REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 568-571 OF 2005

Narasamma & Ors.                   ….Appellants

VERSUS

State of Karnataka & Ors.             ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.

1. One Lingachari sold land measuring about 6

Acres  7  Guntas  in  Serial  No.  55  within

Gulakamale,  Uttarahalli,  Hobli,  Bangalore,

South  Taluk,  Karnataka,  (hereinafter

referred to as “the land in dispute”), to one

Muniyappa, the father of the appellants, in

the  year  1954.  In  1960,  the  father  of  the

appellants,  Muniyappa  sold  the  land  in

dispute in favour of one Ashwathaiah who in

1

turn sold it to one P. Ramaiah, who also in

his  turn sold  the land in dispute  to Rama

Reddy, the respondent herein. On or about

1960-61, the respondent, created a tenancy

right in favour of the father of the appellants

in lieu of  share  of  crop for  two years.  The

Record of Rights was published in the year

1969  which  recorded  the  appellants  as

tenants  and  the  respondent  as  landlord

relating to the land in dispute. The Record of

Rights  further  recorded  that  the  type  of

cultivation  was  Gutha  (Rent).  The

respondent, who was the landlord in respect

of the land in dispute, in the year 1971, filed

an  application  for  recovery  of  rent  against

the appellants before the Additional Munsif,

Bangalore in Rent Recovery Case No.114 of

1971.  An order was passed in favour of the

respondent on 29th of June, 1972 directing

payment of arrears of rent in the aforesaid

2

recovery case. The Karnataka Land Reforms

Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) was amended

on 1st of March, 1974 and Sections 44, 45

and 48A of the Act entitled all  agricultural

tenants  to  apply  under  Form  7  for

confirmation  of  ownership.  In  view  of  the

above,  Muniyappa,  the  father  of  the

appellants,  filed Form No.7 to register  him

as  an  occupant  in  respect  of  the  land  in

dispute before the Land Tribunal under the

Act. Muniyappa died on 3rd of October, 1976

during the pendency of the said application.

In  1977,  the  appellants  filed  a fresh Form

No.7. By an order dated 24th of July, 1979,

the  Land  Tribunal  disposed  of  the

application  filed  by  the  appellants  after,

inter alia, making the following findings:-

(i) Muniyappa,  the  father  of  the

appellants, cultivated the land for two

decades;

3

(ii) Adjacent landowners, deposed that the

land in dispute was in possession and

cultivation  of  the  appellants  on  lease

basis.

(iii) The names of the appellants in respect

of the land in dispute were recorded in

the  Record  of  Rights  for  the  years

1973-74  as  cultivators  also  on  lease

basis.  

(iv) The  respondent-landlord  admitted

factum of tenancy by claiming rent for

the  period  from 1966-72  by  filing  an

application  for  recovery  of  arrears  of

rent for the years 1966-72 in respect of

the  land in  dispute  in  RRC Case  No.

114/71  wherein  an order  was passed

on  29th of  June,  1972  decreeing  the

case for payment of arrears of rent;

(v) The appellants were entitled to inherit

the  tenancy  rights  and,  therefore,

4

entitled to be  registered as occupants

in respect of the land in dispute.

(vi) The  tribunal  also  recorded  that  the

appellants had made out a prima facie

case  so  far  as  their  possession  and

cultivation  of  the  land  in  dispute  as

tenants, were concerned.  

2. In  spite  of  the  aforesaid  findings,  the  Land Tribunal

rejected  the  application  of  the  appellants  simply  on  the

ground  that  since  the  tenants  were  claiming  the  land  in

dispute as their own, they had not established their tenancy

rights. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Land

Tribunal, a writ petition was moved at the instance of the

appellants before the High Court which by its order dated 5th

of  February,  1985  remanded  the  case  back  for  fresh

disposal after setting aside the said order for reconsideration

of the said application after re-assessing the entire oral and

documentary  evidence  on  record.  This  order  of  the  High

Court was, however, not challenged either by the appellants

or by the respondent.  

5

3. After  remand,  the  Land  Tribunal  again  by  its  order

dated  12th of  June,  2002  rejected  the  application  of  the

appellants and directed the Tehsildar to take further action,

inter alia, on the grounds that :-

(i) Entries  in  the  Record  of  Rights

relating to the land in dispute were

forged ;  

(ii)  No co-relationship existed between

the  Rent  Recovery  Proceeding  and

the tenancy proceedings.

4. Feeling aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  order  of  the  Land

Tribunal, a writ petition was filed in the High Court which

was disposed of on 6th of June, 2003 by an order in which

the learned Single Judge of the High Court had come to the

conclusion  that  the  appellants  were  in  possession  of  the

land in dispute.   However,  it  was held by the High Court

that the appellants must produce some materials to show

that the appellants had acquired tenancy rights in respect of

the land in dispute without considering the findings of the

6

Rent  Recovery  proceedings  and  admission  of  the

respondent on the question of possession and tenancy of the

appellants in respect  of the same.  In  appeal,  the Division

Bench of  the  High Court  also  confirmed the  order  of  the

learned Single Judge after making, inter alia, the following

observations:-

“The appellants-petitioners have not been able to show that they were in possession of  the land and the learned Single Judge  on  consideration  found  that  in  the  absence  of  any material produced before the Tribunal, the petitioners cannot take  advantage  to  get  the  tenancy  rights  in  their  favour, though they may be in possession. The learned Single Judge observed that mere possession does not indicate the status and therefore held that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting their request as they have failed to prove their tenancy.”   

A reading of this finding of the Division Bench of the High

Court would only lead us to hold that the findings arrived at

on the question of possession of the appellants relating to

the  land in  dispute  were  contradictory.  At  one  place,  the

Division Bench observed that the appellants could not show

that they were in possession of the land in dispute and in

another place the Division Bench observed that they may be

in possession, but such possession cannot lead the court to

7

hold  that  the  appellants  had  acquired  tenancy  rights

relating to the land in dispute.   

5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench,

the  present  Special  Leave  Petitions  were  filed  by  the

appellants in this Court, which on grant of leave were heard

in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

after  going  through  the  materials  on  record,  the  only

question that needs to be decided in the present appeals is

whether the land in dispute was tenanted on 1st of March,

1974,  i.e.  the  day  on  which  the  Act  was  amended  and

Sections  44,  45  and  48A  of  the  Act  were  introduced.  As

noted herein earlier, the appellants had brought on record

the following documents and evidence to substantiate their

case  of  tenancy  in  respect  of  the  land  in  dispute  on the

notified date :-  

(i) Admission  of  the  landlord-

respondent made in the year 1960-

1962.  

8

(ii) Judgment  and order  dated  29th of

June,  1972  in  Rent  Recovery

proceedings  for  the  period  from

1966 to 1972.  

(iii) Entries  in  the  revenue  Record  of

Rights  relating  to  land  in  dispute

from 1969 to 1997.

(iv) Evidence of independent  witnesses

of adjoining areas;  

7. It may be mentioned herein that against the aforesaid

documents  and  evidence  produced  by  the  appellants  in

order to prove their possession and right of tenancy relating

to the land in dispute, the respondent, however, had failed

to  produce  any  document  to  establish  that  he  was  in

possession of the land in dispute on the relevant date i.e. on

1st of March, 1974.

8. From a bare perusal of the orders passed by the Land

Tribunal  and  the  learned  Single  Judge  as  well  as  the

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court,  it  is  clear  that  the

appellants were found to be in possession and in cultivation

9

of the land in dispute. The only ground on which the claim

of tenancy right of the appellants was not accepted either by

the  Land  Tribunal  or  by  the  High  Court  was  that  the

appellants had failed to produce any document or material

to show that they had acquired tenancy rights in respect of

the  land in dispute  on the appointed day. In  view of  our

findings  made  herein  above  that  the  appellants  had

produced sufficient material to prove that they had acquired

the tenancy right in respect of the land in dispute, viz., the

admission of the landlord respondent in the rent recovery

proceedings that –  

(i) The  appellants  were  tenants  and,

therefore, were liable to pay rent to the

respondent  in  respect  of  the  land  in

dispute.  

(ii) The  entries  in the  record of  rights in

respect  of  the  land  in  dispute  would

also show that the type of cultivation

was gutha (rent).

10

(iii) The  adjacent  landowners  in  their

deposition  also  deposed  that  the

appellants  were  in  possession  and

were  in  cultivation  of  the  land  in

dispute on a lease basis.

(iv) The  names  of  the  appellants  in

respect of the land in dispute were

recorded  in  the  record  of  rights  as

cultivators on lease basis.   

9. Appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellants,  Ms.  Indu

Malhotra,  learned  senior  counsel,  at  the  first  instance,

contended that while  deciding the issue raised before  the

High Court as well as the Land Tribunal, the entries in the

relevant Record of Rights relating to the land in dispute and

also  the  above  aspects  of  the  matter  were  not  at  all

considered. Relying on a judgment of this Court in the case

of  Siddawwa  Kom  Udochappa  Vaddar  &  Anr.  Vs.

Ningayya Erayya Hiremath & Ors. [1999 (1)  SCC 176],

Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel contended that

in view of the findings of fact arrived at by the Land Tribunal

11

as well as by the High Court that on 1st of March, 1974 and

thereafter, the appellants continued to be in possession of

the land in dispute and in cultivation of the said land and

therefore, they were necessarily entitled to registration as an

occupancy right holder.   

10. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent

contested  the  aforesaid  submission  of  the  learned  senior

counsel  appearing for the appellants and sought to argue

that the appellants had miserably failed to prove that they

were  tenants  under  the  deceased  Rama  Reddy  or  his

predecessor-in-interest and in view of the fact that the two

courts concurrently found that although the appellants were

in possession of the land in dispute had failed to prove their

status  in  respect  of  the  land  in  dispute,  would  not  be

entitled to any relief.

11. Having  examined  the  aforesaid  submissions  of  the

learned counsel for the parties and after going through the

impugned order and the materials on record, we are of the

view that the judgment of the High Court is liable to be set

aside  for  the  reasons  mentioned  hereinafter.  Taking  into

12

consideration  the  findings  of  fact  on  the  question  of

possession arrived at by the High Court as well as the Land

Tribunal  that  the  appellants  were  in  possession  and  in

cultivation  of  the  land  in  dispute  and  considering  the

admission  made  by  the  landlord/respondent  that  the

appellants were tenants in respect of the land in dispute in

earlier recovery proceedings relating to arrears of rent and

considering the fact that on the relevant date of coming into

force of the Act, viz., on 1st of March, 1974, the appellants

were  in  possession  of  the  land  in  dispute,  we  have  no

hesitation  to  hold  that  the  continuous  possession  of  the

appellants which was conclusively found by the Tribunal as

well as by the High Court and in view of the admitted fact

that the respondent had admitted in their deposition of an

earlier  proceeding  that  the  appellants  were  tenants  in

respect of the land in dispute and the entries in the Record

of  Rights  clearly  show  that  the  appellants  were  in

possession  of  the  land  in  dispute  and  the  nature  of

cultivation  was  gutha  and  further  in  the  absence  of  any

material  produced by the respondent to show that in fact

13

the  appellants  were  not  tenants in respect  of  the land in

dispute, we are of the view that there is no escape that the

appellants had acquired occupancy right in respect of the

land  in  dispute  and  their  names  shall  be  registered  as

occupancy right holders in respect of the land in dispute. In

Siddawwa  Kom  Udochappa  Vaddar (Supra),  this  Court,

while dealing with a case under the Act, observed as follows:

“The short question which falls for consideration is that on the relevant date, that is on 1.3.1974,  when the Act came into force, as to who has been in possession of the land. If the first respondent has been in possession thereof and cultivating the same,  necessarily,  is  entitled  to  registration  of  occupancy right.  Since  the  appellant  on  the  relevant  date was  not  in possession  thereof  and  the  concurrent  findings  of  the Tribunal, learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, we do not think there is any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.”  

A plain reading of this decision of this Court would clearly

show that if possession in respect of the land in dispute on

the relevant date was in favour of the appellants showing

them to be in cultivation and possession of  the same are

entitled to registration of the occupancy rights in respect of

the  land  in  dispute.  A  decision  was cited  by  the  learned

14

counsel  for  the  respondent  in  the  case  of  Damu  Ganu

Bendale Vs Arvinda Dhondu Talekar & Ors. [1995 Supp.1

SCC 182] to show that this Court would not be entitled to

interfere  with  concurrent  findings  of  facts  based  on

appreciation of evidence and, therefore, no error of law was

committed.  

12. In our view, this decision on the face of it cannot be

applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case

because the aforesaid decision was rendered in a case which

was covered  under  the  Bombay  Tenancy  and Agricultural

Lands Act, 1948. Furthermore, in the aforesaid decision, the

concurrent findings on the question of possession was not

in favour of the person who was claiming to get his name

registered  as an occupancy  right  holder  in respect  of  the

land in dispute, whereas in the present case, the concurrent

findings of fact on the question of possession by the High

Court as well as by the Land Tribunal stood in favour of the

appellants. At the risk of repetition, in the present case both

the  Land  Tribunal  and  the  High  Court  held  that  the

appellants were in possession of the land in dispute and the

15

entries  in the Record of  Rights also stood in their  names

showing that the nature of cultivation was gutha (rent) and

also the appellants were in possession of the same. As noted

herein  earlier,  the  respondent  had  failed  to  produce  any

document or material to show to the contrary.  Therefore,

the  onus  was  on  the  respondent  to  show  by  producing

material that the appellants had not acquired any status of

occupancy  right  although  they  were  found  to  be  in

continuous  possession  of  the  land  in  dispute.   (See  :

Gajadhar Prosad Singh & Ors. vs. Sheo Nandan Prosad

Singh & Ors.  [ 23 CWN 304].  Since  the respondent  had

failed to produce any material or document to prove that the

appellants  had  not  acquired  any status  in  respect  of  the

land in dispute and had failed to show that the entries in

the Record of Rights were wrong, we do not find any ground

to reject the claim of the appellants for conferring status of

occupancy right holder in respect of the land in dispute.  In

view of our discussions made hereinabove, we do not find

any support to rely on the decision of this Court in the case

of Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh & Ors. [1993 (4) SCC 403]

16

that since the appellants had failed to prove their status of

tenancy  in  respect  of  the  land  in  dispute,  they  were  not

entitled  to  any  relief.   It  is  true  that  the  entries  in  the

revenue record cannot create any title in respect of the land

in  dispute,  but  it  certainly  reflects  as  to  who  was  in

possession of the land in dispute on the date the name of

that person had been entered in the revenue record.  That

apart, in that decision of this Court, on which reliance was

placed by the learned Counsel  for  the respondent,  it  was

admitted that the landlord did not receive any rent from the

person  in  possession.  Relying  on  this  admission  of  the

person from whom no rent was received, it was found that

the plea of tenancy was a false one. As noted herein earlier,

in  the  present  case,  not  only  the  revenue  records  clearly

show that the appellants were in continuous possession of

the land in dispute, and the admission of the respondent

that  the  appellants  were  tenants  in  an  earlier  recovery

proceedings,  and in  the  absence  of  any document  having

been produced by the respondent to show that the entries in

the Record of Rights were wrong, it is not possible for us to

17

rely on the aforesaid decision cited by the learned counsel

for the respondent. So far as the decision of a learned Judge

of the Bombay High Court in the case of Rita Premchand &

Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.  [2001 (4) MLJ 671]

is  concerned,  there  is  no  dispute  about  the  proposition

enunciated in the said decision which says that the entries

in the revenue records are not dispositive or conclusive on

questions of title and that the revenue record cannot create

any  title  and  are  relevant  only  for  fiscal  purposes.  This

proposition is not disputed, nor can we dispute it. In view of

our  discussions  made  hereinabove  and  accepting  the

principles  enunciated  in  the  aforesaid  decision  of  the

Bombay High Court we are of the view that the name of the

appellants  should  be  registered  as  an  occupancy  right

holder in respect of the land in dispute.  Accordingly, the

application  of  the  appellants  shall  stand  allowed  and

consequent thereupon the orders of the Land Tribunal as

well as the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge of

the High Court shall stand set aside.

18

13. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed, the

impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  as  well  as  the

judgments  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  and  the  Land

Tribunal stand set aside and the application for recording

names  of  the  appellants  as  occupancy  right  holders  in

respect of the land in dispute stands allowed.  There will be

no order as to costs.

…………………………J. [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

NEW DELHI:                                    ………………… ………J. MARCH 19, 2009                          [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]  

19