Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – ss.44(1) and 107 – Private respondents filed suits against the appellant-University for injunction restraining the University from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit properties – Suits dismissed by the trial Court, however, allowed by the First Appellate Court – Appeals were filed before the High Court by the University – During the pendency of the appeals, University filed writ petition challenging the order dated 05.06.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal whereby occupancy right had been granted in favour of the private respondents – Appeals as well as the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: It is clear from the materials placed on record that originally the property in question belonged to the Maharaja of Mysore – He gifted the said property to the President of India – Thereafter, Union of India leased 22 acres of said land for 99 years in favour of the University – Suit properties were a part and parcel of the said land – It is thus clear that University was the lessee of the said land – Further, the declaration register maintained by the Land Tribunal does not contain any entry for having filed declaration forms by the respondents – The State has also given the aforesaid particulars in their statement of objections – Respondents have not filed any rebuttal documents – It is clear that the order of the Land Tribunal filed was a fabricated document – Also, provisions ss.44(1) and 107 of the KLR Act make it clear that any land belonging to or held on lease by a University established by law is not subject to the provisions of the KLR Act – High Court was not justified in holding that the private respondents are in possession of the lands in question – They do not have title or are in possession of the said lands – It is also clear that the University is in lawful possession of the said lands – Further, High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the University challenging the order of the Land Tribunal – The order dated 05.06.1981 of the Land Tribunal is hereby quashed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The first question for consideration is whether the University is a lessee of the schedule property. It is clear from the materials placed on record that originally the property in question belonged to the Maharaja of Mysore. He gifted the said property to the President of India for starting Logopedics Institute in Mysore as per registered gift-deed dated 12.8.1965. Since the land was not suitable for the said purpose, Union of India requested the University of Mysore to give some other land and accordingly the University gave 32 acres of its land. In lieu of the same, the Union of India leased 22 acres of the said land for 99 years commencing from 30.11.1997 in favour of the University. This is evident from the registered lease deed dated 30.11.1970. It was a vacant land. The schedule properties are a part and parcel of the said land. It is thus clear that the University was the lessee of the said land. [Para 19] [498-E-G]
2. This takes to the next question as to whether Respondents had made applications for grant of occupancy right in respect of the schedule lands and whether the order of the Land Tribunal dated 5.6.1981 is in respect of the said lands. The University and the State Government have contended that the contesting respondents have managed to create bogus documents to their advantage in relation to the land in question. In order to test the correctness of this submission, the original records produced by the Additional Advocate General representing the State Government in relation to the properties in question were verified. The order dated 5.6.1981 of the Land Tribunal shows that the Land Tribunal passed the order granting occupancy right in KL/RF/4480/79-80 and 4481/79-80. A perusal of the records reveals that K.L.R.M. No.4480/1979 and 4481/79 is in respect of different Sy. Nos. of different villages, to two different persons an extent of 2 acres of land each and occupancy right in the said case was granted to them. The Declaration Register maintained by the Land Tribunal pertaining to Kurubarahalli village, Mysore Taluk does not contain any entry for having filed declaration form in Form No.7 by Respondents. As noticed above, K.L.R.F. No. 4480/79 and 4481/79 is in respect of lands belonging to Dadadahalli village, Jayapura Hobli which has been used by Respondents for creating Form No.10 in their favour in respect of schedule land. [Para 20] [498-G-H; 499-A-D]
3. The University has filed IA narrating the aforesaid facts along with the supporting documents. The State Government has also given the aforesaid particulars in their statement of objections. Respondents have not filed any rebuttal documents or additional written statement. It is clear that the order of the Land Tribunal is a fabricated document. [Para 21] [499-E-F]
4.1 The alternative submission of the University is that the alleged application of Respondents for grant of occupancy right was not maintainable and the alleged order has been passed without jurisdiction. [Para 22] [499-G]
4.2 It is clear from the provisions ss.4(1) and 107 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 that any land belonging to or held on lease by a University established by law is not subject to the provisions of the KLR Act. The said Act is also not applicable to the land belonging to the Government. In the instant case, the land in question belongs to the University. The registered gift deed executed by Maharaja of Mysore in favour of the President of India and the lease deed executed by the President of India in favour of the University clearly establishes the said fact. Therefore, assuming that Respondents had made applications for grant of occupancy right in respect of the schedule property, the said applications were not maintainable and the order dated 05.06.1981 has been passed without jurisdiction. Therefore, the private respondents cannot claim any right in respect of the schedule lands on the basis of the order dated 05.06.1981. [Para 24] [500-F-H; 501-A]
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.