STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. versus UPPEGOUDA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 692 · Decided: 24-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
v. 
UPPEGOUDA AND ORS. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATA SWAMI 
AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Kamataka Land Refonns Act, 1961/Mysore Tenancy Act 1952: 
C 
Ss. 44 and 4515(2}-'Land holder' giving the land to te11ant in 1950 for 
a period of 5 yeQl'S--Tenallt remained in possession till after 2.6.1965-Land 
holder claiming that the tenant had su1Tendered the land and entries in 
revenue records were made accordingly-Held, entries in revenue record are 
of no relevance-Mysore Tena11cy Act protected possession of the tenant-On 
contractual tenancy coming to an end, statutory tenancy sets in operation and 
D tenant would be liable for ejectment only on proved grounds of statutory 
comravention-17iere is no order of competent authority for eviction of tenant . 
on SUC/i gTQUnds-17te tenant Who Was lawfully eiatitled to CUitivate t/ti /and 
personally immediately prior to coming into fol-ce of the amendment Act, but 
was wrong/Ully prevented from doing so, is entitled to registration of ocatpan-
E cyu/s45. 
P.G. Esltwarappa v. M. Rudrappa & Ors., .JT (1996) 8 SC 171, i"elied 
. 
. 
on. 
Bales/ta Ram Kltot & Ors. v. Land Tribunal, Cltikodi & Ors., (1978) K 
F KW 116, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1284-85 
of 1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated '21J.6.77 of the Karnatalca High 
G Court lo W.A. No. 196(A) and 197 of 1977. 
M. Veerappa for the Appellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 
692 
STATE v. UPPEGOUDA 
693 
Though the respondents were served with notice, they do not appear A 
either in person or through counsel. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court made on June 20, 1977 in 
Writ Appeal Nos. 196A and 197 of 1977. 
The admitted facts are that Sy. No. 16 admeasuring 2 acres and 30 
gunthas of land of Mattighatta village belonged to respondent No. 2 
(hereinafter called, the 'Land holder'). Respondent No. 1, Puppegouda was 
put in possession of the land from the year 1950 as tenant under a lease 
B 
for 5 years which was extended from time to time upto 1960. Renewal of C 
lease deed was executed in 1960 for a further period of 5 years. The 
Karnataka Tenancy Act, 1961 came into force protecting the tenancy rights. 
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act introducing Section 44 and other 
provisions came into force w.e.f. March 1, 1974 abolishing intermediary 
right of land-holders and conferment of permanent rights to the tiller of. D 
the soil, i.e., tenant. The land-holder became entitled to compensation · 
payable under the Act. 
The question· is : whether the tenant was continuing in possession as 
on the date the land stood vested in the State Government so as to confer 
title on the tenant? A Full Bench of the High Court in Balesha Ram Khot E 
& . Ors. v. Land Tribuna~ Chikodi & Ors., {1978) (k) KU 116 had held that 
· "even if the land was not in a:c~ possession of the tenant, immediately 
prior to 1st March, 1974 if it was tenanted land, it vested in the State 
Governinent. That the land could not be registered in favour of the tenant 
who was not in actual possession immediately prior to 1st March, 1974 was F 
not relevant for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether the 
land stood vested in the State Government under Section 44 of the Act". 
The tenant who was lawfully entitled to cultivate the land personally 
immediately prior to the commencement of the Amendment act, but was G 
wrongfully prevented from doing so is entitled to registration of occupancy 
under Section 45 of the Act. 
The Act provides procedure to recover possession from an un-
authorised occupant by a person entitled to such possession (Sections 41, 
121 and 129). A tenant who has been wrongfully or illegally prevented from H 
694 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
cultivating the land may request the land Tribunal to defer consideration 
of his application till possession is restored to him and if he recovers 
possession, he may ask the Tribunal to proceed with his application. 
B 
c 
In this case, in view of the fact that the tenant continued in possession 
of the land from January 30, 1950 upto 2nd June 1965 when the Mysore 
Tenancy Act was in force, it protected his possession. Sub-section (2} of 
Section 5 of the Tenancy Act reads as under : 
"Notwithstanding any agreement usage or law to the contrary,

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