Y.R. VEERANNA
A
_;
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
,
MAY 7, 1997
(K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
B
AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Karnataka Land Ref omis Act, 1961 :
,
Ss.44 and 48-A-Occupancy tena11t-Applicatio11 by father in F om1 7 c
for recognition of 1ight-So11s in cultivato1y possession of land and not the
father-Held, application was lightly rejected by cowts below-Since applica-
_,,
lion was filed due to mistaken stand, it may be open to the sons to make an
application in Fonn 7 and in that event limitation may not be taken as a
ground for rejection of their claim.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
Nos. 11352-53 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.6.96/6.1.97 of the Karnataka
High Court in L.R.R.P.No. 2179/88 and C.P. No. 499 of 1996.
E
/
G.V. Chandrashekhar and P.P. Singh for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
F
It is an undisputed fact that the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amend-
ment) Act had come into force with effect from March 1, 1974. The
petitioner laid claimed as an occupancy tenant, in respect of 13 acres and
-
24 gunthas of the land situated in KR. Nagar Taluk, Kamataka District.
When he filed application in Form-7 for recognition of his rights as an G
occupancy tenant, the Tribunal rejected his claim on the ground that his
sons were cultivating the land. It was held that since the petitioner had not
been cultivating the land, he could not file the application in Form-7 and,
therefore, he was not entitled to be treated as a protected tenant. That
order came to be affirmed by the High Court in LRRP No. 2179/88 and
in C.P. No. 499/96 on June 10, 1996 and January 6, 1997. Thus, this special H
261
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A leave petition.
In view of the fact that a tenant in cultivation is entitled to lay the
claim under Section 44 and 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for
short, the 'Act'), on his own admittedly showing that he had not been
cultivating the land, the petitioner's right as occupancy tenant was rightly
B rejected. His status is that of the co-owner, Karta of the joint family and
as such on behalf of his sons he had filed it and the sons were. cultivating
the land on behalf of the family; since this land was obtained at a partition
between the petitioner and his brother way back in 1957, it is joint family
property. In view of the fact that he is not personally cultivating the land
C on his own showing, the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the High
Court is not vitiated by any manifest error of law. However, due to
mistaken stand the application in Form-7 came to be filed. He was held
disentitled to the claim as a protected tenant. If the sons were really
occupying the land as tenants prior to the Amendment Act had come into
force on March 1, 1974, it may be open to the sons to make an application
D in Form-7 and have the matter adjudicated. The limitation that has been
prescribed in the statute, in the peculiar facts, may not be taken as a ground
for reject of their claims.
The special leave petition are accordingly dismissed with the above
E observations.
R.P.
Petition dismissed.
'
[
Lex