The court emphasized that beneficial legislation like the Karnataka Land Reforms Act must be interpreted liberally in favor of tenants, ensuring proper procedures are followed in land grant applications.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 08.09.2002 passed by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure-H, and order dated 23.04.2008, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, (‘KAT’ for short) produced as per Annexure-N.

2. Heard Sri Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Smt.P.R.Bentur, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials on record.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners’ father by name Irappa Masuthi, was the tenant who was in possession and cultivation of the land since 1967. Accordingly, the Record of Rights referred to the name of Irappa Masuthi, as the tenant in possession and cultivation of the land. But he had not filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy right. After death of Irappa Masuthi, petitioners being his sons, have filed Form No.7-A on 12.03.1999, produced as per Annexure-B claiming the property. The said application came to be rejected by the Land Tribunal by passing the impugned order vide Annexure-H. When the said order was challenged before the KAT, it has confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal by dismissing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. It is contended that the Land Tribunal and KAT have committed an error in passing the impugned orders ignoring the fact that the petitioners have filed From No.7A under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘KLR Act’ for short), seeking grant of land. The only ground urged by the Land Tribunal as well as KAT are that, the petitioners are owning other properties totally measuring 9.02 acres, and in view of the second proviso to Section 77-A of the KLR Act, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of land, as such grant would result in acquiring excess land beyond the ceiling limit provided under the law.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, even though it is stated that petitioners are owning Block No.122/2 of Narendra village measuring 3.36 acres, the Record of Rights produced as per Annexure-L, discloses that the petitioners are owning only 1.36 acres, and the remaining two acres of land is owned by one Ishwar Yallappa Limbannavar. Under such circumstances, the Land Tribunal and KAT committed an error in holding that the petitioners are owning 9.02 acres of land other than the land in question.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the second proviso to Section 77-A of KLR Act prescribes a cap on granting the land, as such grant shall not exceed two hectors of ‘D’ class land or its equivalent thereto, together with the land already held by such person. When there are two claimants i.e., petitioners, this two hectors is to be considered as two hectors each. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Lokayya Poojary and another vs. State of Karnataka and Others , [ILR 2012 KAR 4345], to contend that, while interpreting the statutes, two rules must be remembered. Firstly, since KLR Act is an agrarian Act and it is a social legislation beneficial to the poor tenants, and secondly, a liberal interpretation is to be made in favour of the tenant, and not in favour of the Government or the land level.

7. Learned counsel contended that, if such an interpretation is made to hold that the maximum limits prescribed under the second proviso to Section 77(2) of KLR Act is two hectors of ‘D’ class land to each of the persons and if two acres of land in Block No.122/2 is excluded as it stands in the name of a third party i.e., Ishwar Yallappa Limbannavar, even if the land claimed by the petitioners is granted, that will be well within the limits as provided under second proviso to Section 77-A of the KLR Act. The Land Tribu