MONTHI MENEZES (D) BY LR. versus DEVAKI AMMA (D) BY LR. & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 23-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
289
MONTHI MENEZES (D) BY LR.
v.
DEVAKI AMMA (D) BY LR. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3539 of 2009)
APRIL 23, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (amended) – ss. 2(18),
44, 45 – Karnataka Land reforms Rules, 1974 – Predecessor of the
appellant made an application in the prescribed form 7 appended
to Rules, 1974 claiming occupancy rights over various parcels of
land – Landlord objected and contended that the said parcels of
land were ‘Punja’ lands, which were not cultivable and were not
leased to the applicant – Land Tribunal came to the conclusion that
one parcel of land comprising survey No.119/2A1 was used for
agricultural purpose and applicant used the said land to cultivate
the other parcels of land – Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the
objections of landlord in regard to this land and registered applicant
as an occupant – Writ petition by landlord – High Court remanded
the matter to Tribunal for fresh inquiry as regards the said land i.e.
Survey No.119/2A1 – Land Tribunal again found that the applicant’s
claim was justified – Aggrieved, landlord filed another writ petition
– High Court allowed the writ petition – On appeal, held: High
Court did not advert to the categorical findings of the Tribunal –
The  significant aspects of the matter, as taken into consideration
by the Tribunal, had been that there was a reference in the lease
chit about mango trees, cashew, tamarind and the lessee was to
enjoy the fruits of the allied land also – Tribunal also observed that
for the purpose of cultivating other land, the applicant had to depend
upon the land in question and hence, the said land was also to be
considered as included in the lease chit – Tribunal also found that
survey no.119/2A1 was in possession of the applicant whereas the
other one being no.119/2A2 was in possession of landlord – Further,
High Court also did not examine the definition of ‘land’ as set out
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 289
289
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
in s.2(18) of the Act, 1961 to find if the land in question answered
to the description therein – Thus, matter remanded to the High Court
to decide the writ petition afresh on merits and in accordance with
law.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The significant aspects of the matter, as taken
into consideration by the Tribunal, had been that there was a
reference in the lease chit about mango trees, cashew, tamarind
and the lessee was to enjoy the fruits of the allied land also.  The
Tribunal also observed that for the purpose of cultivating other
land, the applicant had to depend upon the land in question i.e.
survey no.119/2A1 and hence, the said land was also to be
considered as included in the lease chit.  The Tribunal also found
that the original Survey No. 119/2A was divided by stone, making
it No. 119/2A1 and No. 119/2A2; and the first one, being No. 119/
2A1 admeasuring 3.07 acres, was in possession of the applicant
whereas the other one, being No. 119/2A2 admeasuring 1.64
acres, was in possession of the landlord. The High Court,
while dealing with the writ petition as also the writ appeal
has not adverted to such categorical findings of the Tribunal.
[Paras 9 and 10][299-D-F]
1.1 Apart from the above, it is also apparent that the High
Court did not examine the definition of “land” as set out in Section
2(18) of the Act of 1961 to find if the land in question answers to
the description therein. The wide-ranging meaning assigned to
the expression “land” for the purpose of the Act of 1961 makes
it clear that the expression refers not only to the land which is
actually used for agricultural purposes but even to the land which
is used or is capable of being used for agricultural purposes or
even the purposes subservient thereto. On the facts and in the
circumstances of this case, the said definition deserves due
consideration while dealing with the challenge to the order made
by the Tribunal.  [Para 10.1][299-G; 300-A-B]
3.  In view of the aforesaid, it was found that the High Court
did not advert to all the facts of the case as also to the law
applicable, therefore, the matter remanded to the High Court to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
291
decide the writ petition afresh on merits and in accordance with
law.  [Para 11][300-B-C]
Subhakar and Ors. v. The Land Tribunal,
Karkala Taluk, Karkala and Ors. (1994) KLJ 524
– distinguished.
Case Law Reference
(1994) KLJ 524
distinguished
Para 2.6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURIS

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