Point of Law: Land Reforms Act, 1961 is undoubtedly a beneficial legislation. It is important to remember that this piece of legislation is meant to preserve, protect and also confer benefits on persons who are able to clearly establish the factum of agrarian relationship as tenant in respect of the land.

JUDGMENT :

In this intra-court appeal, the appellant-landlord is calling in question the judgment dated 21.04.2011 in W.P.No.12439/2004 (LR) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. Brief facts are, one late G.Anantha Bhatta, who is the husband of respondent No.1 had filed an application in Form No.7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) in respect of 0.35 acres of land situated in Sy.No.85/23 of Shivalli Village of Udupi Taluk. The second respondent -Land Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) enquired into the matter after issuing notice to both sides and passed an order dated 23.12.2003 (Annexure-A) granting occupancy right in respect of 0-07-5 acres of land in Sy.No.85/23 of Shivalli Village, Udupi Taluk, in favour of respondent No.1. The appellant herein filed W.P.No.12439/2004 challenging the said order of the Tribunal, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 21.04.2011 and that is under challenge in this writ appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that appellant is a Mutt and the applicant in Form No.7 -the late husband of respondent No.1 was working as a cook in the Mutt and the residential premises with appurtenant land in question was given to him only for his occupation and therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed in Form No.7 in respect of the said land. It was further contended by him that the subject matter of the enquiry before the Tribunal was not a “land” within the meaning of Section 2(A)(18) of the Act and applicant in Form No.7 was not a “tenant” within the meaning of Section 2(A)(34) of the Act. He therefore submitted that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into the matter. He submitted that learned Single Judge had misread the evidence placed before the Tribunal and has recorded that the representative of the appellant-Mutt, who appeared before the Tribunal had stated that Form No.7 applicant was a ‘tenant’ even though the said representative had only stated that applicant was working as a cook in the Mutt and the subject matter of the application was given to him by the Mutt for his occupation. He therefore submitted that the order of the Tribunal (Annexure-A) as well as learned Single Judge (Annexure NIL) are illegal and liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, per contra, submitted that Form No.7 applicant and subsequently, respondent No.1, who is his widow, had been cultivating the land in question as a ‘tenant’ under the appellant, since prior to the appointed date and therefore after due enquiry the Tribunal has passed an order granting occupancy rights in favour of the respondent No.1. He submitted that learned Single Judge after appreciation of the entire evidence and the avowed objectives of the Act, has rightly dismissed the writ petition and therefore no interference with such an order is called for.

5. Learned AGA for the State has argued in support of the order of the Land Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records.

7. For better appreciation of the contentions advanced before us, it is necessary to make reference to the relevant provisions of the Act namely, Section 2(A)(18) defines the “land” for the purposes of the Act:

(18) “land” means agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house-site or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes;

Section 2(A)(34) reads as follows:

(34) “tenant” means an agriculturist [who cultivates personally the land he holds on lease] from a landlord and includes,—

(i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under section 4;

(ii) a person who was protected fr