http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: Y.R. VEERANNA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/05/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIRAHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:    THE 7TH DAY MAY, 1997 Present:       Hon‘ble Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy       Hon‘ble Mr. Justice S.Saghir Ahmad       Hon‘ble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik G.V.Chandrashekhar and P.P.Singh, Advs.for thePetitioner  O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Itis  anundisputed  fact  thatthe  KarnatakaLand Reforms(Amendment) Acthad come into force with effectfrom March 1,  1974.The  petitionerlaid claimed asan occupancy tenant,in  respect of13 acres  and 24 gunthas of theland situated in  K.R. Nagar Taluk,Karnataka  District. When he filed application  in Form-  7 for recognition of his rights as an  occupancy tenant,  the Tribunal rejectedhis claim on the ground  that his  sons werecultivating theland. It was held that  since the petitionerhad notbeen cultivating the land, he  couldnot  file the  application  inForm-7and, therefore, he  was not entitledto be treated as a protected tenant.That  order came to be affirmedby the High Court in LRRP No.2179/88 and in C.P. No.499/96on June10, 1996 and January6, 1997. Thus, this special leave petition.      Inview  of the  fact that a tenant  in cultivation is entitled to  lay the  claim under Section 44 and 48-A of the Karnataka LandReformsAct  (for short,  the ‘Act’), on his own admittedlyshowingthat hehad notbeen cultivating the land ,the  petitioner’s  right  as  occupancy tenant was rightlyrejected.  His status is that of the co-owner, Karta of the joint family andas suchon behalf of his sons he had filed it and the sons were cultivating the landon behalf of the family;  since this land was  obtained ata  partition betweenthe  petitionerand hisbrotherway back in 1957, it is joint  family property.  In view of the fact that he is not personallycultivating theland onhis ownshowing, the findingrecorded  by the  Tribunal and the HighCourt is not vitiated by  any manifest  error of  law.  However,  due  to mistaken standthe application in Form-7 cameto be filed. He washeld disentitled to theclaim as a protected tenant. If thesons were really occupying the land as tenants prior to theAmendment Act  had comeinto force on March 1, 1974,

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

it maybe opento the sons to make an application in Form-7 and have  the matter  adjudicated. Thelimitation that has been prescribed in the statute, in the peculiar facts, may not be taken asa ground for rejection of theirclaims.      The special  leavepetition  are accordingly  dismissed with the above observations.