R. RUDRAIAH AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 553 · Decided: 04-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
R. RUDRAIAH AND ANR. 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 4, 1998 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 : 
Sections 45 and 48-A (as amended by Act No. 111979)-Limitation-
Application for grant of occupancy rights-Filing of-Limitation period-
A 
B 
c 
Six months from the date of commencement of Amendment Act i.e. from 
1.1.1979 to 30.6.1979-Application filed on 7.3.1984-Dismissed by High 
Court holding that it is barred by limitation-Validity of-Held, intention of 
legislature to delete the provision of condonation of delay clear and D 
unambiguous-Not capable of more than one interpretation-High Court 
justified in dismissing the application as time barred. 
Sections 107-Government lands-Exemption-Object of 
Section 126-0bject and scope of 
Village Office Abolition Act, 1961 : 
Sections 4(1), 4(3), 5, 6 and 107-Limitation-Application for grant 
of occupancy rights-Abolition of village office-Resumption-Proceedings 
E 
for regrant by erstwhile village office holders-Pendency of-Claim for p 
extension of period of limitation under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land 
Reforms Act-Validity of-Held, the period of limitation under the Act does 
get extend.ed till rights of regrant to village officer were finally decided-
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961-Section 48-A. 
Section 4(3), 5, 6 and 7-Abolition of village office-Resumption under G 
Section 4(3)-Whether lands became 'Government lands '-Held, No. 
Resumption under Section 4(3) not absolute.:_Lands resumed cannot be 
allotted for general or public purpose but remains strictly for regrant-Thus 
lands does not become Government lands. 
Interpretations of statutes : 
H 
553 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1998] I S.C.R. 
A 
Provisions fixing period of limitation-Interpretation of-Held, equitable 
considerations are out of place and strict grammatical meaning of the words 
the only safe guide-Plain or grammatical construction leading to injustice 
or absurdity is to be avoided only if the language permits. 
The lands in dispute were emoluments attached to the village office. 
B The said village office stood abolished under the Village Offices Abolition 
Act, 1961 and under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, the erstwhile 
holders of the office could obtain regrant of the lands. Thus, certain 
proceedings for regrant were initiated by the erstwhile holders under the 
Village Office Abolition Act, 1961. Appellant No. 1 claiming to be cultivating-
C tenant of land, filed an application on 7.3.1984 under Section 45 of Karnataka 
Land Reform Act, 1961 (the Act) for grant of occupancy rights. The said 
application was allowed by Land Tribunal and Appellate Authority. However 
on revision the );Iigh Court dismissed the application for grant of occupancy 
rights holding that it was filed beyond the limitation fixed under the Section 
48-A of the Act. Hence the present appeal. 
D 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the provision in Section 
48-A of the Act prescribing limitation has to be considered liberally in 
favour of tenants and the period was to be extended unless the claims 
regarding re-g'rant of the emoluments of the village office under Section 5 
E of the Village Office (Abolition) Act, 1961 were finally decided by the 
concerned authorities under the Act; that after 1.2.1963. when the village 
offices stood abolished and when under Section 4(3) of that Act the 
emoluments of the village office stood automatically resumed, the lands stood 
vested in the Government under Section 4 of the Act and therefore became 
'government lands'. Consequently under Section 107 of the Act, these lands 
F were not covered by the Act: the provisions under Section 45 and Section 
48-A operated by virtue of Section 126 of the Act, only from the dates on 
which the question of re-grant in favour of the erstwhile village officers was 
finally decided. 
The respondent contended that Section 48-A of the Act, which refers 
G to the period of limitation for filing application under Section 45 of the Act 
is unambiguous and operates by its own force and no resort can be made to 
Section 5 of Village Office (Abolition) Act, 1961 which deals with re··grant 
of emoluments attached to village offices: that these lands, upon abolition of 
village offices, are not 'government lands' and hence Section 107 of the Act 
H does not apply: the amendment of section 126 by Act l of 1979 was only 
• 
~-
R. RUDRAIAHv. STATE 
555 
cla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.