PILLAMMA (DEAD) & ORS VERSUS M. RAMAIAH REDDY (DEAD) THROUGH LRs. & ANR.

PILLAMMA (DEAD) & ORS  VERSUS M. RAMAIAH REDDY (DEAD) THROUGH LRs. & ANR.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10299 OF 2011

PILLAMMA (DEAD)   & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

M. RAMAIAH REDDY (DEAD)

THROUGH LRs. & ANR.  ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Rastogi, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th

September,   2008   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   at

Bangalore   affirming   the   finding   recorded  by   the   Land   Tribunal,

Anekal,   in   conferring   occupancy   rights   in   respect   of   the   land

bearing Sy. No. 184 to an extent of 10 acres 34 guntas and Survey

No. 17 to an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas of Halasahalli Village,

Anekal Taluk, in favour of the first respondent.

1

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that first

respondent had filed an application in Form No. 7 on 3rd December,

1974 under Rule 19(1) of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules requesting

for registration of occupancy rights in his favour under Section

45(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961(hereinafter referred

to as the “Act 1961”).

3. The case of the first respondent was that lands measuring Sy.

No.   184,   measuring   10   acres   and   34   guntas   and   Sy.   No.   17,

measuring   01   acre   12   guntas   both   situated   at   Halasahally,

Thippasandra Village were vested with the Government as on 1st

March, 1974 in terms of Section 44 of the Act, 1961 and he being

the  tenant  in respect of the aforesaid lands  was  entitled to be

registered as an occupant of these lands under Section 45 of the

Act 1961.

4. The Tribunal, in the first instance, by an Order dated 18th

November   1981,   rejected   the   application   filed   by   the   first

respondent but the High Court of Karnataka vide its Order dated

12th March, 1985 remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh

disposal   in   accordance   with   law   which   came   to   be   further

2

challenged in writ appeal and by Order dated 16th March 1987, the

same was remitted back to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority

with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

5. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority conducted the trial but

during pendency of the application, the Land Reforms Appellate

Authority   was   abolished   and   with   the   intervention   of   the   High

Court, the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal.

6. The parties filed their documents in support of their claims

which were duly exhibited as A­1 to A­10(D).   In support of the

claim, the first respondent examined his power of attorney holder R.

Ravindra as PW 1 and one Kamiah as PW 2 and the witnesses were

cross­examined by the respective parties and an enquiry was held

by the Tribunal in accordance with the procedure prescribed under

Section 48­A(5) of the Act, 1961 read with Rule 17 of the Karnataka

Land Reforms Rules.  After taking into consideration the material

on record and noticing the fact as claimed by the appellants before

the Tribunal, the subject property was sold by Venkataramaiah to

the appellants by a registered sale deed dated 10th July, 1970 and

they were stepped into the shoes of Venkataramaiah.

3

7. The defence of the appellants was that they had purchased the

lands from Venkataramaiah under registered sale deed dated 10th

July, 1970 and became owner of the subject land which was within

the   purview   of   Karnataka(Personal   &   Miscellaneous)   Inams

Abolition Act, 1954(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 1954”)

and Act, 1961 has no applicability in the instant matter.

8. The further contention of the appellants before the Tribunal

was that the first respondent is not a tenant but is a trespasser and

there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and the land was in

unlawful possession of the first respondent.

9. The appellants also emphasized that in the proceedings earlier

initiated, the first respondent failed to establish his tenancy rights

under the Act 1954, as such, he was not entitled to claim later

occupancy rights under the Act 1961.

10. Taking into consideration the rival claims of the parties, the

Land Tribunal recorded a finding that on 1st March 1974, i.e., the

vesting   day,   the   subject   land   was   in   possession   of   the   first

respondent   and   his   father   and   that   was   the   admission   of   the

appellants   in   the   earlier   proceedings   initiated   under   the   Act,

4

1954(O.S. No. 210 of 1967) and later in subsequent suit filed by the

appellants in O.S. No. 1054 of 1974 on the file of the Addl. Second

Munsiff   at  Bangalore  and   was   persuaded   that   the   respondent’s

father was in possession as on 1st  March, 1974 and has lawfully

cultivated   the   subject   land   in   question   and   became   a   deemed

tenant as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, 1961 and finally

disposed   of   the   application   after   assigning   detailed   and   cogent

reasons under its Order dated 16th December 2002.  The relevant

part of the order is as under:­

“The application filed in Form No. 7 by the applicant for

registration of the occupancy rights in respect of lands bearing Sy.

Nos. 17 and 184 to an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas and 10 acres 34

guntas respectively situated at Halasahalli Thippasandra Village,

Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District is hereby allowed and we

hereby unanimously grant occupancy rights in respect of the above

said lands in the name of Sri H. Ramaiah Reddy and ordered

accordingly.”

11. The Order of the Land Tribunal came to be challenged by the

present appellants by filing of a writ petition before the High Court

of   Karnataka   and   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court

revisited   the   facts   on   record   and   after   affording   opportunity   of

hearing to the parties and taking into consideration the material on

record, was of the view that no manifest error has been committed

5

by the Tribunal in its Order granting occupancy rights to the first

respondent which may call for interference by judgment dated 28th

May, 2008 that came to be further challenged by the appellants in

writ   appeal   before   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of

Karnataka.

12. The   bone   of   contention   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the

appellants in the writ appeal was that the first respondent has no

right to file an application in Form No. 7, more so, when he is not

able to justify his right to be the tenant under the Act, 1954 in the

earlier proceedings.

13. The second contention was that the first respondent earlier

claimed ownership rights over the subject land under the Act, 1954

which he failed to establish and later it is not open to the first

respondent to contend that he is the tenant of the subject property

under the Act 1961.  

14. Both the contentions in the writ appeal before the High Court

were rejected after recording a finding that so far as denial of right

to the tenant under the Act, 1954 is concerned, it, in no manner,

obviates the rights of the incumbent to claim occupancy rights

6

under   the   Act,   1961   and   so   far   as   the   second   contention   is

concerned, it was observed that there was no conflicting stand as

the occupancy rights under the Act, 1961 were to be looked into on

the date of vesting day, i.e., 1st March, 1974 and not under the Act

1954.   As such, the proceedings earlier initiated under the Act

1954, in no manner, has any relationship so far as the occupancy

rights   which   the   first   respondent   has   claimed   as   being   in

possession as on 1st March, 1974 under the Act, 1961 and taking

assistance of the judgment of this Court in Muniyallappa Vs. B.M.

Krishnamurthy  and  Others1

, the High Court dismissed the writ

appeal filed at the instance of the appellants.

15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their

assistance examined the record.

16. The scope and ambit of the two Acts, namely, Act, 1954 and

Act,   1961   has   been   examined   by   this   Court   in

Muniyallappa(supra) in paragraph 5 as under:­

“5. It may be stated that the purpose and scope of the two Acts are

distinct. The Inams Abolition Act was enacted for the purpose of

abolition of inam tenures and conversion of such tenures into

1 1992 Supp.(3) SCC 26

7

ryotwari tenure and in that process, grant of occupancy rights to

the inamdars and the three classes of tenants specified in that Act.

The purpose of the Land Reforms Act, however, is quite different.

The main purpose was to abolish the relationship of landlord and

tenant in respect of tenanted lands and to confer occupancy rights

on tenants who are personally cultivating the lands. Therefore, the

rejection of the claim of the appellant under the Inams Abolition

Act   does   not   lead   to   the   inference   that   he   has   no   claim   for

occupancy right under the Land Reforms Act. The appellant claims

that he is a deemed tenant as provided under Section 4 of the

Land Reforms Act. The requirement of deemed tenant, as provided

under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act, must be determined by the

Land Tribunal. The High Court having come to the conclusion that

the procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal was not in accordance

with the rules of natural justice ought to have remitted the matter

to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.”

17. Under the scheme of the Act 1954, all lands in Inam villages

vested in the State Government.  But under the Act 1961, not all

agricultural   lands   vest   in   the   State;   only   lands   held   by   or   in

possession of tenants immediately prior to 1st March, 1974 vest in

the State Government.     The claim of the tenant or tenants for

registration of occupancy rights under the Act, 1961 has to be

decided with reference to the date of vesting under Section 44, viz.,

1

st  March 1974.   Under the Act 1954, the rights of the Inamdars

and tenants were decided with reference to the date of vesting, viz,

1

st February, 1959 under the said Act.

8

18. The   scope   and   purport   of   the   two   Acts   being   different,

termination of the proceedings under the Act, 1954 in regard to

grant of occupancy rights cannot bar an enquiry to establish the

claim under Section 45 of the Act, 1961 by the Land Tribunal.

What the Tribunal, under the Act, has to inquire into, is whether

the lands claimed by the applicant before it, have vested in the

State Government under Section 44 of the Act 1961.   For that

purpose, it has to decide whether the lands were held by or in the

possession of any tenant immediately prior to 1st March, 1974(the

date of vesting).

19. This is what has been examined by the Tribunal in extenso

and thereafter finding was recorded that the first respondent was in

possession   and   was   cultivating   the   subject   land   in   question

immediately   prior   to   1st  March,   1974   (the   vesting   date)   under

Section 44 of the Act, 1961 and accordingly declared to confer the

occupancy rights to the first respondent under its order dated 16th

December 2002. 

20. The appellants challenged the finding of the Tribunal before

the High Court in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

9

and further in writ appeal and after due deliberation and revisiting

the   records,   both   the   Courts   affirmed   the   Order   of   the   Land

Tribunal upholding occupancy rights to the first respondent.

21. After we have heard learned counsel for the parties, find no

manifest   error   been   committed   in   the   findings   recorded   by   the

Tribunal in conferring the occupancy rights in favour of the first

respondent and needs no further interference of this Court.

22. Consequently, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed.  No

costs.

23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

       ……………………….J.

       (AJAY RASTOGI)

       ……………………….J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)

NEW DELHI

AUGUST 08, 2022.

10