H.S. SRINIVASA RAGHAVACHAR ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 1189 · Decided: 23-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
t 
H.S. SRINIVASA RAGHAVACHAR ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
APRIL 23, 1987 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.) 
B 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961-Sections 44, 48(8) and 
48A-Right of landlord to resume land if bona fide required for 
personal cultivation-Taken away by Karnataka Land Reforms 
(Amendment) Act, 1974-Whether constitutionally valid-Amendment 
law aimed at agrarian reform-Advocates not to be prevented from 
C 
appearing before Tribunals functioning under the Act-Tribunals func-
tions under the Act-Whether to be manned by judicial personnel. 
Administrative law-Statutory Tribunals-Whether to be a lay 
tribunal or judicial tribunal-Some disputes required trained judicial 
mind, many do not require application of trained judicial mind-Land 
D 
Tribunals under Section 48(8) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 
do not require trained judicial personnel. 
Advocates Act, 1961/lndian Bar Councils Act, 1926-section 30/ 
Section 14-Advocates-Right of appearance before Tribunals-
Section 48(8) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 not to be enforced 
E 
so as to prevent Advocates from appearing before Tribunals under the 
Act. 
Constitution of lndia, 1950-Articles 31-A, 31-B and 31-C, 39(b) 
J.. 
and (c) and Ninth Schedule--Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) 
Act, 1974-Constitutional validity of-Law clearly aimed at agrarian 
F 
reform. 
The Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 1961 was substantially 
amended by the Amendment Act I of 1974 and it was included in the 
Ninth Schedule as was the principal Act. Section 5 was amended and the 
provisos were omitted. Sections 14 and 16 were deleted. Section 44 was G 
amended. New sub-section (1) provided that:-
"All lands held by or in the possession of tenants (including 
tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a certifi-
cate for resumption is made or issued) immediately prior to the H 
date of commencement of the Amendment Act, other than lands 
1189 
A 
1190 
SUPREM)3 COURT RlifORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
held by them under leases per01itted under Section S, shall, with 
effect on and from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in 
the State Government.'' 
A new Section 48 providing for the constitution of Tribunals was 
introduced, Sub-section (8) of Section 48 provided that no legal 
B practitioner shall be allowed to appear in any proceeding before the 
Tribunal. Section 48A dealt with the procedure to be atlopted by tile 
Tribunal in its enquiry into applications !'lllde uq!ler &e~tion 45 for 
registration of a person as an occupant. 
The provision for an appeal from the decision of the court and the 
~. 
C further right of revision under the amended Act were taken away and 
there was no right of appeal or revision against the decision of the 
Tribunal. The 1974 Amending Act took away the righ~ which was saved ,>-
by the original Act in favour of the widow, unmarried woman, minor 
and disabled person to create a tenancy or lease of the land. The more 
important right which was taken aw11y ~y t)Je 1974 Amendment was the 
D right of the landlord to resume the land if he bona fitle required the land 
for personal cultivation or for a non.agricultural purpose. This right 
was denied by the Amending Act even if the income by the cultivation of 
the land which he was entitled to resume was tile 11rincipal source of 
income for the maintenance of the landlord. 
f 
E 
The Writ Petitions challenging the amendments filed by the 
appellants were dismissed by the High Court. 
In the appeals, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that 
the 1974 Amendment insofar as it took away the right of a landlord to 
resume possession of the tenanted land where he bona fide required the 
F 
land for personal cultivation and had no other principal source of 
income was ultra vires, notwithstanding its inclusion in the Ninth 
Schedule, as it offended the basic structure of the Constitution, that the 
provision for the constitution of a Tribunal consisting of persons with 
unspecified qualifications in the place of a court was similarly ultra 
vires .the powers of the State Legislature, and that Section 48(8) which 
G · excluded legal practitioners from appearing before the Tribunals was 
repugnant to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 14 of 
the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 and the State Legislature was not 
competent to make a law repugnant to laws made by Parliament 
pursuant to entries 77 and 78 of List I of the Seventh Schedule o

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