IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that legislative amendments can retroactively affect land ownership claims, and the 'Triple Test' must be applied to determine tenancy and vesting under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.

1. This intra-court appeal calls in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 29.05.2017 whereby appellants W.P. No. 1859/2008 having been dismissed, their challenge to Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 17.01.2008 whereby possession of subject land was sought to be taken, has been negatived. They had also sought for a direction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession & enjoyment of the subject land and for the restoration of revenue entries in their favour. After service of notice, official respondents have entered appearance through the learned AGA.

2. Brief facts of the case:

(a) Subject ‘plantation lands’ were held in lease by the appellant-company, since decades. Its application in Form 7 filed u/s.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 was rejected by the jurisdictional Land Tribunal vide order dated 25.05.1984 on the sole ground that the applicant did not fit into the definition of ‘tenant’ u/s 2(34). Appellants’ challenge to the said rejection in W.P. No. 14885/1984 failed vide order dated 8.4.1988. Their W.A. No. 1030/1988 c/w W.A. No. 1867/1989 also met the same fate at the hands of a Co-ordinate Bench on 21.09.1990. Their Review Petitions in C.P. Nos. 13/1991 & 386/1991 too yield fruit vide order dated 03.01.1992. Lastly, the challenge to all this in SLP (Civil) No. 120/1991 was dismissed by the Apex Court as withdrawn by order dated 26.07.1996.

(b) The Tahsildar by order dated 20.07.2000 mutated the Revenue Entries in favour of State in the light of above fact matrix. Challenge to the same in W.P. No. 26764/2000 failed vide order dated 06.12.2005. Appeal in W.A. No. 124/2006 also met the same fate on 06.09.2006 at the hands of another Co-ordinate Bench, liberty having been reserved to the respondents to initiate proceedings for taking possession of lands expeditiously. Accordingly the respondent-Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 21.08.2007 directed taking of possession of the lands. Appellants’ challenge to the same in W.P. No. 14523/2007 having been partly favoured vide order dated 18.09.2007, they were given opportunity to file their objections by treating D.C’s. order as only a proposal. Writ Appeal No. 2005/2007 against this order failed on 12.11.2007 at the hands yet another Co-ordinate Bench.

(c) Appellants in terms of learned Single Judge’s order dated 18.09.2007 filed their objections to the Deputy Commissioner’s ‘proposal order’ dated 21.08.2007 whereby possession was directed to be taken. The Deputy Commissioner over ruled the objections and again directed the Tahsildar vide order dated 17.01.2008 to take possession of lands and deliver them to the Forest Department. Challenge to the same having failed at the hands of learned Single Judge, this appeal has landed at our hands. We add that all these facts are a matter of record and there is no dispute to the same.

3. SUBMISSION OF PARTIES:

(a) Learned Sr. Advocates appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the Land Tribunal vide order dated 25.05.1984 had rejected appellant-company’s application in Form 7 on the sole ground that it did not answer the definition of tenant; therefore the question whether such a rejection was valid, alone was within the scope of challenge in W.P. No. 14885/1984, followed by their Writ Appeal No. 1030/1988 c/w land owner’s W.A. No. 1867/1989 and in Review Petitions in C.P. Nos. 13/1991 c/w 386/1991; further challenge in SLP (Civil) 120/1991 was withdrawn; findings as to vesting of lands in the State u/s. 44 of the 1961 Act arguably entered in the said proceedings do not operate as res judicata; therefore, learned Single Judge grossly erred in denying relief to the Appellants by wrongly applying the said doctrine; the lands are not agricultural and were not tenanted as on 01.03.1974; the question of their vesting in the State would not arise; in view of Act 53 of 2020, the prohibitions enacted inter alia in Sec.79A & 79B of the 1961 Act has been done away wi