Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – ss.2(27), 2(33), 2(34), Proviso to s.48-A – Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 – r.19 – Held: Order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course – An order of remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of remanding a proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal – An endeavour has to be made by the Appellate Court to dispose of the case on merits – Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or the Tribunal – In the instant case, the Division Bench remanded the matter without any justification – Further, in view of proviso to s.48A, it was permissible for the tenant to make an application seeking correction of the extent of land in the order of the Land Tribunal – The proviso was inserted on 20.10.1995 and the memo seeking correction of the order of the Land Tribunal was filed in the year, 2002 – Therefore, Single Judge was not justified in quashing the Notice issued by the Land Tribunal on the ground of delay of about
20 years – Most of the tenants are villagers from remote areas and most of them are illiterate persons and the Act is a beneficent legislation – This aspect has to be kept in mind while deciding cases under the Act – Whether the order requires correction or not has to be decided by the Land Tribunal, after hearing the parties – Order in Writ Appeal No.1950 of 2007 dated 30.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the order of the Single Judge in W.P.No.27230/2002 dated 25.07.2007 is restored – Also, order in Writ Appeal No.1563 of 2007 dated 30.12.2014 and the order of the Single Judge in W.P.No.23034/2002 dated 25.07.2002 are set aside – Land Tribunal to hold an inquiry on the notice dated 24.05.2002 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law – Practice and Procedure.
Practice and Procedure – Order of remand – When cannot be passed – Discussed.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Object of – Discussed. Interpretation of Statutes – Beneficial legislation – Held: It is a well-settled canon of construction that in construing the provisions of such enactments, the court should adopt a construction which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the Act rather than the one which would defeat the same and render the protection illusory – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
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.