LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. versus MUNIKADIRAPPA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 12 S.C.R. 250 STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. MUNIKADIRAPPA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7664-7675 of 2004 etc.) OCTOBER 08, 2010 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Land laws and Agricultural Tenancy - Litigation for . deciding occupancy rights - During pendency of litigation the land in question acquired - Single Judge of High Court decided the occupancy rights in favour of tenant - In view of the acquisition also directed the compensation thereof to be appointed between the tenant and the erstwhile owner of the land - Division Bench of the High Court held that since the tenant was entitled to occupancy right, he was entitled to the whole compensation - On appeal, held: The courts below were right in deciding the question regarding the occupancy right - However, they fell into error in deciding the quantum of compensation - The order granting occupancy-right is affirmed, the question regarding compensation is left open to be decided in appropriate proceeding under Land Acquisition Act - Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents made application, claiming occupancy rights for certain lnam Lands endowed to a temple (a Mazurai institution) Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the respondents. The temple challenged the order before Land Reforms Appellate Authority. On abolition of the Authority the case was transferred to High Court and registered as Writ petition. During pendency of the petition, the lands in question were acquired by Development Authority Single Judge of the High Court held that the Tribunal had rightly granted occupancy rights on the respondents. Taking note of the fact that the lands were acquired, the court 250 ' / STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. MUNIKADIRAPPA 251 & ORS. directed the compensation amount to be appointed A between he temple and the respondent-occupants in the ratio of 60 : 40. Respondents filed writ appeals. Division Bench of the High Court held that since the respondents were in cultivating occupation of the land, they would be entitled to claim full compensation payable for the land B acquired. Therefore, the instant appeals was filed. Disposing off the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The only question that fell for consideration before the High Court in the writ petition filed by the C respondents was whether the grant of occupancy rights in. their favour by the Land Tribunal was justified. The Single Judge of the High Court rightly answered the said question in the affirmative. The fact that the land had been acquired in the meantime could not have deterred D the Single Judge from dismissing the writ petition and upholding the order granting occupancy rights unconditionally. Instead of doing so, the Single Judge took upon himself the duty of apportioning the compensation between the writ petitioners-erstwhile owners of the land and the respondents. That was wholly unnecessary and dehors the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The question as to who was entitled to claim how much compensation for parcels of land acquired by the Government was a matter which had to E F be agitated by the persons interested only in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Tribunal or the High Court hearing a writ petition arising out of an order passed by the Tribunal was not cohcerned with the question of quantum of compensation or its apportionment among different claimants, nor has any G provision in the Land Reforms Act been brought to the notice of the Court, which required the Tribunal to determine the said questions in case where lands that are the subject matter of proceedings under the said Act get H 252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 12 S.C.R. A acquired for a public purpose. [Para 3] [254-F-H; 255-A- D] 1.2 In the appeals filed by the respondents-occupants of the lands, the Division Bench was concerned only with 8 the limited question whether the directions regarding apportionment of the compensation was justified. Instead of simply setting aside the said direction on the ground that the same was beyond the provisions of the Land Reforms Act the Division Bench held the respondents entitled to claim full compensation. The Division Bench C would have been justified in setting aside the direction given by the Single Judge regarding apportionment but it need not have fallen into the same error as was committed by the Single Judge, by directing payment of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.