NARASAMMA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 19-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 929 
1 
NARASAMMA & ORS. 
A 
-\'. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
Civil Appeal Nos. 568-571 of 2005 
MARCH 19, 2009 
B 
(TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
Land Reforms: 
; 
Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as amended on 1st 
March, 1974 - ss.44, 45 & 48A-Agricultural tenancy- Status c 
of occupancy right holder - Entitlement to - Whether 
appellants acquired occupancy right in respect of the land in 
dispute and their names ought to be registered as occupancy 
right holders in respect thereof - Held, Yes - Entries in record 
of rights showed that appellants were in cultivatory possession D 
of the land in dispute on the relevant date viz. on 1st March, 
1974 and nature of their cultivation was gutha (rent)- In earlier 
recovery proceedings relating to arrears of rent, landlord-
respondent had admitted that appellants were tenants in 
respect of the land in dispute - Onus was on respondent to E 
show by producing material that appellants did not acquire 
any status of occupancy right although they were found to be 
..,.,. 
in continuous possession of the land in dispute - Respondent 
failed to produce any such material or document and further 
failed to show that the entries in record of rights were wrong. 
F 
The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 was amended 
o.n 1st March, 1974 and ss. 44, 45 and 48A of the Act were 
introduced whereby agricultural tenants became entitled 
to apply for confirmation of ownership. 
\ 
).' 
Appellants claimed to be in possession and G 
cultivation of the land in dispute as tenants on the relevant 
date i.e. the day on which the Act was amended, and on 
that basis filed application for registration as occupant in 
929 
H 
930 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
' 
A respect of the land in dispute. The application was 
, 
dismissed by the Land Tribunal constituted under the Act. 
The High Court, by the impugned judgment, held that 
though the appellants may be in possession of the land 
in dispute but they failed to prove that they had acquired 
8 
tenancy rights in respect thereof and consequently 
upheld the order passed by the Tribunal. 
In the Instant appeals, the question which arose for 
co113iqeration was whether the appellants were entitled 
c to be registered as an occupancy right holder in respect 
of the land in dispute. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Taking into consideration the findings of 
D 
fact on the question of possession arrived at by the High 
Court as well as the Land Tribunal that the appellants were 
in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute and 
considering the admission made by the landlord/ 
respondent in earlier recovery proceedings relating to 
arrears of rent that the appellants were tenants in respect 
E of the land in dispute and considering the fact that on the 
relevant date of coming into force of the Act, viz., on 1st 
of March, 1974, the appellants were in possession of the 
...,. 
land in dispute, it is conclusively established the 
appellants were tenants in respect of the land in dispute 
F and the entries in the Record of Rights clearly show that 
the appellants were in continuous possession of the land 
in dispute and the nature of cultivation was gutha (rent) 
and further, in the absence of any material produced by 
the respondent to show that in fact the appellants were 
. 
G not tenants in respect of the land in dispute, the appellants 
" 
had acquired occupancy right in respect of the land in 
dispute. [Para 11] [937-G-H; 938-A-E] 
1.2. The onus was on the respondent to show by 
producing material that the appellants had not acquired 
H any status of occupancy right although they were found 
NARASAMMA & ORS. V. STATE OF 
9:31 
4KARNATAKA & ORS. 
' 
to be in continuous possession of the land in dispute. A 
~ 
Since the respondent had failed to produce any material 
or document to prove that the appellants had not acquired 
any status in respect of the land in dispute and had failed 
to show that the entries in the Record of Rights were 
wrong, there is no ground to reject the claim of the B 
appellants for conferring status of occupancy right holder 
in respect of the land in dispute. [Para 12] [939-F-H; 940-A] 
J 
1.3. The entries in the revenue record cannot create 
} 
any title in respect of the land in dispute, but it certainly c 
reflects as to who was in possession of the land in dispute 
on the date the name of that person had been entered in 
the revenue record. [Para 12] [940-8-C] 

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