LexV.G. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT versus GIRIJA (D) BY LRS. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 1041 '-<I V.G. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT A v. GIRIJA (D) BY LRS. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 8334 of 2002) APRIL 27, 2009 B [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] _. Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Occupancy rights - Claim of - Lease of agricultural land in favour of father - Death of father- Son becoming tenant on basis of agreement c for tenancy with original landlord - Execution of rent note in favour of landlord - Surrender of tenancy by tenant before court - Claim of occupancy rights by step sister of tenant - Grant of, by appellate authority as also High Court - Held: "' Not c~rrect - Status of son as tenant cannot be disputed - D · High Court and authorities below erred in holding step sister and her daughter in independent possession of said land as tenant - Surrender proceedings were valid and remained intact till date - Sister could not be conferred tenancy rights merely on basis of some evidence - More so, tenancy was E not heritable - Thu~. step sister and her daughter could not be given status of occupancy tenants. - ~ Original landlord leased out certain agricultural lands in favour of KG. KG cultivated the said land. After his F death, J became tenant on basis of the agreement between J and the landlord and was cultivating the land. J surrendered major portion of the property by way of surrender deed to the landlord before the Munsif. L-step ~ sister of J claimed occupancy rights in respect of the said G + land. Land tribunal conferred occupancy rights as regard ~ part of the land on humanitarian grounds but rejected the , claim for the remaining land. However, Land Reforms Appellate Authority set aside the order. After L's death, her daughter G was conferred occupancy rights for both 1041 H 1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 6 S.C.R. ,..~ A the lands. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The surrender of land between J-tenant B and original landlord took place on 5.3.1968 before the Munsif. J had executed a rent note in favour of the landlord on 5.11.1961. The order passed certifying the --- surrender of J was never challenged either by L or by G or for that matter, anybody and that order has remained c intact. After the execution of rent note, it was J who was in cultivation of the land throughout. However, when L asserted her right for the first time by way of a civil suit she claimed to be the direct tenanf after original tenant. This was not possible because it is nobody's case that D KG had taken the tenancy on behalf of the whole family ... and after him, the tenancy was inherited by L. If at all it was a heritable tenancy, then it would have been inherited by both L and J. Instead, L claimed to be the sole tenant in respect of the whole property in the civil suit and very E strangely, she got the injunction, which injunction .. dispute went right up to the High Court and which injunction dispute came in the lap of the land tribunal on account of the fact that by that time, the tribunal had !( - come into existence due to the passing of Karnataka F Land Reforms Act, 1961. Unfortunately, land tribunal, Appellate Authority and High Court missed all these important factors. In its original order, the land tribunal rejected the claim of L in respect of the major chunk of land of 80 cents and conferred the occupancy rights in G respect of 26 cents of L when L had no rights, ;- whatsoever, and could not have been conferred with the ~ - rights on so-called humanitarian grounds. That order was clearly incorrect. However, it was correct insofar as the remaining land of 80 cents is concerned. [Para 9] H [1050-A-H] ·-4. - )> - VG. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT v. GIRIJA (0) BY 1043 LRS. & ANR. 1.2. The land tribunal correctly came to the A conclusion that L had come into possession only on the strength of injunction granted by the Munsif Court. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority went on to comment that the land tribunal had not taken into consideration the relationship between J and the appellant and the B evidence adduced by the appellant to prove that they were cultivating the disputed lands. Even if all the letters are read in favour of L, still then, at the most, L's possession would be that of on behalf of J. She cannot be said to be independently in possession of the c concerned land, muchless in her capacity as a tenant. This fact
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.