http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SRI SIDDAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/05/2000

BENCH: S. Saghir Ahmad, & R.P. Sethi.

JUDGMENT:

Sethi, J.

Invoking  the  provisions  of Section 44 of  the  Karnataka  Land Reforme Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "the Act’), the original appellant-tenant  approached  the authorities under the  Act  for conferment  of  occupancy  rights  on  the  ground  of  being  in possession on the relevant date.  His claim was negatived both by the authorities under the Act and the High Court allegedly on the ground  that  he had made a concession in  proceedings  initiated under  Section  14  of  the Act for resumption  of  land  by  the landlord.   It was found that as the appellant himself had agreed to  forego  his  claim to the extent to 50% of the  land  in  his occupation,  he could not invoke the subsequent amendment made in the Act vide Section 44.˜

It is not in dispute that the appellants’ father Shri Sadappa was a  tenant  of  the land bearing Survey No.14  measuring  a  areas guntas  situated at hyleganshanti village, Kalagnesi Taluk  aimed about  50  years.  The respondents are alleged to have  initiated proceeding  under Section 14 of the Act for resumption of half of the  land  for their personal cultivation in the year 1967.   The application  filed  by  the  landlords   was  partly  allowed  on 15.10.1968  in  RLC No.  348 of 1967 permitting them to resume  2 acres  23  quntas  of  the land.  It is also  not  disputed  that despite orders in their favour, the respondents-landlords did not take  the  possession  in execution of the orders  of  resumption passed.   Instead  they preferred an appeal before  the  Tribunal with  a  prayer  for  resumption of the entire  extent  of  land. During  the  pendency  of  the appeal, the  Act  was  amended  on 1.3.1974  (by Act No.  1 of 1974) by which Section 14 was omitted and  section  44  providing  vesting of land  in  Government  was inserted.  For rejecting the claim of the appellant, the Tribunal and  the High Court relied upon the orders pased in favour of the landlords  under  Section 14 of the Act and did not consider  the effect of Section 44 of the Act, which so far as relevant for our purposes, reads:˜

"44.   Vesting  of land in the State Government, --(1) All  lands held  by  or  in  the possession of  tenants  (including  tenants against  whom a decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption  is  made or issued) immediately prior to the date  of commencement  of the Amendment Act, other than lands held by them under  leases permitted under Section 5 shall, with effect on and from  the  said date, stand transferred to and vest in the  State Government.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

(2)     Notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate issued by any court or authority directing or specifying the lands which may be resumed or in anyy contract, grant or other instrument or in any law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting and move as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the following consequences shall ensue, namely,˜

(a)     all rights, title and interest vesting in the owners of such lands and other persons interested in such lands shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances:˜

(b)     xx   xx   xx   xx˜ (c)     xx   xx   xx   xx (d)     xx   xx   xx   xx (e)     xx   xx   xx   xx

(f)  the land owner, landlord and every person interested in  the land  whose  rights  have vested in the  State  Government  under clause (a), shall be entitled only to receive the amount from the State Government as provided in this Chapter:˜

(g)  Permanent  tenants,  protected  tenants  and  other  tenants holding  such  lands shall, as against the State  Government,  be entitled  only to such rights or privileges and shall be  subject to such conditions as are provided by or under this Act;  and any other  rights  and privileges which may have occurred to them  in such  lands  before the date of vesting against the  landlord  or other  person  shall  cease  and   determine  and  shall  not  be enforceable against the State Government."˜

A  perusal  of the Section shows that all lands in possession  of the tenants, including tenants against whom a degree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption had been made or issued, stood  transferred  to and vested in the State  Government.   The rights,  privileges  and interests vesting in the owner  of  such lands  stood  extinguished  and vested absolutely in  the  ’State Government  free  from all encumbrances.  Such owners  were  held entitled  only to receive the amount from the State Government as provided  in  Chapter  III of the Act.   Consequently,  permanent tenants,  protected tenants and other tenants holding such  lands were  held entitled to such rights and privileges and be  subject to such conditions as were provided under the Act.  Under Section 45  of the Act every person who was a permanent tenant, protected tenant  or  other tenant or where a tenant had  lawfully  sub-let such  sub-tenant  was,  with  effect from and from  the  date  of vesting,  held  entitled to be registered occupant in respect  of the land of which he was a tenant.˜

There  does not appear to be any dispute regarding the fact  that despite  passing  of  order of resumption in  their  favour,  the respondents-landlords  had  not taken the possession of the  land which  continued  to be in possession of  the  appellant-tenants. The Tribunal in its order-dated 22nd March, 1979 noted.˜

"The records show the applicant’s father and then the applicant’s name  as protected tenant and cultivator since 1960 onwards.  But there  was also order passed by the Tribunal in RCC 348/67  dated 15.10.1968  according to which the landlord was allowed to resume 50%  of the land i.e.  2 acres 23 guntas.  This was not  executed because  according  to  the landlord, he had filed an  appeal  to resume  the  entire land and because he was sick.  After 1974  he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

could not take any action to resume the land.˜

Similarly the High Court also observed:˜

       "It also noticed that the landlord had not resumed the land on account of illness and an appeal also had been preferred thereto."˜

It  appears that being more influenced by equity than by law, the Tribunal   and  the  High  Court   rejected  the  claim  of   the appellants-tenants  to which he was entitled under Section 44  of the  Act.   The  orders  of  the Tribunal  and  the  High  Court, therefore, cannot be sustained and are required to be set aside.˜

In  view  of  what  has been stated hereinabove,  the  appeal  is allowed  and  the  impugned order of the Division  Bench  of  the karnataka  High  Court as well as of the Tribunal are set  aside. The  appellants are held entitled to the conferment of rights  on the  whole  land in their occupation under Section 44  read  with Section  45  of  the  Act.   As   no-one  has  appeared  for  the respondents  to seriously contest the appeal, the appellants  are left to bear their own costs.˜