G H RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 560 · Decided: 06-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
 RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE
 v.
  STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3621 of 2018)
APRIL 06, 2018
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 – s.14(5) – Resumption of
land from tenants – High Court held against the appellant mainly
on the ground that the possession as required under s.14(5) of Act,
1961 as it then existed was not handed over in  favour of landlord
– Held: It is clear from the language of s.14 as it then existed that
the landlord could have filed an application if he needed the land
for bona-fide use and occupation before the Tribunal seeking
resumption of the land from the tenants – A certificate is then issued
by the Tribunal in case the application of the landlord for resumption
is allowed – The landlord takes possession of the property by making
further application before the Tribunal with support of the certificate
issued – Pursuant thereto, the tenants are dispossessed before the
31st March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar year in
which the application for possession is made – In the matter on
hand, the compromise was entered into before the Munsiff/Tribunal
and the same was recorded as per law – The existence of such
compromise between the parties is not disputed by the respondents
at any stage – The parties also filed a memo in the resumption
proceedings to the effect that the landlord had already been given
possession of the resumed lands by the respondents 2 to 9 – On the
face of these documents, it would be futile exercise on the part of
the landlord to once again carry out the procedure as contemplated
under s.14(5) that too only in order to fulfil the formalities – Since
the composite compromise, is acted upon by handing over the
possession of 4 acres of property in favour of the landlord by virtue
of the order dated 02.03.1970 passed by the Munsiff/Tribunal  and
as handing over of possession in favour of the landlord is
undisputed, it can be concluded that the landlord was in possession
of the property to the extent of 4 acres since 02.03.1970, legally –
   [2018] 5 S.C.R. 560
560
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
561
The view of the High Court is hyper technical and too sophisticated
under the facts of the case – The land is already acquired by the
State Government – Civil Judge while deciding the reference
application seeking enhancement of compensation observed that
the beneficiaries under acquisition and the State Government have
taken possession of 4 acres of land from the landlord – The impugned
judgments set aside – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 3621
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2013 of the High Court
of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Writ Appeal No. 6373 of
2010(LR-REF).
S. S. Javali, Sr. Adv., Azeem A. Kalebudde, Ankolekar Gurudatta,
Neelkanth Dnyashwar Aher, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
        O R D E R
Despite service, none appears for respondent nos. 2 to 9.
Leave granted.
2. Both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of
the High Court have concluded against the appellant mainly on the ground
that the possession, as required under Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land
Reforms Act, 1961, as it then existed, was not handed over in favour of
the landlord.
3. Before proceeding further it is relevant to note the provisions
of Sections 14(1) and 14(5) of Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (now
called as Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961) as they existed in the
year 1961-1970, the relevant years for the purpose of this case:-
“14. Resumption of land from tenants – (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in Sections 22 and 43, but subject to the
provisions of this Section and of Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and
41, a landlord may, if he bona fide requires land, other than land
held by a permanent tenant, -
RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
& ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
562
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
(i) For cultivating personally, or
(ii) For any non-agricultural purpose,
file with the Tribunal a statement indicating the land or lands owned
by him and which he intends to resume and such other particulars
as may be prescribed.  On such statement being filed, the Tribunal
shall, as soon as may be, after giving an opportunity to be heard to
the landlord and such of his tenants and other persons as may be
affect

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.