i fPjU AiiAi,

vPg f, vPg
J.Dg.Js (JA) L.J.J 9/98-99 Cfzgg/U 1.gAU g
2.APl aPAvAi 3. Ai m z g: 3(J). w aPwP 3(). UAzgd 3(). Pt 4. UAUt Ad

Jzgzgg
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

1 v 3 (J), (), () U gV g Tv DUAm w:1. P w :PvAz Uz Ag 13 g 5 JPg 15 UAm d UP zAiz E dVgvz JAz J

PPgg zV Mgvg. zj zAiz Jgq Jzgzgg vAzAigz Ai JAg zAiz U HzgVzg v zj ZPj PgtP zj d EzjPAi v Dqv qwzg JAz zVgvz.

2. Aig P:zj d MAz Ai vAz g, g Ai aP wAi g PlA AidiPAi zj d g (s P Ai Ut gz EzgjU qz) AAz U ig 100

iqwzg JAz U P DVgvz. Jgq

wAiiU Cg g DU d ZPj iqz, U Hz

Page 1 of 54

ZPj v PjP w iqv zj d s Cz U g vUzPwzg JAz U 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 d jAU gU sVgvz. z Aig 08 UAm d sVgvz, 1 JPg 12 UAm zAi Egvz. Ezg Q g Aig 15 UAm d sVgvz. 3 gzgg 00 JPg F jwAiiz d z Egvz. z 2 -

3. d g:vPg f v vP, HrUg , PvAz U. .A. 13

n .A 1 1-20 P t s Vg z 0-08 GP P P GvgP zQtP

1-12

PvAz Az P.q g

PvAz Az g PvAz Az g PvAz Az g n n n

UAi v wgAi g d gAUg d jAU g

jAU g

1-20

1-20

PvAz Az P.q g

3 gz gg d PvAz Az g n

2-15

0-15

2-00

PvAz Az P.q g

4. F P i AiiAiP g Aa :vPg vP sAi Aq Pgt AS L.J.J(Ai.J.Dg.JA) 150+150 (J) /1979-80 g AP 06-01-1982 g Dzz Jgq JzgzgjU KPQAiV vAi gz Dzwgvz. Dzz Avg CvgvgV Jgq Jzgzgg Ag 13 (PvAz),

Page 2 of 54

Ag 2 (r), Ag 192(z CiPg) dU Sv t irP AzVgz Cz sjvU AisgV Aiwgvg. 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 g vU zP vgzAv Dzgvz. Avg 04-08-1986 g Dz ir Aq Cm l (f s Ai Aq) U P AivwAi Ugvz.

zj sAi Aq DzAz vgz F P 4 Aiiz UAUtg jm Cf AS 5168/1982 v jm Cf AS 31908/1981 VAv AZ zj sAi Aq Dz gz rg Dz AP 20-12-1983 gAi i GZ AiiAiAz

qgvg. Ezz Avg sAi AqAi Pgt g ZguU Avzg CAi zz P wzrU CUtV zP

Awgvz. Ezg Az AiP nUgg CP v .Dg.. PgtU v J.J. PgtU d AzgV v vAi U PAiPArzg.

Avg C Pgz (szgu C AS: 639/1986) Zgu qAi Avz zz P wzrU zsP v zszw

E gzw PAiAiAi Zgu Pj fPjU AiiAi JAz WuAiiz AiP zj Pgt 09-11-1998 jAz i AiiAiz Q Egvz. i PlP GZAiiAiz wU zAvzAv, Ut CfAi g QU zU Cz J CfU MlUr zjP JA zAvz Pgt g qzPAq

qAiwgz PVgvz.

Page 3 of 54

zj Ut CfU Ml Ur zjP JAz g i GZAiiAiz w Gzv U i 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 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 3646 Karnataka 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.

Page 4 of 54

5. U CfAi :AP 31-12-1986 g Ai, gAUt, APl Jg zsP v 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 U P zAiz E d Aiig zsP v zszw E gzw PAiAiAi Utzgg Q UAm irPqPAz Awgvg.

CzP AP 08-01-1987 g 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 Pqvz PuAiiVgz PAq, Cz U P PAi zgzAz EVzg JAz vqV Cjv zj sg P Ai vg zR Vz.

UAi zj vgg Agz gz PlP GZ AiiAiz jm Cf A. 8686/1991 z F U gV GTz g P w CA GT iq DzVgvz.

AiiAzg EgU Aiiz g CPjU zj w irg. g Avz z QU V U P Aa Aiwg U g zg CfU z Avz Q Egvz. F Ai U Cf -1 zAz jUt PgVz.

zj Az qg J PgtU zRU i AiiAiP Azg CAv g Pqv EVgz, PAvz PAzAi CPjU v v PAiUAz F UU Al irz Dzg, CfAi v Uv Ai Az Jzgzgg z

Page 5 of 54

C vPgg C, g zRU lz AU C JAz Cfzggz zVgvz. F U g CPjU P zRU jUtP JA U i AiiAiz w Gzv U i AiiAiz UP vg E PU qVz.
Godhra Electricity Co.Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of Gujarat And Another AIR 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 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 Aiigz Dg. Uggd gg 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

Page 6 of 54

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 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 the Amending 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

Page 7 of 54

said judgment was modified, it directed that if after 24-4-1992, the Deputy Commissioner had disposed of the matter under the Mysore Act 1 of 1955 which fell within his jurisdiction, 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 v zszw Ei gzw PAi 1955 PAiAi 1973 g wzrAiAv PA 9(2)(J)(1) g PU AP 30-06-1987 g MUV Cf gPVgvz. Cfzgg -1 C CAzg, AP 31-12-1986

g Ai, gAUt, APl Jg zsP 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 -7 gvg. Ez wU g JQm Dg.-1 g vVgvz. d gzAig F PPAq PlP GZAiiAiz P F PPAqAv zg Cz szguPAi

vVg jPjg P CAVgvz.

Page 8 of 54

Shankarapra Shrishailappa ... vs Shivappa Rudrappa Sutagatti ILR 1999 KAR 1354, 1999 (3) KarLJ 466 The 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 Karnataka ILR 1985 KAR 1833 If 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 g CfAi Uv Ai Qg. CfAi gjzP Az. EgU Cz -1 gAv zszw E gzw PAiAiAi jUtP JA z Cgz. 9. ZPj E zAiz ZPjzgg zj zP v zszw E gzw PAiAiAi jUAnU Cg:Jzgzgg Cf Ai zj d UtzgV Ez Jvg. Dzg itvz Cfzgg P ZPj E d JAz vg. F zAzPj PAi Aiiz d Aiiz JA U g E. Dzg 2 Jzgzgg v Pzgz JAi v Ut gz G iqwzAzU, zAiP Ut gz s Cx Ut t AzAi iqwzAzU JAi g v Cz Cg P C. Cg P Pg Cg P KAzg Cg z iqgVzg v wAi PjPgVzg JA CA vVgvz. Cg PAi Dzj zgP gzzg, ZPj zzjAz sdAw E DUvz. PA 10(3)(J) (1) v (2) g g v Ai Ei C PAi CAi CfAi AP 31-12-1979 g MU PQg P CA vz. F jwAi rzg CfAi Uv Ai g. Dzg E EzjPAi g zP
Page 9 of 54

v zszw E gzw PAi 1955 g CAi EzjP DzzjAz E Jzgzgg v Jgq Ai CqVz. Cg Utzgg? Cg PA 6J PU v P wvgAi?. Cg gAP AvAz EgV qP Uzg Cg v P PA 6J PU wwzg. F PPAq P CAz U U j PgVz.
A.C. Anantha Swamy And Another vs State Of Karnataka And Others ILR 1998 KAR 3089, 1998 (5) KarLJ 480 The 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 v CfAi g zsP v zzw E gzw PAiAirAi v CfAi jUtP JAz v zzg iv zj CfAi PwAi QzAv Egvz. Dzg zj Cf Azvz JA z Az wv vV F ZgP MVz.

Page 10 of 54

10. Aii APz Ei s Pgz vVgvz v

zsP v zzw E gzw PAiAi P P 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 d P Ez Pz PV P CAzAv 01-04-1959 g Avg Ut zgg EAz v EzggAz CfAi wzg, CzQAv AZ Ez g Ei l Am AiUAi UAnUV CfAi wzg, Dzg D jwAi Aiiz qP Ez Avgz U Ezgg Utzgg QPAq P 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 14-1959, on 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 4 and 5 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
Page 11 of 54

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 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. w AvgAig CfAi PA 6J g zsP v zzw E gzw PAi CrAi g U P CA v Jzgzgg g it vz P Ai P Pv vz. Dzg AvgAi v Cg gzgg v Utzgg JAz v z Arwzg. KPPz Jgq v z. zAiz P iqv d Zgu Azg, Cz jUAnU PA 6J PU Qgvz. PA 6J CrAi CfAi Utzgg Cf EgU gj P g Eg. Evg Aii

Page 12 of 54

UtzjPAiAi Jzgzgg g. Jzgzgg PAiAv, Cg PA 6J CrAi iv gvg. Cg E d PgP qAiiz AP Az 3 U Az zj d Av G irgQgvz. CAv Aiiz zRAi Jzgzgg z EgzjAz Avg g zRU F AAz U P F AiiAi i wiP

gzVgvz.

CA

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 146 Bench: 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 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

Page 13 of 54

occupancy rights in respect of the persons who have beers actually cultivating the lands as protected tenant or permanent tenant or kadim tenant and confer the occupancy rights on the Archak/Poojari, who had never cultivated 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 6A 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 UAi zw gU JA v 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 wgz UQgvz. JQm Dg-2 g g t sdjPv tAiiVgvz. Czg AvgAi JA CPg g ggz v tz v v 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 AAiizAz Prgvz. CAz PAljPv vAiijP PAi Eg JA i e E jP irPQgvz. 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 C Uz Ez Jzgzgg 12-01-1982 gAi qgvg. Dzg FU AP 28-06-2008 g vgg PZj Ag 458/08-09 g P.Z. Ugd JA Jzgzgg qzAv zRU PAzAi zR v PZjAiAi sdj DVgz lP PAqgwz. JQm

Page 14 of 54

-1 zRAi AP 19-04-1986 g vgg UAzgd JA F P AijU q P DVgvz. F ZgV t

vU U CP AiiAUz wU sz F P dgVg CAv sdjPv tU Aii 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. PATIL The 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. PATIL Gangappa 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 rights as per Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The said

Page 15 of 54

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

13. gU iqwg UtzjP v s U r g qwg Ut zwAi v t zU PvAi gV i i Pm F PPAqAv Utzg gV w Ewz. PAi . 1 g AiUg g 1968-69 g g v

wAi Az, zj U zwAi g JAz z Egvz F zU Pg Ut zgAz gdv rvz. 1973-74 01-03-1973 g gAUvz, 1974-75 01-03-1974 g gAUvz, Utzg P AgQ n 01-03-1974 v CzQAv AZ Aiig g UtzgAz zVgz Dv jU P jP ( ) zAv PA 44 v 45 PlP szgu PAi 1961 g gPuU gvz. U U Ai JAz AvgAi JAz wzVz JAz zR gdv rgvg. v A QUAz Q dg rgvg. Jzgzgg EzP gzV Pzg dg rQgvz. Jzgzgg dg rg .Dg.2 g t sdjPv U lP PAqAgzjAz Jzgzgg APU Cz QAi dg r, Dzg U

Eg Qzgg dgr zj APU Cz t wgP gdvrPAi sgVzg. t GRzg U Pg v Cg EgU P jwAi gQg JAz vj AP 01-03-1974 g vUzPPz U 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
Page 16 of 54

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 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. P Aii ZgU jP, jz, RqAiV jP, C ZgU P jP JAz Ezg

Cz C Pzgz Ezg jP JA U i AiiAiz UP vg DAU AiAi P CA F 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 draw yet; another discretionary

Page 17 of 54

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 CzP vP Pzgv v zRAi lz sdjU vgQgvz. Czg U sgVgvg. tAi sdjAi vjzg, Ai PzggU dg

r Ai PvAi gvAzg U Jzgzgg 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 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. 2 Jzgzgg SAiA Utzgg C Utzgg C JAz P CA vz Cz vg g zP v zzw E gzw PAi 1955 PA 2(12) g jv U sgVzg 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] {
Page 18 of 54

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 EA v CA ifP jwAi Utzgg Aiiz Tv Pgg Ag JA PvAi 1888 g g PAiAiAi Egvz. Avgz szgu PAi, s PAzAi PAi EU Utzg, SAiA Utzg, UtzgU Eg gPu U g F PPAq P CAU i 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 co-extensive 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.

Page 19 of 54

(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 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 g zP v zzw E gzw PAiAi szgu P C Czg PA 44 v 45 gAv Zgu qU 01-03-1974 R 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 20 of 54

The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, came into force on 2-10-1965. 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; (iii) a person who is a permanent tenant; and (iv) a person who is a protected tenant.

Page 21 of 54

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 coextensive 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." 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

Page 22 of 54

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. 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; (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.

Crop-share is one

Page 23 of 54

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 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.

Page 24 of 54

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 P Mvz, Mmg Gzg P qAi 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 (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,
Page 25 of 54

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. J jwAi UtAi sUU 01-03-1974 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 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
Page 26 of 54

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., 1-3-1974. If there was any dispossession after 1-3-1974 by the landlord or by the main tenant or a subtenant, 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 s Adg iqU ZPj EzgjU P qVv JAz R JAz vg F PPAq Pn w CA i 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 1-31974 and the tenants are entitled for registration of occupancy rights as provided under Section 48-A 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.

22.

Ut

jwAi

EgU

Aiig

PUtg:Page 27 of 54

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 Az Ez Ut P CAi zj g v wAi gg dAz gU P Aiiz Dz DVg v CAv t zuU DzVg. P CA j zPArgzz CAv zUU P Aii v E JAz vg i

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, 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 first enacted the Mysore Tenancy (Amendment and Continuance of Tenancies) Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 16 of 1957) prohibited evictions 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
Page 28 of 54

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 1-31974. 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 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.

Page 29 of 54

Supreme Court reported in case of State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Uppegouda and Ors. 1997( 3 )SCC 593 wherein 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 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 of a tenant under a decree obtained prior to the coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 had come into force was illegal and that he was entitled to restitution of the possession from him. It was held that on illegally taken away the date when the Act had come into nonobstante

force and the tenant was found to be in possession of the land by operation of sub-section (1) of Section 22, with a clause, the tenant shall not be evicted from the land 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

Page 30 of 54

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 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 Jgq wU Mvg. zsP v zszw E gzw PAi PA 19(1) g 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. }

Page 31 of 54

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 (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" 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.

Page 32 of 54

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 landholdings 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 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

Page 33 of 54

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 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
Page 34 of 54

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

Pgz

Aig v MAz gAU v Eg vgjU (:21-11-1983 QAv AZ) CfAi r Sv zuAi Pjgvg. CzgAv Pgt AS Dg.Dg.n. 10/1983-84 JAz AzPAq MAz Jzgzgg Rqv F P -11 gAv dg rVz. F Pgt qAizP Pgtz PAzAi vSPjU 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 v D Ai CqVg PAzAi jPPg Pvz DzAv tU AiiVz, EzP P vgvz. CzQAv AZ g CfU U rz aV gAUVgv. PlP szgu

Ai 24(1) gAi qgzz vSAi U CfAi U qg PAzAi CPjU dg vAi vgvz. F 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

Page 35 of 54

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 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: z Ez JAz vg, PAzAi ES zR, EgU P jv gQ JAAv Eg Jzgzgg i, v DUAi MPP. CfU Aiig qg U AZAivg P v U dg z PzgVz. z E 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 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
Page 36 of 54

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 484 The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter called 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
Page 37 of 54

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 484 When 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 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 D Chandrashekhar, Justice P 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
Page 38 of 54

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 cross-examination so as to discard their evidence, Thus, the evidence 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.

Page 39 of 54

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 Pl d U iqwzg. Aig wjz Avg Cg Uz AvgAijU gPl d U irPAq Agv. 4.Aig UP zz Uz Ai iqwzzjAz dU CjU qVv. 5. Ag 13 gAi Pn PAq iqwz. 6. zj d z Aig Pz UAzgd JAg 2 JPg 15 UAm ..... U iqwzg. 7. Ai v APl Eg zj AjAi PnPAq iqwzg. 8. F Ag tAi vAzAigz g v igz wAi Eg gU Agvz. 9. AvgAig jU t gz D Aiz U Aiiz n rg. n 1. vAz gg Ag 13 g U irg U zRU dgr Jz jAi. 2. Jg Av iqwzg v CjU Pqwg Jz . U Pg 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 g v wAi Aiig JAz jg. CAv g v wAi g Ez Cg gzgg PgvAz P Prg. Cz tAi Gzgg PA g ``g U'' JA ZgP Jzgzgg Aiiz g rg. Jzgzgg E g gAUg vAzAi C Jvg. Dzg Jzgzgg n AzszAi `` vAz gg Ag 13 g U irg U zRU dgr Jz jAi.'' JA AiAU Gvg qz U APz U Jzgzgg v Ai rgvg. Av U iqwzg Jvg gv D U Aii zRAi dg r v zRAi GRU QU vj. 1968-69 tAi Eg g Cx wAi Jzgzgg Pg JA U JAi GR Cx Cg z C. QAi P v AU MP v CAU gPgu PV zAzPjAiiVz EgzjAz QAi iwAi Mzz CAVgvz.

Page 40 of 54

3. Ai v AvgAi Jg zz P iqv d G iqwzg Jz . 4. 1968-69 g tAi g g Jg vAz C Jz jAi. 2 UAzgd Ai 1. F d FU vvPAz ig 80-90 UAz CsPAq gwz. 2. ig 30-40 UAz Ag 13 g PnPAq U iqwz. 3. 1968-69 U U 69-70 UU vvz g U wAig jU F dU AAzAv t Egvz. g JAg vAzU igVgvg. 4. AvgAig jU t Ai zu iq Azz vAz AiU Aiiz n rg. 5. HrUg PAzAi vSPjU F dU n r Ug P dg irgvg. n:1. vAzAiiz AigU gAU v APlgU zj UP zz Aiiz ZPj irg Jz j. 2. Jgq wAiiz AvgAig zz z iqwzg Jz j. zj Jgq w wj Vz Cg Avg Uz Ugd JAg z iqwzg Jz j. 3. zj Ugd gjU vg gg vP sv qwzg Jz v. vAz AvgAijU Ez qwzg Jz j. 4. zj AvgAig z irPAq Ag 13 g UAi iqwzg Jz . U Utzgg JA CAzAi P AzjAiwz. Dzg n U Aiiz ZPj ir JA U Vz. Jzgzgg ZPj Ezgg DVzg JA U v wAig Ai. Dzg U Utzgg C JA UAi zj Jzgzgg n zn Egvz. Dzg JAi Jzgzgg zR v U zRAi F PV CAUU P g rg. 1. 1968-69 v 1969-70 g g v wAi gg g vUzP P jv QAi irg U Jzgzgg gu E. 2. szgu PAi ejAiiz APAz Utzgg gPgz JA Azzg CzP P QAi P rzg Cz GAiVPAq zj z vUAiVz JA gu E. 3. PlP s PAzAi PAi PA 128 v 129 Cj t z wzr iqVz JA U Jzgzgg z C g C. 4. zAiz PUgjU vP v qz n MPvg. vP v qzg ZPj E d DzAiz qwz fzgP zV jg qVz JA CA gv v Utzg

Page 41 of 54

JAz Ezg Cf gz DP ZgVgvz. QAi P v AU MP v CAU gPgu PV zAzPjAiiVz EgzjAz QAi iwAi Mzz CAVgvz.

aP wP Ggs l PA Ai 1. vB ijU zj d iq JAg rzg. 2. z qwzg. Ai Cz U jU ig

gP rzg JAz Q zg Pq n Ez CU v AvgAi rg JAz iv Jzgzgg vg. QAi P v AU MP v CAU gPgu PV zAzPjAiiVz EgzjAz QAi ivAi Mzz CAVgvz.

3. dU gAzjAz qz gv. 4. nAz Ai irPAq Agv.

Ut

n 1. AvgAi Aiiz Azsz gAU, Ai, APl (Pg) m Dzsgz rg JAz jAi. 4 UAUgAUAi g 1. FU z Ai g w aPwP v gAU JAg U iqwgvg. 2. Ai UV. wjPAq ig v QAi P v AU MP v CAU gPgu PV zAzPjAiiVz EgzjAz QAi iwAi Mzz CAVgvz. v d dzgg QAiiVz Q Aig CUAi U a vPj CA v n Jzgzgg gPqg.

3. gAU v Aig U wP AzVAz Cg U iqwgvg. 4. wP jwAi F dU gAUg vAz Aig vAz APlg vAz U iqwzg. 5. F dU APAqAv Eg PUz dgv, U

Page 42 of 54

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 wU P HfvAz vg PU g:A 1 PU g P.Z. Ugd AvgAi 1. vv Aig PvAzz Eg UP zAiz z rwzg v zP AAzl d Ag 13, 5-15 UAm v Ag 192 g 2-01 UAm U iqwzg. 2. F zAiz ZPj irzP qVg vP jfg JPmP 22 gAv UgwVz. 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 , 69-70 g, wAi Cg g U iqwzgAz zVz JAz j. Aii v gvz Jzgzgg Ezgg MPvg. E jfg r. v ZPj JAz

JPP

dg

vP qz s P Cg JA Zg Cg PAz gzVgvz. Aig U iqwzg JAzP zR E. 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.

Page 43 of 54

5. Dzg tAi gU vV U QUjAz z vz Avg Cz jrVz. F Ai guAz gv. 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. 8. F Ai 1994 g Pnz 1954 g Aig Pnz JAz Vgvz. 8. FU F Ai Aig Pg PnPwzgAz jAi Cz Pn Pwz. 9. F dU JAz vAzAigU Cx vvgU PAzAi Pn JAz jAi. F PgtPV 200708 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. vvg Pz Ai iqwzg JA U zPU EAi JA U zRwU Eg JAz CAiVgvz. F Azsz zPU Eg JAzjAz zPU dg r.

Cz Aii jwAi vUgvg JA gu E. t z vU C Q JAz Mvg. 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 m JAz Jzgzgg Mvg. MmgAiiV QAig PAi znAi CPvAz Prz, v PU n eU v Eg. v PAi Jgq v zvg.

28. wAi R ZgUAi vgAz vg Cg qP g:A 1 PU g AP 25-05-2011 g wjP P g AP 06-06-2008 K vgvz wAi

Page 44 of 54

P.Z.

g Dqg m Pg oPjU ggAv `` F U wU v. v Pgg

Ugdgg gAv ``PAiz MAz irPnzAz Vgvz. zj vz Pgg

g q zgVzg JAz vUvz. Eg Pzg APU AiUzzAz gdvUvz.

Azv irPArgz dAz Czg

d V qz PVgv B Ez PAiz zj Pgg PAi

gz

AiiAiP

MAz

UzVAi zg.''

vP v PlA zg

irgz JA Ai irzVgvz. F zRAi JAz zVg JAz j.'' 2 AP 22-07-2011 g ml AvgAi gzgg Pgs JQP m P P v z g q PvAz JAz Eg R Zgu P v n PAiAi vUz v Ezg EgzV Aivz Csg DVgz V UZjvz. Eg Pzg APU AiUzzAz gdvUvz. wAi g q zgVzg JAz vUvz. Eg Pzg APU AiUzzAz gdvUvz.

n Ugd

P.Z. gg

PAiAv `` Pgq gAi AU (PjP qwzAz Vgvz. 3 AP v 14-03-2011 g JA z CAUr)

vPg zVgvz.

AP 22-072011 g n v v Ct vAg PvAzz m Ai iqwgz vgvz. vAz .A.13 g zg.

RZgu 3

itvz

lz P.Z. Ugd gg Uvg. `` Ag 13 g U z Pg v P,

PjU Vgv. d

QPAq zj P

2001-02

ZrAz z

tAi Dg.10 g

Page 45 of 54

Al vv Ai Pngvg. U EzU qAiv. g Czg Aw

zVz

Aiz vAzAig fAvVg.

29. U dg irg P R zRU gz v

A 1 zR g 1968-69 jAz 1972-73 g t .1 v U v v g(rU) U zwAi U iqwz U gdv rvz. zj tAi ``Ai'' JA eUz ``Ai'' CPg ``0'' ``v'' JAz w ``gAi'' JAz 1970-71 v 1971-72 g jgz lP V UZjvz. 1972-73 g Ai CzjwAi zz jwAi wgvg. U dg CPvV qz U

vPg vg gg AijU gg v

vUvz. Ezg P Pg, zg U Aig PvAz Uz Ag 13 g EAw 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

vSPj

g P

PAzAi

vSPj

g dg 5 6 05-05-1983 g dg 16-07-1985 g P PAzAi z jwAiAi Ez v rvz. z jwAiAi Ez v rvz. Dzg Ez APl v gAUg
Page 46 of 54

vSPj g g

vAi U gdv rvz

Dg.Dg.n

10/83-84

tAi g Pl Ai CfU U Zgu vPg P 8 ig 1999 QAv AZ U QUg v PAzAi vSPjU g g gg U dg 9 U PAiPjU rz CfAi gU vg gg PlP PAiP AzPjU gg vz Cfzgg Ag 13 g z Eg U iwAi AP 07-092010 g rgvg. 10 U PAiPjU rz CfAi gU vPg gg Dqg m

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. Ez F Pgtz g dg DVz Cz U vAi Jw vgvz.

U vAi j g rgvg.

U vAi j g rgvg.

GsUPjU PlP

PAiP

AzPjU gg vz Cfzgg Ag 13 g z Eg U iwAi AP 04-092010 g rgvg. 11 vPg AiiAi (Q.). N.J. 145/1984 zj Dzz UVz ``Under these circumstances no purpose will be served by keeping this suit pending just to entertain one or another I.A.'s which are basically without any merits, No question of right, title or interest is involved in this case.'' F gAz Jzgzgg Q U i AiiAi F zgP Az
Page 47 of 54

g 2 Jzgzgg z e Dz U P.

UAi

wvz.

Jzgzgg

xV

ml UV twzg 12 PlP GZAiiAiz N.J. 145/1984 g zAvg eU w Jw rz U vgvz.

P A. .Dg. 1381 jAz 1383 /1996 g 2

Jzgzgg e Dz j Cf. 13 PlP P A. 5168/1982 zRU GZAiiAiz jm g Dzz vPg vP sAi Aq Pgt AS L.J.J(Ai.J.Dg.JA) 150+150J/1979-80 g zAP 06-01-1982 g Dz UAUtg 30-12-1983 gAi e ir Dz i PnAz qgvg.

14

PlP P A. 15303/1985 zRU

GZAiiAiz jm g Dzz

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

15

PlP P A.

GZAiiAiz jm 8686/1991

vPg vgg U 1 CfU Ag r, Pgt sAi Aq vPg vP Pgt AS

g Dzz zRU

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 v -1 DVAzU vAzg Qgz PAzAi U

zgvz CPjU

UU

Pl

vUvz. zj 30-08-1993 g DzzAv U Qg CfAi P jv iq DzVgvz. 16 PlP GZAiiAiz vPg vP sAi Pgz zAvg Dzz gz Qg jm CfAi Pgt gAU v APlg gV DzVgvz. 17 PlP P A. GZAiiAiz jm 23971Page 48 of 54

P A. jm 28178/91 g Dzz zRU

Dg wAU wiAv AP 01-09-1998 g DzVgvz

973/1998 zRU 18 PlP P A.

Dzz vgg v g P Azzg P PAzAi CPjU ev v g evAi 2 JzgzggAU V Q QAi GAiVgz P g JAz Jzgzgg qPAi Jw vjz. 2 Jzgzgg QAiAi eUgvz P Azzg P PAzAi

GZAiiAiz Q g jm

2646/2004 zRU

Dzz

19

PlP

GZAiiAiz

P A. jm A. 17365/2007 g Dzz zRU

CPjU ev v g evAi V Q QAi GAiVgz P g JAz Jzgzgg qPAi Jw vjz. 2 Jzgzgg QAiAi eUgvz.

21

sAi Aq P A. L.J.J Ai.J.Dg.JA.

sAi AqAi Pgt 1997 ggU qz P gtV AVg U vUvz.

150 + 150(J) /79-80 g Dqg m

30. wU dg irg P R zRU gz v

A 1 zR g Dg-1 Ut Cf Ut CfAi Utzgg Jvg, Dzg v PAi ZPj Ezgg Jvg. zAz . 2 t Dg-2 JQm Dg-2 g g t sdjPv v Ut CfAi Utzgg Evg Aii d Azg JAz w.

tAiiVgvz. Czg AvgAi JA CPg g ggz v tz v v gtU vz Czg sdjAi Pt gvz. Czg e CPAmAm JA DAU Ai zz PAljPv Vz 1968-69 jAz 1972-73 ggU Cz Ai Qg QAi wAiAz eUzAi v Az Prgvz. zj 1968 gAi Ev Jz AAiizAz Prgvz. Azg JQm Dg-2 jAz Dg-8 ggV Aiiz tAi e CPAmAm g Eg. Dzg Dg-9 g F

Page 49 of 54

zw gVgz Ptgvz. 3 t Dg-3 1974-75 jAz 1975-76 AvgAi JA g 1976-77 Az AvgAi JAz

zUvz, Ez PAzAi ESAii g Pq Egz vUvz. 4 Evg Mmg zRU Evg Aiiz zRwU Jzgzgg g v wAig gzgg JAz vg. 1968-69 v 1969-70 g t GRUU zAz d Csz zR Jzgzgg s, Pgt Cg z JAz Eg. AzgU Utzgg gPuAi P EgU P GAX PAzAi CPjU ev V Sv zPz Cgz Cz CjU Aiiz P sg.

31. t U z iqP JA P GAX 2 Jzgzgg v g tAi Aiiz m CAVPgz Dzz 1971-72 Az wzzgAU zPArgz PAzAi ES ev Vgz lP Uvz. F U P K vz Czg U i AiiAiU K gv JAz vg F PPAq P CAU i 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.

Page 50 of 54

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.

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 Srimanmaharaja Niranjana Sri Murugharajendra 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

Page 51 of 54

provisions of Section 128 of the Act. Sub-section (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 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 52 of 54

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 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.

Page 53 of 54

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.

E Ezgg (Jgq Jzgzgg) UzgjAz qAiwzz Cz P CAzg PAzAi/Ut gz Cz U s Jz U AiiVgvz.

F Aq PvP Ai U v Utzgg JAz gdv rgzjAz zj Ag 13 g d Ai

gzggz aPwP Ggs l v Evgg 2 JPg 15 UAmAi, gAUjU 1 JPg 20 UAm Ai Adg irPq PgVz.

AP: ; vPg ( 1 v 3(J),(),() g Qg)

.:- F z vzAU F GTg m U wU 266 lU vP nAiAU Uwz. JzgzgjU F Tv zz w v m nAi qVgvz

Page 54 of 54