LexSRI SIDDAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.,, -4 SRI SIDDAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. A v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. MAY4, 2000 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETill, JJ.] B Tenancy and Land Laws : KamatakaLandRefonns Act, 1961 (as amended by Act No. 1of1974)- Ss. 44 and 45-Vesting of land in State Govemment-Tenant's right to claim c occupancy rights-Landlord's claim for resumption of land for personal culti- vat ion, pa11ly allowed-Landlord instead of taking possession of land, filing appeal before the Tribunal-Land continued to remain in possession of ten- .... ants-During pend.ency of appeal, Act amended by which S. 14 omitted and S . 44 was inse11ed-Tenant's claim for occupancy rights on the gmund o.f being D in possession of land on the relevant date-Rejected-On appeal, Held, tenant entitled to claim occupancy rights on the whole land in his possession-High Court not justified in rejecting the claim of tenant. Predecessor in interest of appellants was a tenant of the land belong- ing to respondent-landlord. Respondents initiated proceedings under S. 14 E of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for resumption of half of the land for their personal cultivation, which was partly allowed. But despite resumption order, respondent-landlord instead of taking possession of said land, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal for resumption of entire land. Thus, appellant-tenant continued to remain in possession of the land. F In the meantime, the Act was amended (by Act No. 1of1974) by which S. 14 was omitted and S. 44 providing vesting of land in State Government was inserted. Consequently, appellant-tenant, invoking the provisions of S. 44 of Act, claimed occupancy rights on the ground of being in possession on the relevant date. The said claim was rejected both by the authorities G under the Act and the High Court on the ground that the appellants having themselves agreed for resumption of 50% of the land, cannot --i invoke the subsequent amendment made in the Act. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court H 995 A B c 996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R. HELD: 1.1. Appellants are entitled to the conferment of occupancy rights on the whole land in their possession under S. 44 r/w. S. 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. [999-D] 1.2. Under S. 44 of the Act, all lands in possession of the tenants stood transferred to and absolutely vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Under S. 45 of the Act every person who was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or where a tenant had lawfully sub-let, such sub-tenant was, with effect from and from the date of vesting, held entitled to be registered occupants in respect of the land of which he was a tenant. In the instant case, it is not disputed that despite . passing of order of resumption in their favour, the respondent-landlords had not taken possession of the land which continued to be in possession of the appellant-tenants. Thus, High Court was not justified in negativing the claim of tenants to which they were entitled under S. 44 r/w. S. 45 of the Act. [998-E-G] D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 771of1997. E F G H From the Judgment and Order dated 24.8.93 of the Kamataka High Court in W.P. No. 4341 of 1979. P. Mahale, (Rajesh Mahale for R.C. Kohli for the Appellants. K.H. Nobinsingh and M. Veerappa for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by --.. · SETHI, J. Invoking the provisions of Section 44 of the Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "the Act"), the original appellant- tenant approached the authorities under the Act for conferment of occupancy rights on the ground of being in possession on the relevant date. His clai1n was negatived both by the authorities under the Act and the High Court allegedly on the ground that he had made a concession in proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Act for resumption of land by the landlord. It wa~ found that as the appellant himself had agreed to forego his claim to the extent to 50% of the land in his occupation, he could not invoke the subsequent amendment made in.the Act vide Section 44. It is not in dispute that the appellant's father Shri Sadappa was a tenant of the land bearing Survey No.14 measuring 5 acres 6 guntas situated at _.... -"" ~ ~ ; ~ SIDDAPPA v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 997 Hulaganaktti Village, Kalaghatgi Taluk since about 50 years. The respondents are
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.