HARSHA V. RAI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 07-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2013] 10 S.C.R. 222 
HARSHA V. RAI 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9031 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 7, 2013 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND 
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - s.45 - Entitlement 
C of respondent no. 2 to be registered as an occupant uls. 45 -
Tribunal by majority upheld the claim of respondent no.2 
holding that the land in question was not agricultural land on 
the date of inspection but concluded that it was used as 
agricultural land 35-40 yea-nrago - Order upheld by High 
D 
Court~ On .appeal, held: To satisfy the requirement of s.45 
to be registered as an occupant, the claimant has to satisfy 
that he was the tenant in respect of land which he was 
cultivating personally on the appointed day (1st March, 1974) 
- Neither the tribunal nor the High Court went into the question 
E as to whether the property said to have been given on lease 
to the tenant on the appointed day, came within the definition 
of land under the Act - Further, the tribunal and the High Court 
did not address the issue as to whether the same was an 
agricultural land and was being cultivated on or before the 
F appointed day by the tenant personally - Tribunal made spot 
inspection much later than the appointed day on 15th 
December, 1987 which had no relevance at all with the rights 
of the parties - Rights of the parties have to be crystallized 
on the basis of what existed on the appointed day - Matter 
G remitted back to tribunal. 
H 
Respondent no.2, filed application, inter alia, alleging 
that there was tenancy in respect of agricultural land and 
she was cultivating the same prior to 1st March, 1974 and, 
222 
HARSHA V. RAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 223 
therefore, she was entitled to be registered as an 
A 
occupant in terms of Section 45 of the Karnataka Land 
Reforms Act, 1961. Section 45 was substituted in the Act 
with effect from 1st of March, 1974. 
The tribunal rejected the claim of respondent no.2, 
but the same was set aside by the High Court and the 
matter was remitted back to the tribunal for 
reconsideration. After remand, the tribunal conducted 
spot inspection and found existence of a dwelling house, 
B 
a firewood-depot and a few coconut trees. The tribunal 
by majority held that the land was not an agricultural land 
C 
on the date of inspection but concluded that it was used 
as agricultural land 35-40 years ago and accordingly 
upheld the claim of respondent no.2. The order was 
upheld by the High Court. 
In the instant' appeal, the question which arose for 
consideration was whether respondent no. 2 was entitled 
to be registered as an occupant under Section 45 of the 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in respect of land in 
D 
question. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms 
Act, 1961, inter alia, provides that a tenant holding the 
land and cultivating it personally on and from the date of 
F 
vesting shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant. 
The expression 'to cultivate personally', 'land' and 'tenant' 
have been defined under Section 2(11), 2(18) and 2(34) 
of the Act. The person claiming to be registered as a 
tenant has to satisfy that he is not only a tenant but also . G 
an agriculturist who cultivates personally the land held 
on lease. Sectipn 2(34) defines 'tenant'. It is an inclusive 
definition. To cQme within the definition of tenant, a 
person has to be an agriculturist and such a person is 
required. personally to cultivate the land he holds on 
H 
224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A lease. The expression 'cultivate personally' has been 
defined under Section 2(11) of the Act. To satisfy the 
requirement of Section 45 of the Act to be registered as 
an occupant, the claimant has to satisfy that he is the 
tenant in respect of land which he is cultivating 
B personally on the appointed day (1st March, 1974). 
Neither the tribunal nor the High Court has gone into the 
question as to whether the property said to have been 
given on lease to the tenant on the appointed day, came 
within the definition of land under the Act. Further, the 
C tribunal and the High Court have not addressed the issue 
as to whether the same was an agricultural land and was 
being cultivated on or before the appointed day by the 
tenant personally. The tribunal has made spot inspection 
much later than the appointed day on 15th December, 
0 1987 which has no relevance at all with the rights of the 
part

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