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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 771  of  1997

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. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J     Invoking  the provisions of Section 44 of the  Karnataka Land  Reforms  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@@                          JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ No.14  measuring 5 acres 6 guntas situated at  Hulaganakatti@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Village,  Kalaghatgi  Taluk  since   about  50  years.   The respondents  are alleged to have initiated proceedings 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 guntas 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 passed 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

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

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.

   (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  any 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  save 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 decree 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

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

favour,  the  respondents-  landlords   had  not  taken  the possession  of the land which continued to be in  possession of  the appellants-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 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.