K.KUNHAMBU versus SMT. CHANDRAMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 10-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

K.KUNHAMBU 
A 
v. 
SMT. CHANDRAMMA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 10, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961: 
Section 2(A) (18); 2(A) (34); 45 and 48A-Tenant-Occupancy rights-
Grant of-lands within municipal limits and subjected to property tax- C 
Statutorily notified as industrial Area-Leased out under a registered deed for 
purpose of running a saw mill with liberty to carry on any other industry or 
business-No specific permission or provision to use any portion of the land 
for agricultural purposes-After coming into force of the Act, land Tribunal 
granting occupancy rights in favour of lessee holding that they were in lawful D 
possession and cultivation of the lands-High Court reversing the order in 
revision-Held, lands were .all throughout put to non-agricultural purposes 
only and claims of the lessee to the contrary have been rightly rejected by the 
High Court-Raising paddy in one year without any permission of the owner 
and in contravention of the lease cannot be considered reasonably sufficient 
to characterize or treat the land or the lease to be for cultivation or agricultural E 
purposes. 
Sections 2(A) (18) and 2(A) (34)-land-,-Tenant-Definition of -
Explained. 
Judicial Notice-Judicial notice to some extent can be taken of th.e fact F 
that a Saw Mill requires vast extent as qppurtenant area for stacking wood 
and timber before and after sawing. 
First respondent leased out lands belonging to her for a period of 
ten years under a Registered lease Deed for the purpose of running a saw 
mill. Subsequently, appellant purchased the said mill as a running concern G 
under a Deed of Transfer and entered into possession of the leased out 
lands as well. Pursuant thereto, first respondent executed a fresh registered 
lease deed in favour of appellant. In the said lease deed, it was specifically 
tated that purpose of lease of land in dispute was for running a saw mill 
249 
H 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A with liberty to carry on any other industry or business as may be deemed 
fit within the period of lease. There was no specific permission or provision 
to use any portion of land in question for agricultural purposes. 
Appellant and second respondent after coming into force of the 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 applied before the Taluk Land 
B Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights under Section 45 thereof in respect 
of lands, which were subject matter of lease. The Land Tribunal granted 
occupancy rights in their favour on the view that claimants were in lawful 
possession and cultivation of the said lands. The first respondent, being 
owner of lands,.moved the High Court against the aforesaid orders. After 
C constitution of Land Reforms District Appellate Forums, the writ petitions 
were transferred to Appellate Authority, which upheld the grant of 
occupancy rights in respect of the lands except a small portion over which 
the saw mill as such stood and therefore used for non-agricultural purpose. 
The High Court in revision held that appellant cannot be conferred with 
occupancy rights, as there was specific stipulation in the lease to use the 
D property only for industrial or commercial purposes. Hence the present 
appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Absence of any concrete material to show actual and 
E regular or continuous personal cultivation confirms the position that the 
lands in question were all throughout being put only to non-agricultural 
purposes for decades and that the claims on behalf of the appellant to the 
contrary have been rightly rejected by the High Court. Instead of usual 
assessment to land revenue, the lands were also found to have been 
F subjected only to Municipal Property Tax and came to be statutorily 
notified as an Industrial Area. That explains the purpose recited in the 
first Registered Lease Deed under which the lands were let only for 
running a Saw Mill and the other terms and conditions also per se wo-1ld 
indicate at any rate that the same was not for any purposes related to 
'Agriculture" or for cultivation. After the appellant purchased the Saw 
G Mill as a going concern also, under yet another Registered Lease Deed 
the appellant obtained the lease once again for running the Saw Mill in 
that place. It is common knowledge and even judi".ial notice to some extent . 
can also be taken of the fact that the_ Saw Mill requires vast extent as i 
appurtenant area also besides the ac

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