JAGADEESH & ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 737 · Decided: 12-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 737 
JAGADEESH & ANR. 
A 
..... 
~. 
II. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3377 of 2001) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2008 
B 
(TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) 
~ 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974: 
,.. 
s. 121 A - Revisional Power of High Court- Held: Is wider 
uls 121 A of the Act than the one uls 115 CPC - Under s. 121 A c 
High Court is empowered to look into legality of orders of 
Tribunals below or irregularity of proceedings and to consider 
evidence and material on record in the circumstances 
explained in the judgment - On facts, in view of the findings of 
High Court, it cannot be said that High Court, in exercise of its 
D 
jurisdiction u/s 121A of the Act was notjustified in setting aside 
... 
concurrent findings of fact of Tribunals below - Evidence and 
material on record clearly established that applicants filing 
Form-7 could not prove that they were tenants of Scheduled 
land - High Court rightly held that entries in RTC record relied 
E 
on by Tribunals below did not show scheduled land to have 
been cultivated by claimants nor nature of cultivation shown 
as of tenants - Even otherwise, the findings recorded by the 
High Court being well merited, it is not a fit case for interference 
under Article 136 of the Constitution - Code of Civil Procedure, 
F 
.... 
1908- S.115 - Constitution oflndia, 1950-Article 136 . 
""' 
The father of the appellants filed Form No.7 before 
the Land Tribunal praying for a declaration that he had 
acquired occupancy rights in respect of the scheduled 
land. Relying on the entries in the RTC record he claimed 
G 
that he had been cultivating the said land since 1968 till 
-..+ 
the notified date on 'wara' basis giving 113rd of the share 
in the produce to respondent No.4. The application was 
opposed by respondent No.4 stating that the land was 
737 
H 
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. ~ 
A mortgaged to respondent No.3 and after expiry of the said 
mortgage the mortgagee was liable to deliver back its 
possession; that since the mortgagee later settled in 
another State, with his consent the land was given to the 
father of the appellants for cultivation from 1968; but not 
B as a tenant. The Land Tribunal, relying, inter a/ia, on the 
entries in the RTC record granted occupancy rights in 
favour of the appellants. The appeal of respondent No.4 
was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. But, the High 
Court in the revision petition rejected the claim of the 
c appellants holding, inter alia, that the appellants or their 
father had failed to prove the tenancy in respect of the 
scheduled land. 
In the instant appeals, it was contended for the 
appellants that it was not open to the High Court in revi-
D sional jurisdiction u/s 121 A of the Karnataka Land Reforms 
Act,1974 to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact 
arrived at by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1 Revisional power of the High Court under 
Section 121A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 is 
wider than the one exercised by the High Court under 
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Under 
Section 121A of the Act, the High Court is empowered to 
F look into the legality of the orders of the tribunals below 
or regularity of the proceedings. In exercise of revisional 
jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code, the High Court 
~ ""' 
is entitled to interfere with the orders of the Tribunals or 
the courts below only in cases of jurisdictional error, when 
G it finds that they have: a) exercised a jurisdiction not 
vested in them by law, orb) failed to exercise a jurisdiction 
so vested, or c) acted in the exercise of their jurisdiction 
illegally or with material irregularity. [para 9,] [747-D-H; 
.,_. 
748-A] 
H 
1.2 Under section 121 A of the Act it would be open to 
JAGADEESH & ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
739 
..... 
....\ 
& ORS . 
the High Court to consider the material evidence on 
A 
record, when it finds that such evidence was not at all 
considered by the tribunals below or when the conclusion 
arrived at by the tribunals below run contrary to the 
materials on record or when it finds that there is no 
evidence to support the conclusion of the tribunals below B 
...... 
or that the reasons given by the tribunals below are 
..., 
absolutely perverse or a finding was such that no court 
would come to such a conclusion or that the decisions of 
the tribunals below were manifestly unjust. Ther

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