You are on page 1of 74

i fPjU

AiiAi,
vPg f, vPg
J.Dg.Js (JA) L.J.J 9/98-99
Cfzgg/
U

Jzgzgg

1.gAU
g

1. vgg
vPg v.
Evgg
2.
AvgAi
g:
2(J) w sU
2() ZAzPig
2()tU
2(r)APm
2(E)Ugd
2(Js) z

2.APl
aPAvAi
3. Ai
m z
g: 3(J). w

aPwP
3().
UAzgd
3(). Pt
4. UAUt Ad

1 v 3 (J), (), () U
gV

Tv

DUAm w:1. P w :PvAz Uz Ag 13 g 5


JPg

15

UAm

UP

zAiz

dVgvz JAz J PPgg


zV
Jgq

Mgvg.

zj

Jzgzgg

Ai

JAg

zAiz
vAzAigz
zAiz

U HzgVzg v zj ZPj
PgtP

zj

EzjPAi

Page 1 of 74

v Dqv qwzg JAz


zVgvz.
2. Aig P:zj d MAz Ai vAz g,
g Ai aP wAi
PlA

AidiPAi

(s
gz
U

zj d g
Ai

EzgjU
ig

iqwzg
DVgvz.

100

Ut

qz)

JAz

Jgq

AAz

wAiiU

Cg

g DU d ZPj iqz, U
Hz ZPj v PjP w iqv
zj d s Cz U g
vUzPwzg

JAz

P DVgvz.

1 gAUg

Ag 13 g

PvAz Uz

d 1 JPg 20 UAm, 2 APl 1


JPg 20 UAm,

3 2 JPg 15 UAm

U 5 JPg 15 UAm dU Ut CfAi


wiP

gz

1,2,3

gg

P DVgvz. Ezg Q Jgq gg


t

Vgvz.

jAU

gU

Aig

08

UAm d sVgvz, 1 JPg


12

UAm

zAi

Egvz. Ezg Q g Aig 15


UAm d sVgvz. 3
gzgg

z 2 -00 JPg F

jwAiiz d z Egvz.

Page 2 of 74

3. d g:vPg f v vP, HrUg


, PvAz U. .A. 13
n
P

1-20

V
g

GP

GvgP

0-08 1-12

Pv

PvA

Az

Ai

Az

Az

P.

wg

Ai

zQtP

jAU
g

d
2

Pv

PvA

gAU

Az

Az

Az

P.

1-20

2-15

1-20 E

0-15 2-00

jAU
g

g
z
gg
d

Pv

PvA

PvA

Az

Az

Az

Az

P.

4. F P i AiiAiP g
Aa :vPg

vP

sAi

Aq

Pgt AS L.J.J(Ai.J.Dg.JA) 150+150 (J) /

Page 3 of 74

1979-80 g AP 06-01-1982 g Dzz


Jgq

JzgzgjU

KPQAiV

vAi

gz

Dzwgvz.

Dzz

Avg

CvgvgV Jgq Jzgzgg


Ag 13 (PvAz), Ag 2 (r),
Ag 192(z CiPg) dU
Sv

Cz

irP

AzVgz

sjvU

Aiwgvg.

AisgV

PgtP

AAz Ag d vU
zP vg Aiv irz Avg 3
Aig Ag 13 g U
PlP GZAiiAiz jm CfAi
(15303/1985)

zj

sAi

Aq

Dz gzwU Pjgvg. i
GZAiiAi zAvg Dz
r AvgAig
Ag

13

vU

zP

vgzAv

Dzgvz. Avg 04-08-1986 g Dz


ir Aq Cm l (f s Ai
Aq)

AivwAi

Ugvz.
zj sAi Aq DzAz vgz
F P 4 Aiiz UAUtg jm Cf
AS

5168/1982

31908/1981
sAi
rg

VAv
Aq

jm

AZ

Cf

Dz

Dz

AP

AS
zj
gz

20-12-1983

gAi i GZ AiiAiAz q
gvg.

Ezz

Avg

sAi

Page 4 of 74

AqAi Pgt g ZguU A


vzg CAi zz P wzrU
CUtV

zP

Awgvz.

Ezg

Az AiP nUgg CP
v

.Dg..

PgtU

PgtU
v

J.J.

AzgV

vAi

PAiPArzg.
Avg
C

Pgz

AS:

Avz
zsP

639/1986)

zz
v

PAiAiAi

(szgu

Zgu

qAi

wzrU

zszw

Zgu

Pj

gzw
f

PjU AiiAi JAz WuAiiz


AiP zj Pgt 09-11-1998 jAz
i AiiAiz Q Egvz. i
PlP

GZAiiAiz

zAvzAv,

Ut

wU

CfAi

QU zU Cz J CfU
MlUr zjP JA zAvz Pgt
g

qzPAq

qAiwgz PVgvz.
zj Ut CfU Ml Ur zjP
JAz
w

g
Gzv

GZAiiAiz

AiiAiz UP vg E PU
Aiv P CAz U qVz.
A Division Bench of Karnataka high Court in the case of Krishna
Shetty and Ors. v. Land Tribunal, Somwarpet and Ors., ILR
1979 Kar. 1681, has held that once an application is duly made

Page 5 of 74

for registration of occupancy within the extended time for


making such applications, the Land Tribunal cannot refuse to
consider that application on the ground that it has already
disposed of the earlier application made by some other person in
respect of the same land. In such an event, the Land Tribunal can
consider the later application under Section 48-A by re-opening
its earlier decision on the earlier application and to consider both
those applications together and decide the matter afresh.
In the case of Basappa Gurusangappa v. Land Tribunal,
Badami and Ors., 1979(2) Kar. L.J. 370, a Division Bench of
Karnataka high Court has held that even if one of the rival
applicants had filed his application earlier and the Tribunal had
granted him occupancy right in respect of the land and
subsequently another applicant makes an application within the
time-limit provided by Section 48-A in respect of the same land,
the Tribunal is bound to consider the later application by setting
aside its earlier order and consider both the rival applications.
In the case of Mahaveer Chambanna Kallimani and Ors. v.
State

of

Karnataka

and

Ors.,

ILR

1996

KAR

3646Karnataka high Court has again reiterated that when two


applications

were

pending

before

the

Tribunal,

both

the

applications are required to be considered together and if


necessary by setting aside the order granting one of those
applications on an earlier occasion.

F Aq P CAU PlP
GZ

AiiAiz

Aiigz

J.

C fg gg .J. gZAzg (ILR


2005 KAR 2111)

P GTgvg.

5. U CfAi :AP

31-12-1986

Ai,

gAUt, APl Jg zsP v

Page 6 of 74

zszw E gzw PAiAiAi

-1

CfAi

vPg

vP, HrUg , PvAz Uz


Ag 13 g Ml 5 JPg 15 UAm Q
PV 2 JPg 15 UAm, 1 JPg 20 UAm, 1
JPg

20

UAm

zAiz

Aiig zsP v zszw


E gzw PAiAiAi
Q

UAm

Utzgg

irPqPAz

Awgvg.
CzP

AP

08-01-1987

vgg

zjv Ag r -7 g
Ut Cf U PP r Dz A
JAz zjv Ag rgvg. zj
Ag Azvzg U Ut Cf
z vjR v Ag GRg
zRU

Pgtz

PuAiiVgz

PAq,

PAi

EVzg

JAz

sg

Pqvz

Cz

zgzAz
vqV

Cjv

Ai

zj

vg

zR Vz.
UAi zj vgg Agz gz
PlP

GZ

8686/1991

AiiAiz

GTz
CA

U
g

GT

jm

Cf

gV
P

A.

iq

DzVgvz. AiiAzg EgU


Aiiz

CPjU

zj

Page 7 of 74

irg.

Avz z QU V U
P

Aa

Aiwg

g zg CfU z Avz Q
Egvz. F Ai U Cf 1 zAz jUt PgVz.
zj

Az

qg

PgtU

zRU i AiiAiP Azg


CAv g Pqv EVgz,
PAvz
v

PAzAi

CPjU

PAiUAz

v
UU

Al irz Dzg, CfAi

Uv

Ai

Az Jzgzgg z C vPgg
C,

zRU

lz

AU C JAz Cfzggz
zVgvz. F U g CPjU
P zRU jUtP JA
U i AiiAiz w
Gzv

AiiAiz

UP vg E PU qVz.
Godhra Electricity Co.Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of Gujarat
And AnotherAIR 1975 SC 32 A Court is not prevented from
looking into the subsequent conduct or acting of parties to find
out the meaning of the terms of a document when there is a
latent ambiguity. Extrinsic evidence to determine, the effect of
an instrument is permissible when there remains a doubt as to its
true meaning and evidence of the acts done under it is a safe
guide to the intention of the varies, particularly when acts are
done shortly after the date of the instrument..
When there is latent ambiguity extrinsic evidence in the shape of
an interpreting statement in which both parties have concurred

Page 8 of 74

should be admissible. When both parties subsequently say that,


by the word or phrase which in the context is ambiguous, they
meant a particular intention, it only supplies a glossary as to the
meaning of the word or phrase.

6. F AiiAiP zj zsP v
zszw PAi PU E d
z Uj P EzAi? F U
i

Pn

Uggd

gg

Aiigz

Dg.

DAfAi

z m Ds PlP 2006 g
P F PPAq CAU gV
Zav fPjU U F PAiAi
CrAi

wivPAv

EzAiAz vjgvg.
JUSTICE B.P. SINGH & JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR of The Supreme Court
in M.B. Ramachandran's case, AIR 2005 SC 2671, has considered
the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act,
1954, the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act,
1955 and the Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act,
1979. In paragraph 3 of its order, the Supreme Court notices that
there were two Acts in the State of Karnataka, namely, the
Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954
(Act No. 1 of 1955), which related to abolition of personal inams
and the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act,
1955 (Act No. 18 of 1955), which related to the abolition of
religious and charitable inams. The Karnataka Inams Abolition
Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 (Act No. 26 of 1979) was enacted
by the Karnataka Legislature. Section 2 thereof amended some
provisions of the Mysore Act 1 of 1955 relating to personal
inams, and Section 3 whereof amended some of the provisions of
the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955
(Mysore Act 18 of 1955), which related to abolition of religious
and charitable inams. The Supreme Court notices that in view of

Page 9 of 74

the amendments brought about, inter alia, the jurisdiction to


determine occupancy rights was conferred on the "Tribunal"
which was earlier conferred on the "Deputy Commissioner" under
the unamended Acts. The Supreme Court notices of a writ
petition

having

been

filed

by

Sri

Kudli

Sringeri

Maha

Samsthanam, Kudli v. State of Karnataka , challenging the


validity of theAmending Act. The High Court declared the entire
Amendment Act of 1979 ultra vires in terms of its judgment.
State preferred appeals. Appeals were dismissed by the Supreme
Court in terms of the order dated 8-8-1996 without expressing
any opinion on the validity of the Amendment Act, 1979. After
noticing all these aspects, the Supreme Court would notice the
arguments put forth before the High Court. Before the High
Court, it was not disputed that the issues involved in the writ
petition filed by Kudli Shringeri Maha Samsthanam were related
to religious and charitable inams and not the abolition of
personal inams, and that therefore, in that context, the
provisions of the Amendment Act of 1979 relating to the
amendment of Act 18 of 1955 relating to abolition of religious
and charitable inams were challenged. It was further noticed that
in

the

said

writ

petition

filed

by

Kudli

Shringeri

Maha

Samsthanam, validity of Mysore Act 1 of 1955 was not in


question.

However,

the

High

Court

declared

the

entire

amendment Act ultra vires. The Supreme Court, in the light of


this argument and in the light of the above referred facts,
ultimately would say that the writ petition filed by Kudli Shringeri
Maha Samsthanam did not concern with personal inams and
related to only to the religious and charitable inams. In this view
of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was in
error in granting relief in such wide terms declaring the entire
Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 to be
invalid, and consequently it set aside that part of the judgment
and confined the declaration to the provisions of the Amendment
Act of 1979 only to the extent it amended Mysore Act 18 of 1955.
The Supreme Court also ruled that notwithstanding the fact that
the said judgment was modified, it directed that if after 24-41992, the Deputy Commissioner had disposed of the matter
under the Mysore Act 1 of 1955 which fell within his jurisdiction,

Page 10 of 74

the said orders would not be affected by that judgment and were
saved, but that from then onwards, the jurisdiction shall be
exercised by the Land Tribunal, including the matters pending
before the Deputy Commissioner. A careful reading of the
judgment of the Supreme Court it is clear to me that the
Supreme Court confirms that the jurisdiction is still available to
the Deputy Commissioner insofar as it exercises power under Act
1 of 1955. In the light of arguments in para 7 of the said
judgment and in the light of the findings in paragraphs 9 to 11,
what is clear to me is that the Supreme Court has confirmed the
availability

of

the

jurisdiction

to

the

Special

Deputy

Commissioner insofar as the petition under Mysore (Religious and


Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. The Supreme Court has
ruled

in

unmistakable

terms

that

Kudli

Sringeri

Maha

Samsthanam's case would attract only the personal Inams


Abolition Act, but it still has jurisdiction in the light of the
Supreme Court holding that the Amendment Act 1 of 1955 was
not in issue.

7. Ai CfAi Uv CAi
gvgAi:zsP
PAi

v
1955

zszw

Ei

PAiAi

gzw

1973

wzrAiAv PA 9(2)(J)(1) g PU AP
30-06-1987 g MUV Cf gPVgvz.
Cfzgg -1 C CAzg, AP 3112-1986
APl

Ai,

Jg

zsP

gAUt,
v

zszw E gzw PAiAiAi


-1 CfAi gzjAz
CAi MU Cf Vgvz.
8. wU Cf :w AvgAi g AP
29-12-1980 g szgu PAi CAi

Page 11 of 74

-7 gvg. Ez wU
g

JQm

Dg.-1

vVgvz.

gzAig

PPAq

PlP

GZAiiAiz P F PPAqAv
zg Cz szguPAi
vVg

jPjg

CAVgvz.
Shankarapra

Shrishailappa

...

vs Shivappa

Rudrappa

Sutagatti ILR 1999 KAR 1354, 1999 (3) KarLJ 466The


Division Bench has clearly held that Form 7 cannot be
entertained if it is filed after the expiry of 30-6-1979.
Sakrappa vs State Of KarnatakaILR 1985 KAR 1833If it is
tenanted land immediately before 1-3-1974 but the tenant is not
in possession immediately before 1-3-1974, such land also vests
in the State Government, according to the decision of the Full
Bench of this Court.So, it is immaterial whether he makes an
application or not before 30-6-1979. This land also goes to the
State pool under Section 77.If he makes an application within
time but cannot be registered as an occupant of lands excluded
under Section 45(2), those lands go to the pool for disposal
under Section 77 and he is liable for eviction from such lands.

Cfzgg CAzg AvgAig


-7
Ai

CfAi

Qg.

gjzP

Az.

Uv
CfAi
EgU

Cz -1 gAv zszw E
gzw

PAiAiAi

jUtP

JA

z Cgz.
9. ZPj E zAiz ZPjzgg
zj zP v zszw E

Page 12 of 74

gzw

PAiAiAi

jUAnU

Cg:Jzgzgg Cf Ai zj
d UtzgV Ez Jvg. Dzg
itvz

Cfzgg

ZPj

E d JAz vg. F zAzPj


PAi Aiiz d Aiiz
JA U g E. Dzg 2 Jzgzgg
v

Pzgz

gz

JAi

Ut

iqwzAzU,

zAiP Ut gz s Cx
Ut

JAi

AzAi

iqwzAzU

Cz

Cg

P C. Cg P Pg Cg P
KAzg

Cg

iqgVzg

PjPgVzg

JA

vVgvz.

Cg

zgP

z
wAi

CA

PAi

Dzj

gzzg,

zzjAz

ZPj

sdAw

DUvz. PA 10(3)(J) (1) v (2) g


g

Ai

Ei C PAi CAi CfAi


AP

31-12-1979

CA

rzg

PQg

vz.

CfAi

g.

MU
Uv

DzgE

jwAi

Ai

EzjPAi

g zP v zszw E
gzw PAi 1955 g CAi EzjP
DzzjAz

Ai

Jzgzgg

CqVz.

Cg

Jgq

Utzgg?

Cg PA 6J PU v P w

Page 13 of 74

vgAi?.

Cg

gAP

AvAz

EgV qP Uzg Cg v
P PA 6J PU wwzg. F
PPAq

CAz

j PgVz.
A.C. Anantha Swamy And Another vs State Of Karnataka
And OthersILR 1998 KAR 3089, 1998 (5) KarLJ 480The
allied issue is the question as to whether Form No. 1 is condition
precedent for the Special Deputy Commissioner to exercise
jurisdiction. It is a familiar situation that often arises before
Courts and judicial forums, that even if the type of proceeding
instituted turns out to be erroneous that the Court has the power
to direct corrective action because it comes within the doctrine of
curability. It is in this background that I need to point out that as
far as the respondents are concerned, that they had filed the
requisite Form No. 7 and I also understand that it was filed within
the prescribed period. Had they filed Form No. 1 instead of filing
Form No. 7 at that point of time they would have still been within
time and having regard to the fact that they are now virtually
redirected to the correct forum it would only mean that it is a
corrective action and in this background, the non-filing of the
Form No. 1 will not in any way affect the validity of the
proceeding before the Special Deputy Commissioner. On the
contrary, Form No. 7 filed by the petitioners will have to be
deemed to be analogous to the Form No. 1 which they would
have otherwise filed had they gone to that authority in the first
instance. I need to clarify this aspect of the law because I do not
want a situation whereby obstacles will be raised in the way of
the decision of the case before the Special Deputy Commissioner
because this litigation has gone on for long enough and it is high
time that it is disposed of.

Jzgzgg
zsP

CfAi

zzw

PAiAirAi

jUtP

JAz

gzw

CfAi
zzg

Page 14 of 74

iv zj CfAi PwAi QzAv


Egvz.

Dzg zj Cf Azvz JA

z Az wv vV F
ZgP MVz.
10.

Aii

APz

Pgz

Ei

vVgvz

g zsP v zzw E
gzw

PAiAi

AiU JAz w i PlP


GZ

AiiAiz

AiigVz

geAi v Dg. w gg
rg F PPAq w Gzv U
i AiiAiz CUU gv.
Jgq

Jzgzgg

Av

Cg

z q EzggVgvg,
CjU

zj

PV

Avg

Ut

EzggAz

CAzAv

zgg

Ez

Pz

01-04-1959

EAz

CfAi

wzg,

CzQAv AZ Ez g Ei l
Am

AiUAi

UAnUV

CfAi wzg, Dzg D jwAi


Aiiz
U

qP

Ez

Avgz

Ezgg

Utzgg

QPAq

zgAiU rP g.
Shri Dharmarayaswamy Temple vs Chinnathayappa ILR
1990 KAR 4242 The former State of Mysore enacted the
Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inarns Abolition Act, 1955.
Under the provisions of the Act all religious inam lands stood
vested in the State Government with effect from 1-4-1959, on

Page 15 of 74

which date the Act came into force. The Act provided that after
the Inam tenure is abolished, and the lands are vested in the
State, occupancy rights in respect of erstwhile inam lands be
conferred in favour of persons who were Kadim tenants and
Permanent

tenants

under

Sections

and

of

the

Act

respectively. In respect of other tenants, other than Kadim


tenants and permanent tenants, Section 6 of the Act provided
that from the date of vesting the said tenants shall continue as
tenants under the Government in respect of the lands of which
they were the tenants under the Inamdar prior to the date of
vesting. Section 8 of the Act provided that except in respect of
the categories of lands specified in the said Section, the Inamdar
was entitled to be registered as an occupant of the lands which
stood vested in the Government consequent on the Abolition of
the Inam lands. ............... But the granting of occupancy right
could be only on the basis that the claimant had become a
tenant of such land of the Inamdar on and after the date of
vesting of the land in the Government under that Act and/or after
the grant of occupancy right to the Inamdar under the said 1955
Act; for, under Section 8 of that Act occupancy right could be and
would have been granted to an Inamdar only in respect of lands
which were not under cultivation of Kadim tenants or permanent
tenants who were entitled to occupancy right under Sections 4
and 5 thereof or in respect of which there were no other category
of tenants, who were entitled to continue as tenants under the
Government as provided in Section 6 of that Act. ........... Mysore
Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act, 1955 came into
force with effect from 1-4-1959. Under the provisions of the said
Act all the lands which had constituted religious Inams in the
State stood vested in the State Government. As stated earlier in
detail. Section 4 of the Act provided for conferment of occupancy
rights on certain categories of tenants called Kadim tenants.
Section 5 of the Act made provision for grant of occupancy rights
in respect of permanent tenants. Section 6 of the Act is of very
material importance to this case. It provided that every tenant,
other than tenants under Sections 4 and 5 who alone could claim
occupancy rights, would become tenants under the Government.
Section 8 of the Act provided for conferment of occupancy rights

Page 16 of 74

on the Inamdar only in respect of lands in respect of which there


were no tenants, falling under Section 4, Section 5 or Section 6.
Therefore, from these provisions, it is clear if any one was a
Kadim tenant of an erstwhile inam land belonging to a religious
Institution he was entitled to be registered as an occupant under
Section 4, and a permanent tenant of an erstwhile religious inam
land was entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section
5. Every tenant other than a Kadim tenant or a permanent tenant
was to continue as a tenant under the Government with effect
from the date of vesting. The Inamdar; in the present case the
petitioner-temple; was entitled to be registered as an occupant of
the land if only in respect of such lands there were no tenants
either falling under Section 4 or Section 5 or Section 6 of the
Act.

11.

AvgAig

CfAi PA 6J g zsP
v zzw E gzw PAi
CrAi

CA

v Jzgzgg g it
vz P Ai P Pv
vz.
v

Dzg

Cg

Utzgg

AvgAi

gzgg

JAz

Arwzg. KPPz Jgq v


z. zAiz P
iqv

Cz

jUAnU

Qgvz.

Zgu
PA
PA

CfAi

Utzgg

gj

Evg

Aii

Jzgzgg

Azg,
6J

PU

6J

CrAi

Cf

EgU

Eg.

UtzjPAiAi

g.

Jzgzgg

PAiAv, Cg PA 6J CrAi iv

Page 17 of 74

gvg. Cg E d PgP
qAiiz AP Az 3 U Az
zj

irgQgvz.
zRAi

Av
CAv

Jzgzgg

G
Aiiz
z

EgzjAz Avg g zRU


AAz F AiiAi wiP
gzVgvz. F U P CA
i Aiigz ge v
i Aiigz gP gg F
PPAq P gV jgvg.

M.N. Shivappa vs State Of Karnataka ILR 1986 KAR 2472,


1986 (2) KarLJ 146Bench: R Jois, Ramakrishna We have set
out the provision of Section 6A earlier. Clause (1) refers to
persons serving in the temples in the capacity of Archak/Pujari
and to persons holding similar offices which means persons
engaged in connection with the worshipping of the deity in the
temple. Clause (2) refers to persons serving in temples in any
capacity other than Archaks/Pujaries and the like. The Section
confers the eligibility for securing occupancy rights on both the
classes of servants if they had actually cultivated the lands for a
period of three years. A careful reading of the Section would
make it clear that the Clause "personally cultivating for a
continuous period of not less than three years prior to the date of
vesting" in Cause(ii) of Section 6A applies not only to the
categories of persons referred to in Clause (i) but also in Clause
(ii). Any other construction would lead to incongruous results. To
illustrate : If an Archak/Poojari referred to in Clause (i) is entitled
to occupancy rights in respect of erstwhile Inam land belonging
to a temple even though he was not cultivating the lands, the
following questions would arise. If any other person was actually
cultivating the land and further he happens to be either the
Kadim tenant or Protected tenant or Permanent tenant what
should happen to him? Should he be evicted and occupancy right
should be given to the Archak and then what is the extent of land

Page 18 of 74

in respect of which he can claim occupancy rights? Can he chum


occupancy rights in respect of all the extents of Inam lands
belonging to the religious institution concerned? The other
provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 4, 5 and 5A expressly
provide that the persons cultivating the erstwhile religious Inam
lands in those capacities are entitled to secure occupancy rights.
Certainly Section 6A is not intended to deprive the occupancy
rights in respect of the persons who have beers actually
cultivating the lands as protected tenant or permanent tenant or
kadim

tenant

and

Archak/Poojari,

confer

who

the

had

occupancy
never

rights

on

cultivated

the
the

lands. ............................ Therefore, we respectfully disagree with


the interpretation and hold that the Clause 'personally cultivating
for a period of not less than three years' in Clause (ii) of Section
6-A applied to both the categories viz., Archak/Poojari and other
temple servants.

12. U Utzgg JAz vg


Aii jwAi sgVzg:U 1 gPq Ds gm Ut
v t wPAi zrPv P
Czg GzjP PA g
v

wAi

gU

JA

UAi

zw

tAi

gvg. CzP Aa zRU


v wU Av s.
zj 1 A lz lP
vU

CA

jUt

PgVz. zj zRAi 1970-71 Az


1972-73 gU Ai JAz
AvgAi

JAz

UQgvz.
g

wgz

JQm

Dg-2

sdjPv

tAiiVgvz. Czg AvgAi


JA

CPg

ggz

Page 19 of 74

tz

gtU vz Czg sdAi


Pt gvz. Czg e CPAmAm JA
DAU

Ai

zz

PAljPv Vz 1968-69 jAz 1972-73


ggU

Cz

Ai

Qg

QAi P Eq JAz Ai Cz
VZP wAiAz eUzAi v
Az Prgvz. zj 1968 gAi
Ev

Jz

Prgvz.
vAiijP

AAiizAz

CAz

PAljPv

PAi

Eg

JA

irPQgvz.

jP
Azg JQm

Dg-3 jAz Dg-8 ggV Aiiz tAi


e CPAmAm g Eg.
Dzg Dg-9 g F zw gVgz
Ptgvz.

JQm

Dg-1

Uz Ez Jzgzgg 12-01-1982
gAi qgvg. Dzg FU AP 28-062008 g vgg PZj Ag 458/08-09
g

P.Z.

Ugd

JA

Jzgzgg

qzAv zRU PAzAi zR v


PZjAiAi
lP

sdj

PAqgwz.

DVgz
JQm

-1

zRAi AP 19-04-1986 g vgg


UAzgd JA F P AijU q
P DVgvz.

vU

F ZgV t
U

CP

AiiAUz

wU sz F P dgVg
CAv sdjPv tU Aii

Page 20 of 74

jwAi

jUtP

JAzP

iUzVgvz.
Vishwa Vijai Bharti vs Fakhrul Hasan & Ors AIR 1976 SC
1485 It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought,
generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should
not embark upon an appellate inquiry in to their correctness. But
the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not
forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is
real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness
of what the entry is the revenue record states but the entry is
open

to

the

attack

that

it

was

Made

fraudulently

or

surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal


effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.
Wall Mohammad (Deceased) By L.Rs vs Ram Surat & Ors
AIR 1989 SC 2296,If the entry is fictitious or is found to have
been made surrepti- tiously then it can have no legal effect as it
can be re- garded as no entry in law, but merely because the
entry is made incorrectly that would not lead to the conclusion
that it ceases to be an entry. It is possible that the said entry
may be set aside in appropriate proceedings.
Laxmappa Kakappa Nelagund vs The Land Tribunal And
Anr. ILR 2003 KAR 4096, 2003 (2) KarLJ 647 JUSTICE N.
PATILThe entries in the relevant record of rights for the
agricultural years 1970-71 to 1973-74, show the name of the
petitioner in cultivator's column and mode of cultivation is one.
The 'one' indicates that he is claiming as owner. Therefore,
entries found earlier in the record of rights has got no relevance
as held by this Court in the case cited above. In my considered
view, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for grant of occupancy
rights as tenant in respect of the land in question.
JUSTICE N. PATILGangappa Yamanappa Chalawadi vs The
State Of Karnataka

2008 (2) KarLJ 728

The said illegal

entry found in the record of rights cannot be accepted for the


reason that, mere entry in the record of rights will not entitle the
petitioner to claim occupancy rights even though there is a
presumption of correctness of entries appearing in the record of

Page 21 of 74

rights as per Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,


1964. The said entry must be made on the basis of the order
passed by the competent authority.

13.

gU

iqwg

qwg

Ut

UtzjP
r

zwAi

zU

PvAi

gV

i Pm F PPAqAv
Utzg gV w Ewz.
PAi . 1 g
g

1968-69

wAi

Az,

zwAi

Egvz

AiUg
zj
JAz

v
U

zU

Pg Ut zgAz gdv
rvz.

1973-74

01-03-1973

g gAUvz, 1974-75
01-03-1974

gAUvz,

Utzg P AgQ n 0103-1974 v CzQAv AZ Aiig


g

UtzgAz

zVgz Dv jU P
jP ( ) zAv PA
44

45

PlP

szgu

PAi 1961 g gPuU gvz.


U

Ai

JAz

AvgAi JAz wzVz JAz


zR

gdv

rgvg.

v A QUAz Q dg
rgvg.

Jzgzgg

gzV

Pzg

EzP
dg

Page 22 of 74

rQgvz. Jzgzgg dg
rg .Dg.2 g t sdjPv
U

gzjAz

lP

PAqA

Jzgzgg

APU

Cz QAi dg r, Dzg
U Eg Qzgg dgr
zj

APU

gP

Cz

gdvrPAi

sgVzg.

GRzg
v

Cg

Pg

EgU

jwAi

gQg

vj

AP

P
JAz

01-03-1974

vUzPPz

wjP PAz v gQ

UUzg.S.

Venkatappa

vs

Narayanappa & Ors (2001) 4 SCC 705;In support of his claim


Appellant had relied upon R.T.C. record of rights and tenancy and
Pahani for the concerned area. This showed that from 1965 to
1970 the Appellant was cultivating the land as "Wara" i.e. a
tenant. This record also showed Muniyamma as self cultivator for
the years 1970-71. It could not be disputed that no enquiry, as
contemplated under the Act, had taken place before such a
change was made in the records. The record again shows in
1973-74 and 1974-75 the name of the Appellant but as a
"Swantha", i.e. a cultivator. Apart from these the Appellant gave
oral

evidence

of

his

own

tenancy

firstly

under

one

Sri

Narayanappa, who was the owner before Muniyamma, then


under Muniyamma and thereafter under Munivenkate Gowda.
Munivenkate Gowda also gave evidence. He confirmed that the
Appellant was a tenant under him and had been paying him rent
by giving a share in the crop. The Appellant and Munivenkate
Gowda proved certain rent receipts for the period 1972 to 1975.
Munivenkate Gowda accepted the fact that he had received the
rent and that he had issued those rent receipts. Thus the

Page 23 of 74

Revenue Records showed that the Appellant as a tenant from


1965 to 1970. Thereafter, the Revenue Records showed during
the years 1972 to 1974 the name of the Appellant as a self
cultivator. Admitted that entry would be wrong because during
this period Munivenkate Gowda was the owner of the land. The
entries show the presence of the Appellant on the land as a
tenant

upto

1970.

The

evidence

of

Munivenkate

Gowda

establishes that the Appellant was a tenant till 1975. On the


above evidence, oral and documentary both the Land Tribunal as
well as the Appellate Authority had, on the material before them,
held that the Appellant was a tenant of the land on the appointed
day i.e. 1st March, 1974. The Orders of the Land Tribunal and the
first Appellate Court are restored. By supreme court.

14.

Aii

ZgU

jP, jz, RqAiV


jP,
P
Cz

ZgU

jP

JAz

Ezg

Pzgz

Ezg

jP

JA

AiiAizUP
AiAi

vg

DAU

CA

PU gv.Even otherwise, Illustration (e) of


Section 114 of the Evidence Act provides for a presumption that
every action of Statutory Authority is carried out in accordance
with the law. The expressions "may presume" and "shall
presume" are defined in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). The presumptions falling
under the former category are compendiously known as "factual
presumptions" or "discretionary presumptions" and those falling
under

the

latter

as

"legal

presumptions"

or

"compulsory

presumptions". Unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled


or

rebutted

the

Court

can

treat

the

presumption

as

tantamounting to proof. However, as a caution of prudence we


have to observe that it may be unsafe to use that presumption to

Page 24 of 74

draw yet; another discretionary presumption unless there is a


statutory compulsion. In Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 1977 SC 183, the Hon'ble Apex
Court observed that the presumption provided in Illustration (3)
of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is based on well-known maxim
of law "omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta" (i.e. all acts are
presumed to have been rightly and regularly done). The Court
further held that this presumption is, however, one of the fact. It
is an optional presumption and can be displaced by the
circumstances, indicating that the power lodged in an authority
or official has not been exercised in accordance with law.

15.

zU

PAz

wjPvAi

gdvrUz
Pzgv

CzP

lz

Ai

dg

PvAi

tAi

vjzg,

PzggU
zg

zRAi

Czg

sgVgvg.

Ai

vP

sdjU

vgQgvz.
sdjAi

Jzgzgg

gvA

ZgU gvAz v Ut
P gdv rgvg.Karewwa
And Ors. vs Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri AIR 2002 SC
504 (2002) 10 SCC 315 We do not dispute the legal position as
stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, but the
presumption of correctness of an entry in revenue record cannot
be rebutted by a statement in the written statement. Mere
statement of fact in the written statement is not a rebuttal of
presumption of correctness of an entry in the revenue record.
The respondent was recorded as a tenant in the revenue record
in the year 1973 and under law the presumption is that the entry

Page 25 of 74

is correct. It was for the appellant to rebut the presumption by


leading evidence. The appellant has not led any evidence to
show that entry in the revenue record is Incorrect. We, therefore,
do not find any merit in the contention.

16.

Jzgzgg

SAiA

Utzgg C Utzgg C JAz


P
vg
zzw
PA

CA

vz

g
E

2(12)

Cz

zP

gzw

PAi

jv

sgVzg

1955

Jzgzgg

UtzjPAi g JAz EzjAz


vUvz.Mysore (Religious and Charitable)
Inams Abolition Act, 1955. Section 2(12) "Permanent tenant"
means a person who either under Section 79 of the [Land
Revenue Code] { Now see the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964 (Act 12 of 1964). }or otherwise is entitled to a tenancy in
respect of any land used for agricultural purposes, the duration
of which is co-extensive with the duration of the tenure of the
inamdar; but, where the inamdar is an institution of religious
worship shall not include a person rendering religious service in
or maintaining the institution as a pujari, archak or the holder of
a similar office, and enjoying the benefits of any land comprised
in the inam of such institution, without paying rent as such in
money or in kind to that institution in respect of such land;

17.

iV

ifP

EA

jwAi

CA

Utzgg

Aiiz Tv Pgg Ag
JA

PvAi

PAiAiAi
szgu
PAi

1888

Egvz.

PAi,

EU

Avgz
PAzAi

Utzg,

SAiA

Utzg, UtzgU Eg gPu U

Page 26 of 74

g
CAU

PPAq

AiiAiz

CUU z.
LAND REVENUE CODE 1888
SECTION 79. Amount of rent payable by tenant.
A person placed, as tenant, in possession of land by another, or,
in that capacity, holding, taking or retaining possession of land
permissively from or by sufferance of another, shall be regarded
as holding the same at the rent, or for the services, agreed upon
between them; or, in the absence of satisfactory evidence of
such agreement of the rent payable or services renderable by
the usage of the locality, or, if there be no such agreement or
usage, shall be presumed to hold at such rent as, having regard
to all the circumstances of the case, shall be just and reasonable.
And, where, by reason of the antiquity of a tenancy, no
satisfactory evidence of its commencement is forthcoming, and
there is not any such evidence of the period of its intended
duration, if any, agreed upon between the landlord and tenant,
or those under whom they respectively claim title, or any usage
of the locality as the duration of such tenancy, it shall, as against
the immediate landlord of the tenant, be presumed to be coextensive with the duration of the tenure of such landlord and of
those who derive title under him.
Explanation.
In the following cases, such a presumption shall be raised.
(1) where the tenant has been recognised as a permanent tenant
by the landlord or by a Court in a suit to which the landlord was a
party;
(2) where a tenant holds land in respect of which any alienation
has been recognised by the landlord or by a Court in a suit to
which the landlord was a party or where the alienation has not
been contested by the landlord for twelve years from the date of
the service of notice of alienation to the landlord;
(3) where for the better cultivation of the holding the tenant has
made permanent improvements thereon to the knowledge of the
landlord and has been in undisturbed possession of the holding

Page 27 of 74

continuously for twelve years thereafter: provided that the


landlord has made no contribution for such improvements nor
recovered enhanced rent from the tenant nor given any notice in
writing to the tenant that such improvements would not create
any new rights;
(4) where, in the absence of a contract regarding the nature and
duration of the tenancy, the tenant has established that he has
been in continuous possession on payment of fixed rent for a
period of twelve
And where there is no satisfactory evidence of the capacity in
which a person in possession of land in respect of which he
renders service or pays rent to the landlord, receives, holds or
retains possession of the same, it shall be presumed that he is in
possession as tenant.
Nothing contained in this section shall affect the right of the
landlord (if he have the same either by virtue of agreement,
usage or otherwise) to enhance the rent payable, or services
renderable, by the tenant, or to evict the tenant for non-payment
of the rent or non-rendition of the services, either respectively
originally fixed or duly enhanced as aforesaid.

18. szgu P v
j

zzw

zP

gzw

PAiAi

szgu P C Czg
PA

44

qU

45

01-03-1974

gAv

Zgu

vjR

DVgvz.
Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955
Section 30. Enquiries by the Tribunal and the Deputy
Commissioner.(1) In respect of every enquiry under this Act by the Tribunal, the
provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 applicable to
enquiries by the Tribunals under the said Act shall mutatis
mutandis apply

Page 28 of 74

The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, came into force on 2-101965. The Act was in execution of the policy of agrarian reforms
and was intended to give ownership of the land to the actual
lawful

tiller

and

to

avoid

absentee

landlordism.

Certain

revolutionary amendments were made to the provisions of the


Act by Act No. 1/1974, which came into force w.e.f. 1-3-1974. The
Land Reforms Act so amended is relevant for the purpose of this
case. According to the Land Reforms Act as amended, all
agricultural lands which were under cultivation by the tenants as
on the appointed date i.e. as on 1-3-1974 stand vested in the
State Government under Section 44 of the Act, Section 45 of the
Act provided for registering the tenants as occupants of the
agricultural lands of which they were the tenants.
Section 2(34) of the Land Reforms Act defined the word
'tenant' reads:"2(34) 'tenant' means an Agriculturist (who cultivates personally
the land he holds on lease) from a landlord and includes, (i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 4;
(ii) a person who was protected from eviction from any land by
the Karnataka Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act,
1961;
(iia) a person who cultivates personally any land on lease under
a lease created contrary to the provisions of Section 5 and before
the date of commencement of the Amendment Act;
(iii) a person who is a permanent tenant; and
(iv) a person who is a protected tenant.
"Section 2(34) of Land Reforms Act 'tenant' means an
Agriculturist (who cultivates personally the land he holds on
lease) from a landlord and includes, (i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 4;
(ii) a person who was protected from eviction from any land by
the Karnataka Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act,
1961;
(iia) a person who cultivates personally any land on lease under
a lease created contrary to the provisions of Section 5 and before
the date of commencement of the Amendment Act;

Page 29 of 74

(iii) a person who is a permanent tenant; and


(iv) a person who is a protected tenant.
Section 2 (23) of Land Reforms act permanent tenant of
the Land Reforms Act means a tenant who cultivates land
personally,
(a) the commencement or duration of whose tenancy cannot
satisfactorily be proved by reason of antiquity of such tenancy;
or
(b) whose name or the name of whose predecessor-in-title has
been entered in the record of rights or in any public record or in
any other revenue record as a permanent tenant; or
(c) who by custom, agreement or the decree or order of a court
holds the land on lease permanently; or
(d) who holds land as mulgenidar, mirasdar or khata kul; and
includes any person whose tenancy is under the provisions of
any law presumed to be co-extensive with the duration of the
tenure of the landlord;
Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act reads:"4. Persons to be deemed tenants:- A person lawfully
cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be
deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally
by the owner and if such person is not (a) a member of the owner's family, or
(b) a servant or a hired labourer on wages payable in cash or
kind but not in crop share cultivating the land under the personal
supervision of the owner or any member of the owner's family, or
(c) a mortgagee in possession:
Provided that if upon an application made by the owner within
one year from the appointed day (i) the Tribunal declares that such person is not a tenant and its
decision is not reversed on appeal, or
(ii) the Tribunal refuses to make such declaration but its decision
is reversed on appeal, such person shall not be deemed to be a
tenant."

Page 30 of 74

Section 2(11) of the Land Reforms Act defines "to


cultivate personally" as follows :
Cultivate land on one's own account
i) By one's own labour, or
ii) by the labour of any member of one's family, or
iii) by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or
kind but not in crop share, under the personal supervision of one
self or by member of one's family.".
ARGUMENTS
Preamble to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act would show
that the said Act has been enacted to have uniform law relating
to agrarian. Confirmation of ownership on tenant, ceiling of land
holding and for certain other matters. Interpretation has to be in
favour of the weaker sections of the society which would achieve
the object in terms of the intentment of the legislation.
'Agriculture' has been defined so also 'agricultural labourer' in
the Act. 'Tenant' has been defined to mean an agriculturist who
cultivates personally the land he holds on lease from a landlord,
and 'Agriculturist' has defined to mean a person who cultivates
land personally. .. From a reading of the definitions

agriculture, agriculturist and tenant, what is clear to


this parties is that the land has to be given to its actual
cultivator in terms of the Act. In the light of the
evidence of the both the parties

and in the light of

revenue records, it cannot be said on the facts of this


case that the 'tenant' is not an agriculturist in terms of
the definition in the case on hand.

Crop-share is one

mode of tenancy in agricultural operation.


In ascertaining the status of a person as tenant, the mode of
cultivation as shown in the Act becomes very relevant. There are
in all, six modes, viz.
(i) cultivated by holder himself,
(ii) cultivated by hired labourer;
(iii) tenant paying cash;
(iv) share of crop;

Page 31 of 74

(v) fixed quantity of produce and


(vi) proximity of aforesaid forms.
It is true that burden of proving tenancy is upon the person who
asserts it or who claims it. Tenancy means relationship of
landlord and tenant but in view of the peculiar and special
provisions of Section 2(18) and Section 4, a person in possession
may have no relation with the landlord in a given case but he,
nevertheless, be called as tenant. The provisions show that a
person who is merely in possession, lawfully of course, is also a
tenant.
Definition of "tenant" is divided into two parts - one contractual
and the other statutory or who can be described for brevity's
sake "deemed tenants". It could very well be visualised from the
aforesaid provisions that "deemed tenant" or a statutory tenant
means a person who lawfully cultivates any land belonging to
another person if such person is not a member of the owner's
family or a servant on wages payable in cash or kind but not in
share or a hired labour cultivating the land under the personal
supervision of the owner or any member of the owner's family or
a mortgagee in possession. Section 4, therefore, far from
defining a statutory tenant, raises a presumption of statutory
tenancy in the circumstances provided therein. A presumption
can be rebutted by showing not necessarily the exceptions
provided in the section itself but by other circumstances also by
showing that the person holding the land is not so holding in the
capacity of a tenant but in some other position.
The concept of "tenant" in the Tenancy Act is founded primarily
on "land" and its "cultivation". The process of thinking embodied
in Section 4 is primarily based on the "land" and its lawful
cultivation and not merely cultivation. The cultivation must have
its origin in some lawful act and that is why the section describes
and not defines a deemed tenant, as one who is "lawfully
cultivating any land belonging to another" that is to say, so
cultivating any land in his own right and not on behalf of another.
The expression "lawfully cultivating" would mean the same thing

Page 32 of 74

as cultivating "on one's own account" and for "one's own profit",
in part or in full. The underlying purport and design behind
Section 4 is to protect a lawful cultivator actively engaged in the
act of raising the crops on the land or its major part though he
may not be holding the land on lease in a traditional sense of the
terms. The expression "lawfully cultivating" is now very well
settled. It cannot exist without the concomitant existence of
lawful relationship which can be proved even without the formal
proof of a traditional form of lease.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, (Vth Edition 1964) defines


'agriculturist' at page 26 under the term 'agriculture' as follows;
"Cultivation of the soil. Hence agricultural, agriculturist." In other
words the meaning to' be attached to the term 'agriculturist' is
the person who cultivates the soil.
The term has been legally defined under the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act to mean a person who cultivates land personally.
'To cultivate' with Its grammatical variations and cognate
expressions means to till or husband the land for the purpose of
raising or improving agricultural produce whether by manual
labour or by means of cattle or machinery, or to carry on any
agricultural operation thereon; and the expression 'uncultivated'
shall be construed correspondingly.

19.

iTP

UtzjPAi

Mvz,
P

Mmg
qAi

Gzg
v

z Ez:Section 2(34) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964


reads thus:
""Tenant" means a lessee, whether holding under an instrument
or an oral agreement and includes.(i) a person who is or is deemed to be a tenant under any law for
the time being in force;
(ii) a mortgagee of a tenant's rights with possession, or

Page 33 of 74

(iii) a lessee holding directly under the State Government or a


local authority or body corporate".
It is in this context that a liberal interpretation is called for
keeping in mind the socio-economic thrust. In this background, it
must be remembered that liberal interpretation in keeping with
socio-economic thrust would be to allow a cultivator to prove his
status alternatively by resorting to the provision of Section 4
where he is unable to prove a lease in term of Section 105 of the
Transfer of Property Act. A person who is sharing crop cannot be
said to be mere holder of settlement of service. A provision is
required to be interpreted to subserve the purpose of the Act in
the factual background in a given case. It is a settled proposition
of law that interpretation should be benevolent. A person,
lawfully, cultivating any land belonging to another person would
be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated
personally by the owner and if such person is not a member of
the owner's family or mortgagee in possession or servant on
wages payable in cash or kind but not in share of hired labourer
under the personal supervision of the owner. It could very well be
seen from the provisions of Section 4 that person cultivating the
land and wages are paid in cash or kind but not in crop share is
excluded from the definition of Section 4. If a person who is,
personally, cultivating the land even in capacity of servant and
who receives crop share, may be in part, could be said to have
been covered by the definition of "deemed tenant" under Section
4.

20.

sUU

jwAi
01-03-1974

UtAi
Pz

vjR DVgvz.
Justices V Malimath, K J Shetty, &P Bopanna in Ballesha
Rama Khot And Ors. vs The Land Tribunal, Chikodi AIR
1978 Kant 73 Section 44(1). That Section commences with the
words "All lands held by or in the possession of tenants stand
transferred to and vest in the State Government." It provides that
the lands not only in the actual possession of tenants but also

Page 34 of 74

those held by them immediately prior to first March, 1974, shall


vest in the State Government. The land held by a tenant may not
be in his actual possession. The words "To hold land" although
not defined under the Act, but we can take their meaning from
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as Section 2(B) of the Act
provides that words and expressions used, but not defined shall
have the meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act. Under Section 2(11) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 the expression "to hold land" or to be "a land
owner or holder of land" to mean "to be in lawful possession of
land whether such possession is actual or not". It is clear from
this definition that the expression "all lands held" used in Section
44(1) has to be understood as meaning thereby, the lands is
lawful possession of a tenant, whether such possession is actual
or not. Therefore, even if the land was not in actual possession of
the tenant immediately prior to first March, 1974, if it was a
tenanted land, it vests in the State Government. That the land
cannot be registered in favour of the tenant who was not in
actual possession immediately prior to first March, 1974, is not
relevant for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether
the land stands vested in the State Government under Section
44 of the Act.
In Nagappa Devanna's case, 1978 (1) KLJ 70 a Division
Bench of Karnataka High Court consisting of Govinda Bhat, C. J.
and Lal; J. examining the very precise question expressed thus : "
.... So, what is relevant for the purpose of the Act and
determination of the Tribunal is whether the lands in respect of
which proceedings are taken under Chapter-Ill, were tenanted
lands

being

cultivated personally

by the

alleged

tenants

immediately prior to 1-3-1974. If the land or lands were tenanted


lands, to which Section 44 is attracted, such lands vest in the
State Government on 1-3-1974. Section 45 provides that the land
or lands which have vested in the State Government under
Section 44 shall be registered in the name of the tenant as
occupant of the land provided that person was cultivating the
land personally immediately prior to the date of vesting viz., 1-31974. If there was any dispossession after 1-3-1974 by the

Page 35 of 74

landlord or by the main tenant or a sub-tenant, it is wholly


immaterial and will not affect the right of the tenant personally
cultivating the land immediately prior to 1-3-1974. Therefore,
even assuming that the statement of the appellant was Correctly
recorded by the Tribunal his application could not have been
rejected on the ground that he had ceased to cultivate the land
immediately prior to 10-8-1974."

21.

UtzgjU

iqU
qVv

ZPj

Adg

EzgjU

JAz

P
JAz

vg F PPAq Pn w
CA

AiiAiz

UP vgVz:Smt. Reddivara Naramma ... vs State Of Karnataka And


Others

ILR 2000 KAR 2303, 2000 (4) KarLJ 524 The Land

Tribunal is also bound to consider the application either for


granting or for rejecting the occupancy in respect of such lands.
Particularly, in these type of cases, keeping in abeyance of the
applications of the tenants or rejecting Form No. 7 on the ground
that the lands in question have not been regranted in favour of
the holders of the Village Office, virtually defeats the very
purpose of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. In the light of
the foregoing reasons, it is immaterial whether the lands in
question were regranted or not in favour of the holders of the
Village Office and that a duty is cast on the Land Tribunal to
consider such applications of the tenants who are actually
cultivating the lands as on 1-3-1974 and the tenants are entitled
for registration of occupancy rights as provided under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is too much to expect to
keep the applications pending for years together waiting till the
lands are re-granted in favour of the holders of the Village Office.
Assuming for a while that if the lands were not regranted in
favour of the holders of the Village Office, then ultimately it leads
that the tenants cannot seek for grant of occupancy which view
cannot be supported.

Page 36 of 74

22.

Ut

jwAi

EgU

P
Aiig

PUtg:CAz 1952 jAz ejAiz UtzjPAi


gPu P -1 v Dg-2
g, 1968-69 v 1969-70 t
GRz Eg g v wAi
UAi zw gU JA zRAz
Cz Ut jwAi Ez 1968
v

CzQAv

CAi

zj

gg

Az

Ez

g
dAz

Ut

v
gU

P
wAi
P

Aiiz Dz DVg v CAv


t

zuU

DzVg.

CA

zPArgzz

j
CAv

zUU P Aii v
E

JAz

vg

AiiAiz

UP F PPAq P CAU
vgVz.
Lakshminarayana Hariyachar vs Divisional Commissioner
ILR 1986 KAR 532 Bench: Puttaswamy, J Mahendra J The
Tenancy Act enacted in 1952 to regulate the relationship of
landlords and tenants of agricultural lands, impose restrictions on
the transfer of agricultural lands and incidental provisions came
into force at any rate from 1-1-1954 in the entire old Mysore
area. From this very brief survey, it is apparent that agricultural
tenancies in old Mysore area even where they had their origin in
contracts were regulated by the 1952 Act. The Act seriously
interfered with the rights of landlords in collecting agreed rents,
forfeiting tenancies, interfering with the cultivation of tenants
and dispossessing them except under and in accordance with the
provisions made therein. . The Mysore Tenancy Act,

Page 37 of 74

1952 was not a temporary measure. But, still the State with the
avowed object of safeguarding possession of tenants and
preventing their evictions before enacting comprehensive Land
Reforms

legislation

(Amendment
(Karnataka

and
Act

first

enacted

Continuance
16

of

1957)

of

the

Mysore

Tenancies)

prohibited

Tenancy

Act,

evictions

1957
and

dispossession of tenants till the period specified in Section 4 of


that Act, which was extended till 30-6-1966 by Acts 17 of 1959, 4
of 1961, 33 of 1961 and 12 of 1963 enacted from time to time.
We will hereafter refer to these Acts as the 1957 Act Section
142(1A) of the LR Act introduced by Act No. 14 of 1965 protects
those

tenants

protected

by 1957

Act

from

eviction

and

dispossession except in accordance with that Act.Before the


expiry of the period stipulated in the 1957 Act, the State enacted
the LR Act as Act No. 10 of 1962. The LR Act came into force
from 2-10-1965 (vide S.O. No. 3166 dated 13-9-1965). The LR
Act, a uniform law was enacted to regulate agrarian relations,
conferment of ownership on tenants, ceiling on land holdings and
for other matters incidental to those objects..
Section 4 of the LR Act is a virtual reproduction of Section 4 of
the 1952 Act Section 5 of the LR Act prohibits the creation of new
tenancies from the appointed day except those that are
permitted. Section 14 of the LR Act provides for resumption of
lands by landlords in the specified circumstances.
Section 22 of the LR Act providing for two more grounds for
eviction of tenants is a virtual reproduction of Section 15 of the
1952 Act. .. Section 14 of the original Act providing for
resumptions by landlords for bona fide and other specified
purposes was omitted from 1-3-1974.
Smt. Bakulabai vs Shidaraya AIR 1973 Mys 134, (1973) 1
MysLJ,

H.B. Datar, J. In order to appreciate the respective

contentions raised by the parties in this revision petition, it would


be necessary to refer briefly to certain provisions of the Mysore
Land Reforms Act. Section 14 (1) of the Act entitles the landlord
to make an application for resumption of land from the tenants.
On the application being filed, the court is required to direct an
enquiry and "determine the land or lands" which the landlord will

Page 38 of 74

be entitled to resume, and shall issue a certificate to the landlord


to the effect that the land or lands specified in such certificate
have been reserved for resumption and thereupon the right to
resume possession shall be exercisable only in respect of the
lands specified in such certificate and shall not extend to any
other land.
Basavanneppa Sangappa vs Rajasaheb Mahammadahnif
Saheb AIR 1964 Kant 43, AIR 1964 Mys 43 Mysore Tenants
(Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act 1961 which came into
force on December 30, 1961. Section 3 of that Act prohibits the
eviction of a tenant notwithstanding anything contained in any
law, decree or order of a civil or revenue Court or of a Tribunal
during the period that temporary Act remains in force. . If
the law which the State Legislature has made within its own
legislative field forbids the eviction of a tenant for however
temporary a period, it would, I think, be futile for any landlord
during that period to ask us to make an order for that eviction
which is temporarily banned by legislation. To take an order for
eviction in that situation would he to authorise something which
a landlord is forbidden from doing so, and it is clear that our
jurisdiction should not be exercised in that way.
Supreme Court reported in case of State of Karnataka and
Anr. v. Uppegouda and Ors. 1997( 3 )SCC 593wherein it has
been held that "The object of Tenancy Act is to protect the
tenants to remain in possession and enjoy it subject to
compliance of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Contracted
tenancy comes to an end and statutory tenancy sets in operation
and so he would be liable for ejectment only on proved grounds
of statutory contravention, the entries of revenue records are
self-serving. There was no order of a competent authority of
eviction of tenant for contravention of the above-mentioned
grounds. The proviso, though enables a landlord to obtain
possession on surrender, it must be proved strictly, as several
devices would be used to circumvent the beneficial provision and
illiteracy and ignorance of the tenant would be taken advantage
of. It is easy to have the entries made with the assistance of
patwari who had exclusive custody of the records. There is no

Page 39 of 74

proof of eviction of the tenant. The stand taken by the landholder


is not supported by legal setting".
P.G. Eshwarappa vs.M.Rudrappa & Ors.1996( 6 )SCC 96
held that ejection ofa tenant under a decree obtained prior to
the coming intoforce of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
had come intoforce was illegal and that he was entitled to
restitution ofthe possession
It was heldthat on

illegally taken

away from him.

the date when the Act had come into

force and thetenant was found to be in possession of the


land byoperation of sub-section (1) of Section 22, with a nonobstante clause, the tenant shall not

be

evicted

from

theland held by him except on the grounds enumerated in


clauses(a) to (e) of Section 22.

The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961,

came into force on 2-10-1965. The

object of the said Act, inter alia, is to terminate the relationship of landlord and
tenant and to confer ownership rights on the tenants. Landlords are prohibited
from evicting their tenants. Section 25 provides for surrender of lands held by a
tenant. In Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi Heggadthi And Anr ILR 1975
KAR 739 it is observed that: By Section 25 a bar was imposed against surrender
of any land held by a tenant without the previous permission in writing of the
'court'. The Court can grant permission after making enquiry if it is satisfied that
the proposed surrender is bona fide and the land surrendered does not exceed the
extent of land which the landlord could have resumed from his tenant under
Section 14. The section further barred the landlords from entering upon the land
surrendered by their tenants without the previous permission in writing obtained
from the Court. Thus there is a prohibition against surrender of any land by a
tenant and a further prohibition against the landlord from entering upon the land
surrendered by the tenant, without the previous permission in writing of the
Court.
In Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi Heggadthi And Anr ILR 1975 KAR
739 it is observed that: The possession of the suit lands in the eye of law always
remained with the tenants. The entry of defendant 1 on the suit lands is prohibited
by Section 25(1) of the Act. That prohibition is an injunction against landlords not
to enter upon the lands held by tenants without the previous permission in writing

Page 40 of 74

of the Court. Each entry by defendant 1 upon the suit lands constitutes an act of
trespass and a clear invasion of the legal rights of the plaintiffs. When the
plaintiffs have shown that they have a legal right and that legal right is invaded by
the unlawful acts of the defendants, they are entitled to the relief of injunction at
the hands of the Civil Court.

23. E PAiAi JzgzgjAz


vV CxPVz:E JAzg K?, zj PAiAi AiijU
gPu

qVz?

vP

qg

EzgjU d P E. JA J
CAU v CxPVz. 2
wU

vP

qAiwzg

JA

CA MAz wAi vg.


v

vB

Mvg.
E

Jgq

zsP

gzw

wU

PAi

PA

zszw
19(1)

UVz.
The Government shall pay to the inamdar every year so long as
the institution exists as compensation for all the rights of the
inamdar vesting in the State of Karnataka under this Act [the
basic annual sum as a Tasdik allowance]. {Substituted for the
words "an amount equal to the amount that would have been
payable to a religious or charitable institution under clause (iii) of
the second proviso to Section 51 of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 10 of 1962) as if the inamdar were a
land holder and his rights in the inam lands had become
extinguished and vested in the State Government under Section
44 of the said Act" by Act No. 18 of 1985 and shall be deemed to
have come into force w.e.f. 1-5-1984. }

Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice A.K. Patnaik in the


Supreme Court of India in case of S. Nagaraj (dead) by
LRs. Vs B.R. Vasudeva Murthy & Ors. Disposing of the
appeals, the Court on February 08, 2010 , Reported in

Page 41 of 74

(2010) 3 SCC 353

The findings of the Division Bench of the

High Court in the judgment dated 15.9.1998 in the Writ Appeal


that the order dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government
sanctioning the grant of land in favour of the Sangha was valid
and that the Inamdars were only entitled to the price payable for
the land when their claims for registration under Sections 9 and
10 of the Inam Abolition Act were allowed and that the Inamdars
have waived their right of occupation in the land by entering into
the agreement dated 1.11.1980 and by accepting the price of
Rs.10,000/- per acre deposited by the Sangha and the additional
amount paid by the Sangha were binding not only on the legal
representatives of the Inamdars and the Sangha but also on the
State Government.

The Revenue Minister, Government of

Karnataka, while considering the application of the Inamdars,


ignored the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court in
the judgment dated 15.9.1998 and took the view in his order
dated 22.12.2003 that on the competent authority granting
occupancy right to the Inamdars by the order dated 23.6.1982,
the Inamdars had become the rightful owners of the land and
action would have to be taken to cancel the grant made in favour
of the Sangha.

The Judgement of Division Bench of the High

Court had not been disturbed by this Court in SLP and the
Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, could not have
taken a view that on the confirmation of the occupancy rights of
the Inamdars, the grant of the land made in favour of the Sangha
was liable to be cancelled.

E JAzg K JA U JzgzgjU
Cj r F PV g
dgAii
iAi
Az
GTVz.
A Inam is a grant by Government for the personal benefit of an
individual or individuals or for religious, charitable or other
purposes, or for service rendered to the State or to a Village
community. Lands so granted are held free of assessment, or
subject to a Jodi (light assessment) or quit-rent. According to the
Land Revenue Code the term "inam" or "alienation of land"

Page 42 of 74

means the assignment, in favour of an individual or individuals or


of a religious or a charitable institution, wholly or partially, of the
right of Government to levy land revenue.

Ez Cz Ei PAiAi U gu
Eg AiiAUz wU
i AiiAiz CUU
qVz:Sri Muniyellappa vs B.M. Krishnamurthy And Ors.

AIR

1977 Kant 137, ILR 1977 KAR 700, 1977 (1) KarLJ 389 The
Inams Abolition Act as stated earlier, was enacted for the
purpose of abolition of Inam tenures and conversion of such
tenures

into

Ryotwari

tenure

and in

that

Process,

grant

occupancy rights to the Inamdars and the three classes of


tenants. The purpose of the Land Reforms Act, however, is
different. It is a legislation enacted to effectuate radical agrarian
reforms by imposing ceiling of land-holdings and termination of
landlord and tenant relationship in respect of tenanted lands and
further conferment of occupancy rights on tenants personally
cultivating the lands. In our opinion, the dispute between
the parties is not one arising out of agrarian relations. The scope
of the Act is limited to questions arising out of agrarian relations.
A person, whose possession of agricultural lands does not rest on
agrarian relations, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Land
Tribunal under S. 45 of the Land Reforms Act. Since the
appellant, on the basis of his own Pleadings before this Court,
does

not

base

his

rights

founded

on

agrarian

relations.

.while pronouncing on the scope and applicability


of the Act in respect of agricultural lands in former inam villages,
observed: "Agricultural lands in former Inam villages are not
excluded from the purview of the Land Reforms Act. The
consequence vesting of inam lands in the State under the Inams
Abolition Act is that the lands absolutely vested in the State and
all rights of inamdar and tenants under him are extinguished and
the only right of the inamdar and his tenants, whether Kadim
tenant, permanent tenant or quasi - permanent tenant, is to
make applications for grant of occupancy. The State thereafter
when it grants occupancy under Sections 4, 5 and 6 or 9 of the

Page 43 of 74

Inams Abolitions Act, confers fresh title on the grantees of


occupancy. All prior rights are extinguished, except as provided
under Section 9A, where under in the case of other tenants they
are entitled to continue as tenants of the lands of which they
were tenants immediately before the date of vesting."
B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr
1969 AIR 453, 1969 SCR (3) 1 The impugned Act provides for
the acquisition of rights of inamdars in inam estates and it is
intended to abolish 'all intermediate holders and to establish
direct relationship between the Government and occupants of
land in Inam villages in respect of which notifications had been
issued. The legislation was undertaken as a part of agrarian
reform which the Mysore State Legislature proposed to bring
about in the State. Therefore, the impugned Act is a law
providing for the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any
rights therein or for the extinguishment or modification of such
rights as contemplated by Art. 31A and hence, the impugned Act
is protected from attack in any court on the ground that it
contravenes Art. 31(2).
In State of Haryana and others v. M.P. Mohla [(2007) 1
SCC 457]

Court has held: The dispute between the parties has

to be decided in accordance with law. What, however, cannot be


denied or disputed is that a dispute between the parties once
adjudicated must reach its logical conclusion.

The law on the subject is clearly laid down in The Full Bench of
Karnataka High Court in SRI RANGACHAR v. STATE OF
MYSORE, 1966(1) Mys.LJ. 655, which is further quoted in
Judgement of Doddamma vs Muniyamma ILR 2005 KAR 568 by
Justice V.G. Sabhahit

Section 3 of the Inams Abolition Act

enumerates the consequences of vesting of an Inam in the State


of publication of a notification under Sub-section(4) of Section 1
of the Act in the Mysore Gazette. All rights, title and interest
vested in the Inamdar cease and stand vested absolutely in the
State Government, free from all encumbrances..
Sections 4 and 5 respectively confer rights on the Kadim tenants

Page 44 of 74

and permanent tenants to be registered as occupants. Sections 7


and 8 provide for the recognition of the rights of holders of minor
inams and for their registration. Section 9 specifies the kinds of
lands and buildings to which the inamdar is entitled to be
registered as occupant. Section 9A confers an identical right on
the tenants of the inamdar other than the tenants entitled to be
registered as occupants under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act.
Section 10 deals with the determination of claims under Sections
4,5,6,7,8,9 and 9A and lays down..A tenant found
to be in possession of any land on the first day of July, 1948, shall
be presumed to be a quasi-permanent tenant, unless the
Inamdar

proves that such tenant is not a quasi-permanent

tenant as defined in Clause(14) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2


Doddamma vs Muniyamma ILR 2005 KAR 568 by Justice V.G.
Sabhahit observed that It is clear from the above said provisions
of the Inams Abolition Act and the provisions of the Land Reforms
Act that so far as the rights of the tenants are concerned, the
provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act are similar to the
provisions of the Inams Abolition Act though the provisions may
not be similar in respect of the owners of the lands under
Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Inam holders and inamdars
under the Inams Abolition Act. However, so far as the tenants are
concerned, the effect of the above said proceedings is that from
the appointed date, the relationship of the landlord and tenant
ceases and the property vests with the Government and the
tenant is entitled to conferment of occupancy right as per the
provisions of the Inams Abolition Act.

24. vS v U dg
v:AP 31-12-1986 g Cf q AZ
U

Pgz

MAz

Eg

Aig

vgjU

gAU

(:21-11-1983

QAv

AZ) CfAi r Sv zuAi


Pjgvg.

CzgAv

Pgt

AS

Page 45 of 74

Dg.Dg.n.

10/1983-84

JAz

AzPAq

MAz Jzgzgg Rqv F P 11

gAv

dg

qAizP

rVz.
Pgtz

Pgt

PAzAi

vS

PjU g g Cfzgg Pl P
v U dg -6,7,8 gAv
Uwz.

zj P v dg

PlP s PAzAi Ai 41 g U
vu

PAzAi
tU

Ai

jPPg

CqVg

Pvz

AiiVz,

EzP

DzAv
P

vgvz. CzQAv AZ g
CfU

aV

rz

gAUVgv.

PlP szgu Ai 24(1) gAi


qgzz

CfAi

PjU

vAi

vSAi

qg
dg

vgvz.

PAzAi

ZgV

A Pn w CA i
AiiAiz UP vgVz.
Mohan Balaku Patil & Ors. vs Krishnoji Bhaurao Hundre
AIR 1999 SC 1114, JT 1999 (1) SC 183, 1999 (1) SCALE 191
When in fact the Tribunal made local enquiry by spot inspection
and had come to the conclusion that the appellants were in
possession that factor should have weighed with the appellate
authority, particularly in the face of the admission made by the
respondent that the appellants had constructed the building on
the land and were paying charges in respect of the electric pump
set used for irrigating the land and ought to have held that the
appellants were cultivating the land. In addition, the land in
question was shown not to be cultivated by the respondent as
the respondent was residing nowhere the land but at a far away

Page 46 of 74

place and that the land was not cultivated personally by the
owner and the persons cultivating the land were not members of
their family nor there was any evidence that the appellants were
servants or hired labourers on wages and ought to have on that
basis held the appellants as deemed tenant in respect of the
land. The presumption arising under Section 133 of the Act in
respect of the entries made in the record of rights stood
displaced by the finding of fact recorded that the appellants were
in actual possession of the land and were cultivating the same. In
the face of such an admission made by the respondent it is
difficult to accept the finding recorded by the appellate authority
as affirmed by the High Court that in view of the entries made in
the record of rights the appellants could not be stated to be in
possession of the land on the relevant date nor was cultivating
the same.

25. vAi U Aiig gdv


rP; Cxv q Ds s
Aiig z:

Ez

PAzAi

EgU

ES

jv

JAz
zR,

vg,

gQ

JAAv

Eg Jzgzgg i, v DUAi
MPP.

Aiig

qg

CfU
U

AZAivg P v U
dg z PzgVz.
z

JAz

gdv

rz

Jzgzgg q DVgvz JAz vg


F PPAq AiiAUz w CA
i AiiAiz UP vgVz.

SUPREME

COURT

IN

NARASAMMA

VS

STATE

OF

KARNATAKA (2009) Taking into consideration the findings of

Page 47 of 74

fact on the question of possession arrived at by the High Court as


well as the Land Tribunal that the appellants were in cultivatory
possession of the land in dispute and considering the admission
made by the landlord/respondent in earlier recovery proceedings
relating to arrears of rent that the appellants were tenants in
respect of the land in dispute 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, it is conclusively established 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
continuous possession of the land in dispute and the nature of
cultivation was gutha (rent) and further, in the absence of any
material produced by the respondent to show that in fact the
appellants were not tenants in respect of the land in dispute, the
appellants had acquired occupancy right in respect of the land in
dispute. .. 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. 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, there is no ground to reject the
claim of the appellants for conferring status of occupancy right
holder in respect of the land in dispute. 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.

. 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 for recording their names as occupancy right holders
in respect of the land in dispute shall stand allowed.

Justice G G Bhat in Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi


Heggadthi And Anr. ILR 1975 KAR 739, 1974 (2) KarLJ
484The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter called

Page 48 of 74

the Act) came into force on 2-10-1965. The object of the said Act,
inter alia, is to terminate the relationship of landlord and tenant
and to confer ownership rights on the tenants. Landlords are
prohibited from evicting their tenants. Section 14 of the Act
permitted resumption subject to the terms and conditions laid
down therein. Section 14 has now been deleted by the Karnataka
Amendment Act No. 1 of 1974. Section 25 provides for surrender
of lands held by a tenant. The said section, before it was
amended by Karnataka Amendment Act No. 1 of 1974 read
thus:"25 Surrender of land by tenant:--(1) No tenant shall
surrender any land held by him as such, and no landlord shall
enter upon the land surrendered by the tenant, without the
previous permission in writing of the court.(2) Permission under
Sub-section (1) shall be granted if, after making such inquiry as
may be prescribed, the court is satisfied that the proposed
surrender is bona fide and the land surrendered does not exceed
the extent of land which landlord could have resumed from his
tenant under Section 14; in other cases, the permission shall be
refused....."By Section 25 a bar was imposed against surrender of
any land held by a tenant without the previous permission in
writing of the 'court'. The Court can grant permission after
making enquiry if it is satisfied that the proposed surrender is
bona fide and the land surrendered does not exceed the extent
of land which the landlord could have resumed from his tenant
under Section 14. The section further barred the landlords from
entering upon the land surrendered by their tenants without the
previous permission in writing obtained from the Court. Thus
there is a prohibition against surrender of any land by a tenant
and a further prohibition against the landlord from entering upon
the land surrendered by the tenant, without the previous
permission in writing of the Court.
Justice G G Bhat in Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi
Heggadthi And Anr. ILR 1975 KAR 739, 1974 (2) KarLJ
484When Govinda Naika and Badiya Naika were admittedly the
tenants of the suit lands up to 1971 when the Act was in force
and there has been no sur-render by them under Section 25
which alone can be taken cognisance of by the Courts, the Court

Page 49 of 74

below should have drawn the legal presumption that their


possession has continued. In order to obtain the relief of
injunction it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to produce
documents showing that their possession continued even after
1971. The possession of the suit lands in the eye of law always
remained with the tenants. The entry of defendant 1 on the suit
lands is prohibited by Section 25(1) of the Act. That prohibition is
an injunction against landlords not to enter upon the lands held
by tenants without the previous permission in writing of the
Court. Each entry by defendant 1 upon the suit lands constitutes
an act of trespass and a clear invasion of the legal rights of the
plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs have shown that they have a legal
right and that legal right is invaded by the unlawful acts of the
defendants, they are entitled to the relief of injunction at the
hands of the Civil Court.
Justice

Chandrashekhar,

Justice

Bopanna

in

Puttegowda v. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1980 Kant


102, ILR 1980 KAR 160, 1980 (1) KarLJ 281 wherein it was
held that.-"Mere permission to surrender without delivery of
possession by the tenant does not put an end to the relationship
of landlord and tenant. Delivery of possession by the tenant to
the landlord and his acceptance of possession are essential to
effect the surrender. Where it was not proved that the tenant had
delivered possession of the land notwithstanding grant of
permission to surrender, but was found to be in possession even
after the grant of permission to surrender, held that he continued
to be a tenant and was entitled to grant of occupancy right".
Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar,

Vasantha Nanasaheb

Pawar And Ors. vs Piraji Pandu Patil ILR 2006 KAR 2061,
2006 (3) KarLJ 172 In support of his case, the tenant has
examined two independent neighbouring witnesses apart from
examining himself. Both the said witnesses have deposed in
categorical terms that 1st respondent herein is cultivating the
property in question as tenant. Though they are cross-examined
by the landlords, nothing worth is elicited in their crossexamination so as to discard their evidence, Thus, the evidence

Page 50 of 74

of the neighbouring witnesses fully supports the case of the


tenant 1st respondent herein. .. Merely
because the revenue entries stand in the name of the petitioners
would not mean that there is no relationship of landlords and
tenant between the parties. The revenue entries do not take
away

the

established

case

of

the

1^st

respondent

The

presumption arising out of the revenue records stand rebutted in


view of consistent, cogent and clinching evidence relating to the
1st respondent's possession over the property in question as a
tenant.. No neighbouring land holders are examined
by the land lords on their behalf. The said admissions by BW-1
would amply make it clear that they are absentee land owners
and that they have never cultivated the land In question.
Justice H Narayan,

Hanumanthappa Gonappa Talwar vs

The Special Deputy Commissioner 1998 (1) KarLJ 683

It is

now settled by the ruling of these decisions that whether an


application of the tenant filed in Form 7 is rejected or whether an
order of the Tribunal holding that a particular applicant is not a
tenant, it is the duty of the Tribunal to give a finding whether the
particular land is a tenanted land or not as on the date of coming
into force of the Act, that is the legally vesting and that
determines the nature of the land.

26. U P gdv r
i
AiiAiz
DAi
PAi U v Czg v:
A
1

Aig P
gAU g
1. zj d
ig
50-55
UAz
U
irPAq Agv.
2. CzP AZ
vAzAigz
gg
U
irPAq gwzg.
3. zU vAz
Ai
jU

g v

Jzgzgg v
n
Jzgzgg
ZPj
EAzggAz, Cg
AiijU
d
gP
rg
JAz
iw
gAi
vg
B.
tAi
1968-69
v 1969-70 g
tAi

Page 51 of 74

g
Pl
d
U
iqwzg.
Aig
wjz
Avg
Cg
Uz
AvgAijU

gPl
d
U
irPAq Agv.

g
v
wAi
Aiig
JAz jg.
CAv
g
v
wAi
g
Ez
Cg
gzgg
PgvAz
P
Prg.

4.Aig
UP
zz
Uz
Ai
iqwzzjAz
dU
CjU
qVv.

Cz

tAi
Gzgg PA
g ``g U'' JA
ZgP
Jzgzgg
Aiiz
g
5. Ag 13 rg.
gAi

Pn
PAq
Jzgzgg
E
iqwz.
g
gAUg
6. zj d z vAzAi
C
Aig
Jvg.
Dzg
Pz
UAzgd Jzgzgg
JAg
2
JPg
15 n
UAm
.....
U AzszAi
iqwzg.
``
vAz
gg
7.

Ai Ag 13 g U
v APl Eg irg
U

zj AjAi zRU
PnPAq
dgr
iqwzg.
Jz jAi.''
JA
AiAU
8. F Ag tAi Gvg
qz

vAzAigz U APz
g v U
Jzgzgg
igz
wAi v
Eg
gU
A Ai
gvz.
rgvg.
9.
AvgAig
jU t gz D
Aiz
U
Aiiz
n
rg.
n
1.

gg
Ag
13
g
irg
U
zRU

Av
U
iqwzg
Jvg gv D
U
Aii
zRAi
dg
r
v
zRAi
vAz GRU QU
vj.
U
1968-69

tAi
Eg

Page 52 of 74

dgr
jAi.

Jz g
Cx
wAi
Jzgzgg
2. Jg Pg
JA
U
Av
U JAi
GR
iqwzg
v Cx
Cg
z
CjU
Pg C.
Pqwg Jz
.
QAi
P
v
3. Ai v AU
AvgAi
MP
v
Jg
zz CAU
P
iqv gPgu
PV
d
G zAzPjAiiVz
iqwzg
EgzjAz QAi
Jz .
iwAi
Mzz
4. 1968-69 g tAi CAVgvz.
g
g
Jg vAz
C Jz jAi.

UAzgd

Ai
1. F d FU
vvPAz
ig
80-90
UAz
CsPAq
gwz.

U Utzgg
JA
CAzAi
P
AzjAiwz.
Dzg n
U
Aiiz
ZPj ir JA U
Vz.

2.
ig
30-40
UAz Ag 13
g

PnPAq
U iqwz.

Jzgzgg
ZPj
Ezgg
DVzg JA U
v
w
Aig
3. 1968-69 U Ai.
U 69-70 UU
vvz g Dzg
U
U
wAig Utzgg C JA
jU F dU AA UAi
zj
zAv t Egvz. Jzgzgg
g JAg n
zn
vAzU
Egvz.
Dzg
igVgvg.
JAi Jzgzgg
zR v U
4.
zRAi F PV
AvgAig
CAUU P
jU t Ai g rg.
zu
iq
Azz

vAz 1. 1968-69 v 1969AiU


70
g
g
Aiiz
n v
wAi
rg.
gg
g
vUzP

Page 53 of 74

5. HrUg PAzAi
vSPjU F dU
n
r
Ug
P
dg
irgvg.

P
jv
QAi
irg
U
Jzgzgg
gu E.

2.
szgu
PAi ejAiiz AP
Az
Utzgg
gPgz
JA
Azzg
CzP
P
QAi
P
rzg
Cz
GAiVPAq
zj
z
vUAiVz
JA
2. Jgq wAiiz gu E.
AvgAig

zz 3.
PlP
s
z
PAzAi PAi PA
iqwzg
128 v 129 Cj
Jz
j.
zj t
z
Jgq
w
wj wzr iqVz JA
Vz Cg Avg U
Jzgzgg
Uz
Ugd z C g
JAg
z C.
iqwzg Jz
j.
4.
zAiz
PUgjU
vP
3. zj Ugd gjU v
vg gg vP qz
sv
qwzg n
Jz
v.
vAz MPvg.
AvgAijU vP
v

Ez qzg
ZPj
qwzg Jz E
d
j.
DzAiz
4.
zj qwz
AvgAig
fzgP
zV

z jg qVz JA
irPAq Ag 13 CA
gv
g
UAi v
Utzg
iqwzg
JAz
Ezg
Jz .
Cf
gz
DP
ZgVgvz.
n:1.

vAzAiiz
AigU
gAU
v
APlgU
zj
UP
zz
Aiiz
ZPj
irg
Jz j.

QAi
P
v
AU
MP
v
CAU
gPgu
PV
zAzPjAiiVz
EgzjAz QAi
iwAi

Page 54 of 74

Mzz
CAVgvz.

aP wP Ggs
l PA
Ai
1. vB
ijU zj
d iq
JAg
rzg.

gP
rzg
JAz
Q
zg
Pq
n
Ez
CU
v
AvgAi
rg
JAz
iv Jzgzgg
vg.

2. z Ai Cz
U
jU ig
qwzg.

QAi
P
v
AU
MP
v
CAU
3.
dU gPgu
PV
gAzjAz
Ut zAzPjAiiVz
qz
EgzjAz QAi
gv.
ivAi
Mzz
4.

nAz CAVgvz.
Ai
P
irPAq Agv.
n
1.
AvgAi
Aiiz
Azsz
gAU,
Ai,
APl (Pg) m
Dzsgz rg
JAz jAi.

UAUgAUAi
g
1. FU z Ai
g w aPwP
v
gAU
JAg
U
iqwgvg.

QAi
P
v
AU
MP
v
CAU
gPgu
PV
zAzPjAiiVz
EgzjAz QAi
2. Ai wjPAq iwAi
ig
v Mzz
UV.
CAVgvz.
3.
gAU
v
Aig
U
wP
AzVAz
Cg
U

v
d
dzgg
QAiiVz
Q
Aig
CUAi
U

Page 55 of 74

iqwgvg.
4.

wP
jwAi
F
dU
gAUg
vAz
Aig vAz
APlg
vAz
U iqwzg.

a
vPj
CA
v
n
Jzgzgg
gPqg.

5.
F
dU
A
PAqAv
Eg
PUz

dgv,

U
iqwg
d dz d
sUzgv.
6.
w
AvgAi g
PnAU

qwzg.
7.
dz
d
Ai CzU
gAU,
Ai
v
APl
g
z
Ai CzU
AvgAijU
Pqwzg. Czg
Az Cg vAzAijU
Pqwzg.
n:1.
gAU
APl
v
Aig vAz
ig 25 U
Az
wzgAz
j
Egv.
2.
zj
d
AvgAi
CAvg
Cg
w
U v Cg
P
U
iqwzg
JAz
jAi.

27. wU PAi Cg
CvvAi qPAi vg

Page 56 of 74

wU
P
HfvAz
vg PU g:A PU g

Aii
v

gvz
Jzgzgg
v
P.Z. Ugd
ZPj
Ezgg
AvgAi
JAz
MPvg.
1.

vv
Aig
E
jfg
PvAzz
Eg JPP
dg
UP
r.
zAiz z
rwzg
v vP qz
zP
AAzl s P
d Ag 13, 5-15 Cg
JA
UAm v Ag Zg
Cg
192 g 2-01 UAm U PAz
iqwzg.
gzVgv
z.
2.
F
zAiz
ZPj
irzP
qVg Aig
vP
jfg
U
JPmP

22 iqwzg
gAv UgwVz.
JAzP zR E.
3.

vvgz
Aig .
A. 13 g 5-15 UAm .
A. 192 g 2-01 UAm
U
iqwzgAzP
zRU
dg
rgv.
FU
wz
zj
zRU dg
rg.
4. JQm Dg-2 68-69 , 6970
g,
wAi
Cg
g
U
iqwzgAz
zVz JAz j.

Q
v
P
v
P
U
P
q
znAi
zAz

zvg. M
dg
rz
Egz
dgrg
Jvg
E
dg
r
Jvg.

g
v
wAi
JAg
g
t
z
Mvg.
Cz
5.
Dzg
tAi Aii
jwAi
gU
vV vUgvg
JA
U QUjAz gu E.
z vz Avg Cz
jrVz.
F t
z
Ai

vU C Q
guAz
JAz Mvg.
gv.

Page 57 of 74

6. zj vV tAi
z gU U
GsUPjUg
Az
C
Qg
.
7. s Dz
Cz
eUz
Pz
Png t
Ez.
D
Ai
t
U Uw v
Ai EAU Cv
ir. 1994 g FVg
Ai
PnPArgv.

v
PAi
v d 1994
g

PnPArg
Jvg. D jwAi
qP m
DUvz Jz
gAivg.
Ai
g
w
JAz
Cg
PAi ZgP
CPz
qPAi
vjgvg.

PvAz
8. F Ai 1994 g m

JAz
Pnz
1954
g Jzgzgg
Aig
Mvg.
Pnz

JAz
Vgvz.
MmgAiiV
QAig
8. FU F Ai PAi
znAi
Aig CPvAz
Pg
Prz,
v
PnPwzgAz
PU n
jAi Cz Pn eU
v
Pwz.
Eg.
v
PAi
Jgq
9. F dU JAz v

vAzAigU zvg.
Cx
vvgU
PAzAi Pn JAz
jAi. F PgtPV
2007-08 2008-09 P PAzAi
Pn gw dg rVz
JAz jAi.
10. v
v Ct vAg
PvAzz
m

Ai

iqwgz
vgvz. vAz
.A.
13
gAi
zg.
11.
P
zRU

F
sAii
m GAz
F
CfAi
Vz
JAz jAi.
12.

Pz

vvg
Ai

Page 58 of 74

iqwzg
JA
U
zPU
EAi
JA
U
zRwU
Eg
JAz

CAiVgvz.
F
Azsz
zPU
Eg
JAzjAz
zPU dg r.

28. wAi R

vgAz
qP g:A PU
g
1

AP

ZgUAi
vg
Cg

wjP

P g

vgvz
wAi

g
q
zgVz
g
JAz
vUv
z.
Eg
Pzg
APU
AiUzz
Az
gdvUv
z.

25-05- AP

06-06-

g 2008

2011
n

Dqg

P.Z.

Pg

Ugdgg

PjU

gAv gAv

g
``

``PAiz

vz

Pgg

v.

MAz

irPnz

Azv

Az

Pgg

Vgvz

irPArg

. zj d z

dAz

Czg

qz

AiiAiP

PVgv

UzVAi

gz

Ez zg.''

PAiz
Pgg
MAz
zj

PAi

vP

Page 59 of 74

PlA
zg

irgz

JA

Ai
irzVgvz
. F zRAi

JAz

zVg

JAz

j.''
2

AP

22-07-

2011

P P

g ml

AvgAi

P.Z.

Ugd gg gzgg
PAiAv `` Pgs
Pgq

gAi

JQP

AU

JA

g
m

wAi

g
q
zgVz
g
JAz
vUv
z.
Eg
Pzg
APU
AiUzz
Az
gdvUv
z.

PvAz

(PjP vPg

CAUr)

JAz

qwz

zVgv

Az

z.

Vgvz
.
3

AP 22- Eg
R
07-2011
g Zgu P
AP
14-03n
v
n
2011 g v

v
PAiAi
RZgu

v
itvz
Ct vUz
v E
3 lz vAg
PvAzz
zg
P.Z.
m
EgzV
Ai

Ugd
iqwg
gg
z
Aivz
vgvz. Csg

Page 60 of 74

vAz .
A.13
g
`` Ag 13 zg.
Uvg.
g
U
z
v

Pg
P,

PjU
QPAq
Vgv
.

zj

d
P

ZrAz
z

Al

vv

2001-02

tAi

DVgz
V
UZjvz
.
Eg
Pzg
APU
AiUzz
Az
gdvUv
z.

Dg.10 g
zVz D
Aiz

vAzAig
fAvVg
.

Ai

Pngvg.
Czg
U

EzU

Aw

qAiv
.

29. U dg irg P
R zRU gz v
A
1

zR g

v
U
v
v g(rU) U
1968-69 jAz 1972zwAi
U
73 g t .1
iqwz U gdv
rvz. zj tAi
``Ai'' JA eUz
``Ai'' CPg ``0'' ``v''
JAz w ``gAi'' JAz 197071
v
1971-72
g
jgz
lP
V
UZjvz.

Page 61 of 74

1972-73 g Ai CzjwAi

zz
jwAi
w
gvg.
2

vPg

U dg CPvV

vg gg qz
Aij
U

vUvz.

gg

v
3

Ezg P Pg,
zg
U
PAzAi
vS
Aig
Pj g g PvAz
Uz

Ag
13
g
EAw
P
d t gP
Cf
Png

vPg
vg
gg PA Ag Dg.Dg.n.
(Ai) 482/81-82 v 13-01-1982
g
CA
Uz
AZAig P N
gvg. zj d
Pzg
PzAi U
z
Eg
U
v Czg g U
PAiiVgvz.
F
zRAi
RzzVz
g
CAU
vUvz.
1. U Df rzg
JAz
2. F U w
U Ev JAz.
3.
Ai
aP
wAi
g
Az
t Ev JAz.
4. Cfzgg ig 50
Az
U
iqwzg.
5. t z MU
Ez zVz
z jwAiAi
Ez v rvz.
PAzAi
vS
Pj g g
dg

05-05-1983
dg

jwAiAi

Ez v rvz.

Page 62 of 74

z
jwAiAi
Ez
v
16-07-1985
g
rvz.
Dzg
Ez
P
PAzAi APl
v
gAUg
vAi
vSPj
g
U gdv rvz
g

Dg.Dg.n

10/83-84

tAi
g

Pl

Ai CfU U
Zgu

Dqg

m vPg
vgg

1983-84
gAi
t
z
irPqAv
CAzg
jUAm
UV
vg
AiiAiz
P qz CtVg
U
vUvz.

U
CfAi
P
jwAi P PU P
P
P
dgVz l x
P gt ir UtzgjU
Airgz
vUvz.

P
8

Ez F Pgtz g
dg DVz Cz U
ig
1999
vAi
Jw
QAv
AZ vgvz.
U

QUg

PAzAi

vSPjU
g

gg

dg
9

U
vAi
j g rgvg.

U
PAiPjU
rz

CfAi

gU
vg gg
PlP
PAiP
AzPjU
g

vz

Cfzgg

Ag 13 g
z

Eg

Page 63 of 74

U iwAi
AP

07-09-2010

g rgvg.
10

PAiPjU

j g rgvg.

rz

vAi

CfAi

gU
vPg
GsU
PjU gg
PlP
PAiP
AzPjU
g

vz

Cfzgg

Ag 13 g
z

Eg

U iwAi
AP

04-09-2010

g rgvg.
11

vPg

zj Dzz UVz

AiiAi

(Q. ``Under these circumstances no

).
145/1984

N.J. purpose will be served by keeping


g this suit pending just to entertain

2 Jzgzgg one or another I.A.'s which are


z e Dz U basically without any merits, No
P.

question of right, title or interest is


involved in this case.''

F g

Az Jzgzgg Q U
i AiiAi F
zgP

Az

UAi

wvz.

Jzgzgg

xV

ml

UV

twzg
12

PlP

N.J.

145/1984

Page 64 of 74

GZAiiAi
z

.Dg.

zAvg

A. w

1381

eU
Jw

rz

jAz vgvz.

1383 /1996 g 2
Jzgzgg e
Dz j Cf.
13

14

15

vPg
vP
sAi Aq Pgt
PlP
AS
L.J.J(Ai.J.Dg.JA)
GZAiiAi 150+150J/1979-80 g zAP
g
Dz
z P A. jm 06-01-1982
UAUtg 305168/1982
g 12-1983
gAi
e
ir
Dz
Dzz
i
PnAz
q
zRU
gvg.

U d vU
gPuAi
Dz
r,
PlP
vPg
vP
GZAiiAi sAi Aq Pgt
L.J.J
(Ai.J.Dg.JA)
z P A. jm AS
150+150J/1979-80 g zAP
15303/1985 g 06-01-1982
g
Dz
zAvg
Dzz
Dzz
vqrz AP 04-08-1986
zRU
g Cm m U
Uu irgvz.

PlP

vPg

GZAiiAi

z P A. jm Ag
8686/1991

vgg

r,

g vPg

CfU

Pgt
vP

Dzz

sAi Aq Pgt

zRU

AS

L.J.J(Ai.J.Dg.JA)

150+150J/1979-80 g zAP
06-01-1982 g DzzAv
DVz JAz zU Qg
jm Cf EzVgvz. F CfAi
Pg

-1

Qgz zgvz

Page 65 of 74

v DVAzU PAzAi C
PjU UU vAzg
Pl U vUvz.
zj

30-08-1993

DzzAv

g
U

Qg CfAi P
jv

iq

DzVgvz.
16

PlP

vPg

GZAiiAi

sAi

vP

z P A. jm Pgz zAvg Dzz


28178/91

17

g gz Qg jm CfAi

Dzz

Pgt

zRU

APlg

PlP
GZAiiAi

gAU

v
gV

DzVgvz.
Dg wAU
wiAv AP 01-091998 g DzVgvz

z P A. jm
23971-973/1998
g

Dzz

zRU
18

19

vgg
v
g
P
PlP
Azzg
P
GZAiiAi PAzAi CPjU ev
g
z
P
A. v
evAi
2
Q
jm JzgzggAU V
QAi
2646/2004
g Q
GAiVgz P
Dzz
g
JAz
Jzgzgg
qPAi Jw vjz.
zRU
2
Jzgzgg

QAiAi
eUgvz
PlP

GZAiiAi

P PAzAi

z P A. jm ev

Azzg
CPjU
g

A. 17365/2007 g evAi V Q

Page 66 of 74

Dzz

QAi

zRU

GAiVgz P
g

JAz

Jzgzgg

qPAi Jw vjz.
2

Jzgzgg

QAiAi
eUgvz.
21

sAi
Aq

sAi

AqAi

P Pgt

A.

1997

ggU

L.J.J qz P gtV

Ai.J.Dg.JA.

150 AVg

+ 150(J) /79-80 g vUvz.


Dqg m

30. wU dg irg P
R zRU gz v
A

zR

g
1

Ut CfAi Utzgg Evg


Aii
d
Azg
JAz
Dg-1
w.
Ut Cf
Ut
CfAi
Utzgg
Jvg, Dzg v PAi
ZPj
Ezgg
Jvg.
zAz .

Dg-2 JQm

Dg-2

sdjPv tAiiVgvz.
Czg AvgAi JA CPg
g
v

ggz
tz

v gtU vz Czg
sdjAi Pt gvz.
Czg e CPAmAm JA DAU
Ai

zz

PAljPv Vz 1968-69 jAz


1972-73

ggU

Cz

Page 67 of 74

Ai

Qg

QAi

wAiAz eUzAi v
Az Prgvz. zj 1968
gAi

Ev

Jz

AAiizAz

Prgvz.

Azg JQm Dg-2 jAz Dg-8


ggV
e

Aiiz

CPAmAm

tAi

Eg. Dzg Dg-9 g F zw


gVgz Ptgvz.
3

Dg-3 1974-75

jAz

1975-76

AvgAi JA g 1976-77

Az

AvgAi

JAz

zUvz,

ESAii

Ez PAzAi

Pq

Egz vUvz.
Evg
4

Evg
zRU
Mmg

Aiiz

Jzgzgg

zRwU

wAig

gzgg

JAz vg.
1968-69 v 1969-70 g t
GRUU

zAz

Csz
s,

zR
Pgt

Jzgzgg

Cg

JAz Eg.
AzgU
gPuAi

Utzgg
P

GAX

PjU

ev

zPz

EgU

PAzAi

Sv

Cgz

Cz

CjU Aiiz P sg
.

Page 68 of 74

31. t U z iqP JA
P GAX 2 Jzgzgg
v g tAi Aiiz
m CAVPgz Dzz 197172

Az

wzzgAU

zPArgz PAzAi ES ev
Vgz
Uvz.
vz

lP
F

Czg

AiiAiU
JAz

vg

CAU

P
U

gv

PPAq

AiiAiz

UP vgVz.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act Section 128 (4) : Acquisition of
rights to be reported: 4. No document by virtue of which any
person acquires a right in any land as holder, occupant, owner,
mortgage, landlord or tenant or assignee of the rent or revenue
thereunder, shall be registered under the Indian Registration Act,
1908 unless the person liable to pay the registering authority
such fees as may be prescribed for making the necessary entries
in the record of rights and registers referred to in Section 129;
and, on the registration of such a document, the registering
authority shall make a report of the right to the prescribed
officer.
Section 129 (2) Whenever a prescribed officer makes as entry in
the Register of Mutations, he shall at the same time post up a
complete copy of the entry in a conspicuous place in the chavadi
and shall give written intimation to all persons appearing from
the Record of Rights or Register of Mutations to be interested in
the mutation, and to any other person whom he has reason to
believe to be interested therein.

Page 69 of 74

Section 129 (6) Entries in the Register of Mutations shall be


tested and if found correct or after correction, as the case may
be, shall be certified by such officer as may be prescribed.
Section 129 (7) The transfer of entries from the Register of
Mutations to the Record of Rights shall be effected in the
prescribed manner, provided that any entry in the Register of
Mutations shall not be transferred to the Record of Rights until
such entry has been duly certified.

Justice R Jois, Justice Ramakrishna in


Niranjana

Sri

Murugharajendra

Srimanmaharaja

Bruhan

Mutt

of

Chitradurga vs Deputy Commissioner ILR 1986 KAR 1059,


1986 (1) KarLJ 373 Chapter XI of the Act,(Karnataka Land
Revenue Act)

which regulates the making of the entry in the

Record of Rights. Section 127 of the Act deals with the


preparation of record of rights according to the prescribed
procedure. According to Sub-section (3) of Section 127 of the Act,
the record of rights so prepared and completed in respect of any
village is required to be published in the Official Gazette in such
manner as may be prescribed. In other words, this provision
relates to the preparation of record of rights in the first instance
under the provisions of the Act. Section 128 of the Act provides
for reporting of the acquisition of rights in respect of lands
covered by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, whenever any
person acquires the right to any landed property for which the
Act applies from its original owner by lease, mortgage, gift,
purchase etc., the said Section provides for reporting of such
acquisition of rights and for receiving it by the authority specified
on payment of prescribed fee. Section 129 prescribes the
procedure for registration of mutations reported under Section
128. Sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the Act provides for
making an entry in the register of mutations of every report
made to him under the provisions of Section 128 of the Act. Subsection (2) of Section 129 of the Act provides for publication of a
copy of the entry so made as also for giving written intimation to
all persons interested, as disclosed in the revenue records. If

Page 70 of 74

there were to be any objections,, Sub-section (3) requires the


prescribed officer to enter the particulars of the objection in the
register of disputed cases. Sub-section (4) of Section 129 of the
Act empowers the prescribed authority to decide the disputes
following the procedure as prescribed under Sub section (5).
Subsection (6) of Section 129 of the Act provides for making an
entry and certifying the entry relating to mutations in accordance
with the order made after such inquiry. Sub-section (7) of Section
129 provides for transfer of certified entries made in the register
of mutations to the record of rights. Section 135 of the Act bars
the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of an order made
under any of the provisions of the Chapter against the
Government. The proviso under the said provision, however,
provides that a person aggrieved by any entry made in any
record or register may institute a suit against any person denying
or interested in denying his title to such right and also provides
that the entries in the record of right shall be amended in
accordance with any declaration granted by the Civil Court.
Justice H.V.G. Ramesh, in Mahadevappa And Ors. vs State
Of Karnataka ILR 2008 KAR 1750 It is high time to intimate
the Revenue Department and the concerned Department to
meticulously follow the procedure as provided under Section 128
& 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and also it should be
made mandatory as a matter of responsibility on the part of the
Government to save the public from the precarious situation and
also there shall be timely action by the revenue authorities
without there being any delay on their part in making entries in
the mutation register and other registers in the revenue office
and in the Corporation/Municipality in city limits to avoid future
complications. . Government Pleader to communicate this
order to the Government and the Government in turn shall direct
Secretary to Revenue Department to circulate this order in the
department to follow the procedure as provided under Section
128 & 129 of the Land Revenue Act for due compliance and
taking follow up action. For such non-compliance by the
concerned Revenue Authorities, the Department shall prescribe
some norms to initiate action.

Page 71 of 74

Bhimappa Channappa Kapali ... vs Bhimappa Satyappa


Kamagouda ILR 2002 KAR 3055, 2003 (2) KarLJ 148 Bench
Justice N Jain, Justice N Kumar, The entry in the RTC is made
during the pendency of the legal proceedings initiated by
Shivawwa for cancellation of the gift deed and more so it is on
the basis of a collusive vardhi, as such the said entry would not
give rise to any presumption. That apart she submitted that
before an entry is made in the RTC in the name of the deceased
appellant, the procedure prescribed in law under Sections 128
and 129 of the Land Revenue Act has not been followed, as such
no presumption would arise under Section 133 of the said Act
Any person who does not lawfully enter on the land of another
and cultivate the same cannot claim the status of a deemed
tenant under Section 4 of the Act. Though, in the case of Dahya
Lala, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held it is not the
condition that the applicant must cultivate land with the consent
or under the authority derived directly from the owner, to import
such a condition is to rewrite the section, and destroy its
practical utility, a person who derives his right to cultivate land
from the owners would normally be a contractual tenant and he
will obviously not be a "deemed tenant". Persons such as
licensees from the owner may certainly be regarded as falling
within the class of persons lawfully cultivating the land belonging
to others, but it cannot be assumed therefrom that they are the
only persons who are covered by the section. A tenant lawfully
inducted by a mortgagee shall on redemption of the mortgage be
deemed to be

a tenant under the mortgagor."Lawfully

cultivating" must have some foundation in a legal right to


cultivate the property. Lawful cultivation cannot Be established
without concomitant existence of a lawful relationship. Lawful
cultivation must have origin in a legal right to cultivate the
property. In the absence of any such right to cultivate, it cannot
be said that merely because a person is cultivating the land he is
held to be in lawful cultivation. A person who cultivates the land
against the wishes of the owner cannot be said to be in lawful
cultivation. Merely because no action is taken against him and he
has continued to cultivate for a considerable period of time

Page 72 of 74

would not make his cultivation lawful. The essence of lawful


cultivation is that one should enter possession of the land under
some colour of right and cultivate the land as a matter of right,
otherwise it cannot be said that he is in lawful cultivation of the
land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any legal right a
person who is cultivating the land cannot claim a status of
deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Act.
In Jayamma v. Maria Bai Dead by proposed L.Rs. and Another
[(2004) 7 SCC 459], this Court has held that when an assignment
or transfer is made in contravention of statutory provisions, the
consequence whereof would be that the same is invalid and thus
opposed to public policy.

Ezgg

UzgjAz

(Jgq Jzgzgg)
qAiwzz

Cz

P CAzg PAzAi/Ut gz Cz
U

Jz

AiiVgvz.
F Aq PvP Ai U
v

Utzgg

JAz

gdv

rgzjAz zj Ag 13 g
d

Ai

aPwP
Evgg

Ggs
2

JPg

gzggz

l
15

UAmAi,

gAUjU 1 JPg 20 UAm Ai


Adg irPq PgVz.

AP:
; vPg

3(J),(),() g Qg)

Page 73 of 74

.:- F z vzAU F GTg


m U wU 266 lU
vP nAiAU Uwz. JzgzgjU
F Tv zz w v m
nAi qVgvz

Page 74 of 74

You might also like