquiry in to the same is not within the scope of Section 77A of the Act. In other words, the Division Bench has held that the Government records should reflect the position that the land has been already vested in the State Government so as to enable the authority to grant land in favour of the tenant. It is in this context, the learned single judge has felt that the aforesaid judgments require reconsideration by the Larger Bench in view of the settled legal position that vesting of the land either under Section 44 or for the purpose of Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, is automatic. If the land is tenanted land as on 1.3.1974 there need not be any specific order to that effect nor there need be any Government records to show vesting of the property in the State. Vesting of the tenanted land as on 1.3.1974 in the State Government is by operation of law. The same is clear from looking to the scheme of the Lind "Reforms Act. The plain language employed in Section 44 of the Act also makes it clear that the vesting of the tenanted land as on 1.3.1974 with the State Government is automatic and by operation of law. There need not be any official Government record evidencing vesting of the land in the State. This, the learned single judge opines has been the understanding of this Court right from the year 1974 till very recently i.e., till the pronouncement of the judgments in the aforesaid matters by the Division Benches. The tenanted properties vest the title with the Government and consequently, the right, title and interest of the owners over the properties shall cease to exist with effect from 1.3.1974 in support of the above observations the learned single Judge has referred to various judgments of this Court. It is in this background, we are called upon to decide the correctness or otherwise of the observations made by the Division Benches of this Court in the aforesaid Hosabayya Nagappa Naik's case, which is followed in the other two judgments.
3. It is not disputed and it cannot be disputed that in view of the passing of the Karnataka Land Reforms Amendment Act, by virtue of Section 44, all the 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 v
SupremeToday
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
