NI PRA CHANNABASAVA DESHIKENDRA SWAMIGALU MATADHIPATHIGALU KANNADA MUTT versus C.P. KAVEERAMMA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 816 · Decided: 06-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 816 
NI PRA CHANNABASAVA DESHIKENDRA SWAMIGALU 
MATADHIPATHIGALU KANNADA MUTT 
v. 
C.P. KAVEERAMMA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4150-4163 of 2013) 
MAY 06, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
C 
Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - ss. 41 and 130 -
Applicability of - Occupancy rights granted to inamdar after 
enforcement of lnams Abolition· Act - In respect of the land 
mortgaged - Application under Land Reforms Act, seeking 
possession of the land and eviction of the mortgagee from 
o unauthorised occupation of the land - Held: Possession of 
mortgagee, after grant of occupancy rights to the mortgagor/ 
lnamdar, should be construed as unauthorised - Hence resort 
to remedy under Land Reforms Act seeking eviction from 
illegal occupancy, is permissible - Karnataka Abolition of 
E Certain lnams Act, 1977. 
The property in question, which belonged to the 
appellant, was mortgaged to the respondents by the 
predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in the years 1955 
and 1967. After coming into force of Karnataka Certain 
F lnams Abolition Act, 1977, all the lnams stood abolished 
and occupancy rights were given to the appellant in 
respect of the entire land on 11.2.1993. Claim of the 
respondents for occupancy rights based on the rights 
flowing from the mortgage deeds was rejected. The 
G occupancy r!ghts of appellants attained finality. 
The appellants thereafter approached Tehsildar 
seeking possession of the land and eviction of the 
respondents therefrom u/s. 41 of Land Reforms Act. 
H 
816 
NI PRA CHANNABASAVA DESHIKENDRA S.M.K.MUTI v. C.P. 817 
KAVEERAMMA 
Tehsildar directed eviction of the respondents. 
A 
Consequent thereto appellant was put in possession by 
the Mahazar drawn by the Revenue Inspector. 
Order of Tehsildar was challenged by the 
respondents by filing writ petitions. Single Judge of the 
8 
High Court though upheld the jurisdiction of the Tehsildar 
to entertain the application of the appellants, but set 
aside the order on the ground that there were serious 
irregularities in passing the order and remitted the matter 
to Tehsildar and also directed re-delivery of possession 
C 
pending final orders. In Writ Appeal, Division Bench of 
High Court, by its order dated 12.9.2007 held that 
Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to entertain the application 
and set aside the order of Tehsildar as well as the Single 
Judge. 
D 
Appeal against the order of Division Bench was 
allowed by Supreme Court by order dated 13.2.2009. The 
Court rejected the plea of the respondents as regards 
jurisdiction of Tehsildar based on s. 43 of Transfer of 
Property Act, by virtue of the mortgages of the years 1955 
E 
and 1967 and also rejected the plea based on s. 10 of 
1977 Act. However, it remanded the case to Division 
Bench of High Court to address the issues other than the 
issue relating to applicability of s. 43. 
Pursuant to remission of the matter, Division Bench 
of the High Court re-opened the issues, which were 
already set at rest by Supreme Court in its order dated 
13.2.2009, and set aside the order of the Tetisildar. Hence 
the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The continued possession of the 
respondents after the grant of occupancy rights in favour 
F 
G 
of the appellant in the order dated 11.2.1993, should be 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A construed as unauthorized and there was every right in 
the appellant to invoke the protection of the Land 
Reforms Act for the purpose of working out its remedy 
by taking recourse to law for implementing the order 
dated 11.2.1993. [Para 15] [827-G-H; 828-A] 
B 
2. This Court by its order dated 13.2.2009 found that 
by virtue of Section 4(2)(b) of Karnataka Certain lnam$ 
Abolition Act, 1977 the submission based on Section 43 
of the Transfer of Property Act, by relying upon the 
mortgages of the year 1955 and 1967, cannot survive. 
C Even the submission based on Section 10 of the 1977 Act 
was rejected. After the remand, it is found that by framing 
the two issues in the order impugned in the present 
appeals, the Division Bench proceed~d to reopen the 
very same questions, which were already dealt with in 
D substratum in the earlier judgment of this Court dated 
13.2.2009. When once this Court held that Section 43 of 
' 
the Transfer of Property Act could not come to the aid of 
the respondents, any right based on the mortgages of the 
year 1955 and 1967, no longer survived

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