RAMACHANDRA KRISHNA BHATTA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 101 · Decided: 14-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 5 S.C.R. 101 
-;;,, 
RAMACHANDRA KRISHNA BHATTA 
A 
v 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.7119-7120 of 2000) 
MARCH 14, 2008 
B 
, 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Land Reforms: 
Land belonging to temple -
Land Tribunal granted 
occupancy rights to appellant - Appellate Authority and High c 
Court held that lands in question were joint family properties 
and that land Tribunal failed to cause public notice in the village 
and to deity before granting occupancy rights and that nature 
of possession of appellant cannot be regarded as tenant -
Even appellant's plea that he was tenant was rejected in a suit D 
., 
which had become final- In view offactual finding by Appellate 
Authority and High Court, interference under Article 136 of 
Constitution not called for - Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 
1961 - ss.48A, 121, 133. 
The lands in question owned by temple were granted 
E 
for cultivation on tenancy basis to 'M' who was performing 
pooja in the temple. He had three sons. After his death, 
his eldest son started performing pooja and cultivating 
the lands, and on his death, it was performed by second 
F 
son. Third son expired. After death of second son, 
' 
respondent no.2, son of eldest son started performing 
~ 
pooja and cultivation. In 1940, he relinquished his rights 
and surrendered the lands to temple authorities and left 
the village. In 1943, temple authorities entrusted the work 
to appellant, who was son of third son of 'M' and to his G 
mother. 
-+ 
In 1953, respondent no.2 filed a suit for partition and 
possession of joint family properties, which was 
101 
H 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A dismissed on the nround that properties were 
relinquished and for want of sanction of Charity 
commissioner .. The name of appellant was registered in 
records of right. The objection raised thereagainst by 
respondent no.2 was re!jected. In 1963, respondent no.2 
B filed another suit for partition and possession of suit 
lands, which was also dismissed. Respondent no.2 filed 
second appeal before High Court, during pendency of 
which Karnataka Land neforms Act, 1961 was amended 
and it was provided that: all agricultural lands held by or 
c in possession of tenants would vest in the Government 
free from all encumbrances. 
S.133 of the Act provided that Tribunal constituted 
under the Act alone has jurisdiction to decide the question 
of tenancy. The appellant filed application for grant of 
D occupancy rights. No application for grant of occupancy 
rights was filed by respondent no.2. Meanwhile during 
pendency of proceeding1s before Tribunal, High Court 
allowed the second appeal of respondent no.2 and 
remanded the matter to trial Court for disposal on merits 
E by fixing the share. In 1974, Tribunal considered the 
application filed by appellant and held that appellant was 
tenant and granted occupancy rights to him. Against the 
said order, respondent no.2 filed writ petition. 
The remanded suit was decreed. Accordingly 
F respondent no.2 was held entitled to 2/3rd sha1e in suit 
properties. 
The writ petition of respondent no.2 was allowed by 
High Court and matter remanded to Tribunal. Tribunal 
G granted occupancy rights .1to appellant. Aggrieved by the 
said order, respondent no.~! filed writ petition, which was 
transferred to appellate authority. Appellate authority 
allowed the appeal holding that disputed lands were joint 
family properties belonging to all three parties, which was 
H upheld by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
-
...... 
RAMACHANDRA KRISHNA BHATTA v. STATE OF 
103 
. KARNATAKAAND ANR. 
-:.i: 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. The Appellate Authority has rightly pointed 
out that as per s.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 
it is incumbent upon the part of the Land Tribunal to give 
public and personal notices before passing an order in 8 
an application filed under s.48. It is not in dispute that the 
)-
Land Tribunal has not heard the representative of the 
Temple. A reading of sub-section (2) of s.48A makes it clear 
that on receipt of application, the Tribunal has to issue 
public notice in the village in which the Ian{:! is situated 
calling upon the landlord and all other persons having c 
interest in the land to appear before it on the date specified 
in the notice. It is also incumbent on the part of the 
Tribunal to issue individual notice to the persons 
mentioned in the a_pplication and also to such others as 
ma

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