SUBHAKAR AND ORS. versus HARIDEESH KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 13-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

,,. . 
- 't 
SUBHAKAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
HARIDEESH KUMAR AND ORS. 
MARCH 13, 2007 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
B 
Land Reforms: 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961-S.2(18)-'Punja' land-Land not 
fit for cultivation-Only grass growing on it naturally-Hence, prayer to C 
declare same as agricultural land rightly rejected by High Court. 
The land in question is 'Punja' land situated in the Dakshina Kannada 
District. The land is not fit for cultivation. Only grass is growing on it 
naturally. Prayer of Appellants for declaring such land as agricultural land 
was rejected by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: A bare reading of s.2(18) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 
1961 shows that land means agricultural land that is to say, land which is 
used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes E 
subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, 
pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house-site or land used 
exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, it has to be established 
that the land was capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes 
subservient thereto. The Tribunal and the High Court have categorically noted 
the fact that the land being Punja land is not cultivable land and only grass is F 
grown naturally. If the appellants wanted to establish that it was being used 
for agricultural purposes, evidence should have been led in that regard. The 
Division Bench has categorically noted that no evidence in that regard was 
led. Mere reference to the spot inspection to show the existence of a few 
coconut trees does not establish that the land was capable of being used for G 
agricultural purpose. In view of the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal 
and the High Court there is no merit in the present appeals. 
[Paras 9 and IO] [932-E, F, H] 
ClVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4992-4993 of 
929 
H 
930 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A 2001. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.1999 of the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 4088/1998 and 4463/1998. 
S.N. Bhat, N.P.S. Panwar and D.P. Chaturvedi for the Appellants. 
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Narayan P. Kengasur, 
M. Sudhakar Pai and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Appellants call in question legality of the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court dismissing 
the writ appeal filed by the appellants. 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
D 
The appellants claim to be Chalgeni tenants and claim grant of 
occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the 
'Act'). According to them late Sesu Poojary, the father of the appellants filed 
an application in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Karkala (for short the: 
'Tribunal'). The claim was in respect of Survey No.162/1 measuring 2 acres 
11 cents and Survey No.176/2 measuring 8 cents in Gandhinagar, Marpady 
E village Moodabedri, Karkala Taluk of Dakshina Kannada District. 
3. Respondent Harideesh Kumar claimed to be the owner of the land on 
the basis of a gift-deed from his grandfather. Originally, the Tribunal granted 
occupancy rights to the appellants' father by an order dated 25.4.1981. The 
said order was challenged in Writ Petition No.10910/84 before the Kamataka 
F High Court and the High Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the 
matter to the Tribunal. After remand by order dated 18.12.1996 rendered by 
a majority Tribunal rejected the claim in respect of 1.81 acres of land and 
granted 0.30 acres on humanitarian grounds. The appellants as well as the 
respondent-Harideesh Kumar filed writ petitions challenging the order passed 
G by the Tribunal. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the 
appellants and allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-Harideesh 
Kumar by a common order. Appellants filed two writ appeals. 
H 
4. Before the High Court the stand of the appellants was that Punja 
lands in the district are agricultural lands. According to the appellants, the 
. . 
.. 
-~ -
SUBHAKAR v. HARIDEESH KUMAR [PASA YAT,J.] 
931 
definition of "land" in terms of Section 2(18) of the Act is wide enough to A 
include Punja land. Referring to some earlier decisions the Division Bench 
of the High Court came to hold t

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