Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (amended) – ss. 2(18), 44, 45 – Karnataka Land reforms Rules, 1974 – Predecessor of the appellant made an application in the prescribed form 7 appended to Rules, 1974 claiming occupancy rights over various parcels of land – Landlord objected and contended that the said parcels of land were ‘Punja’ lands, which were not cultivable and were not leased to the applicant – Land Tribunal came to the conclusion that one parcel of land comprising survey No.119/2A1 was used for agricultural purpose and applicant used the said land to cultivate the other parcels of land – Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the objections of landlord in regard to this land and registered applicant as an occupant – Writ petition by landlord – High Court remanded the matter to Tribunal for fresh inquiry as regards the said land i.e. Survey No.119/2A1 – Land Tribunal again found that the applicant’s claim was justified – Aggrieved, landlord filed another writ petition – High Court allowed the writ petition – On appeal, held: High Court did not advert to the categorical findings of the Tribunal – The significant aspects of the matter, as taken into consideration by the Tribunal, had been that there was a reference in the lease chit about mango trees, cashew, tamarind and the lessee was to enjoy the fruits of the allied land also – Tribunal also observed that for the purpose of cultivating other land, the applicant had to depend upon the land in question and hence, the said land was also to be considered as included in the lease chit – Tribunal also found that survey no.119/2A1 was in possession of the applicant whereas the other one being no.119/2A2 was in possession of landlord – Further, High Court also did not examine the definition of ‘land’ as set out in s.2(18) of the Act, 1961 to find if the land in question answered to the description therein – Thus, matter remanded to the High Court to decide the writ petition afresh on merits and in accordance with law.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The significant aspects of the matter, as taken into consideration by the Tribunal, had been that there was a reference in the lease chit about mango trees, cashew, tamarind and the lessee was to enjoy the fruits of the allied land also. The Tribunal also observed that for the purpose of cultivating other land, the applicant had to depend upon the land in question i.e. survey no.119/2A1 and hence, the said land was also to be considered as included in the lease chit. The Tribunal also found that the original Survey No. 119/2A was divided by stone, making it No. 119/2A1 and No. 119/2A2; and the first one, being No. 119/2A1 admeasuring 3.07 acres, was in possession of the applicant whereas the other one, being No. 119/2A2 admeasuring 1.64 acres, was in possession of the landlord. The High Court, while dealing with the writ petition as also the writ appeal has not adverted to such categorical findings of the Tribunal. [Paras 9 and 10][299-D-F]
1.1 Apart from the above, it is also apparent that the High Court did not examine the definition of “land” as set out in Section 2(18) of the Act of 1961 to find if the land in question answers to the description therein. The wide-ranging meaning assigned to the expression “land” for the purpose of the Act of 1961 makes it clear that the expression refers not only to the land which is actually used for agricultural purposes but even to the land which is used or is capable of being used for agricultural purposes or even the purposes subservient thereto. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the said definition deserves due consideration while dealing with the challenge to the order made by the Tribunal. [Para 10.1][299-G; 300-A-B]
3. In view of the aforesaid, it was found that the High Court did not advert to all the facts of the case as also to the law applicable, therefore, the matter remanded to the High Court to decide the writ petition afresh on merits and in accordance with law. [Para 11][300-B-C]
Subhakar and Ors. v. The Land Tribunal,
Karkala Taluk, Karkala and Ors. (1994) KLJ 524
– distinguished.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.