Raghunath Prasad Pande vs State Of Karnataka And Ors

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3621 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 28906 of 2013]

RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE .. Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. .. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Despite service, none appears for respondent nos. 2 to 9.

Leave granted.

2. Both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division

Bench of the High Court have concluded against the appellant

mainly on the ground that the possession, as required under

Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961, as it

then existed, was not handed over in favour of the landlord.

3. Before proceeding further it is relevant to note the

provisions of Sections 14(1) and 14(5) of Mysore Land

Reforms Act, 1961 (now called as Karnataka Land Reforms Act,

1961) as they existed in the year 1961-1970, the relevant

years for the purpose of this case:-

Signature Not Verified

“14. Resumption of land from tenants – Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.04.11 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in 13:27:30 IST Reason: Sections 22 and 43, but subject to the provisions of this Section and of Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 41, a 2

landlord may, if he bona fide requires land, other than land held by a permanent tenant, -

(i) For cultivating personally, or

(ii) For any non-agricultural purpose, file with the Tribunal a statement indicating the land or lands owned by him and which he intends to resume and such other particulars as may be prescribed.

On such statement being filed, the Tribunal shall, as soon as may be, after giving an opportunity to be heard to the landlord and such of his tenants and other persons as may be affected, and, having due regard to contiguity, fertility and fair distribution of lands, and after making such other inquiries as the Tribunal deems necessary, determine the land or lands which the landlord shall be entitled to resume, and shall issue a certificate to the landlord to the effect that the land or lands specified in such certificate has 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.

Explanation – Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the Tribunal within the jurisdiction of which the greater part of the land held by the landlord is situated shall be the Tribunal competent to issue a certificate under this Section.

14(5) Where a certificate is issued in respect of any land under sub-section (1)

(a) In the case of tenancies existing on the appointed day, the landlord shall make an application to the Tribunal for possession of such lands within twelve months from the date of issue of the certificate, but the tenants shall not be dispossessed before the 31st March of the 3

calendar year succeeding the calendar year in which the application for possession is made;

(b) In the case of tenancies created after the appointed day, the landlord shall not be entitled to resume the land before the expiry of five years from the date of creation of the tenancies concerned and the tenants shall not be dispossessed before the 31st March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar year in which the application for possession is made.”

From the scheme of afore-mentioned provisions it is clear

that the landlord could have filed an application if he

needed the land for bona-fide use and occupation before the

Tribunal seeking resumption of the land from the tenants.

The order was to be passed by the Tribunal under Section

14(1) of the Act on such application being filed by the

landlord. A certificate would be issued by the Tribunal in

case the application of the landlord for resumption was

allowed. The landlord would take possession of the property

by making further application before the Tribunal with

support of the certificate issued as mentioned supra.

Pursuant thereto, the tenants would be dispossessed before

the 31st March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar

year in which the application for possession was made. In

the matter on hand the compromise entered into as well as

the order accepting the compromise passed by the Tribunal

was a composite order made under Sections 14(1) and 14(5) of

the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961. It is relevant to note 4

herein itself that the Tribunal during the relevant point of

time was to be constituted under Section 111 of the Mysore

Land Reforms Act, 1961. Section 111 (as it then existed)

reads thus:

“111. Constitution of Tribunal – (1) The State Government may, by notification, constitute for the area specified therein a Land Tribunal consisting of a sole member who shall be a judicial officer of the rank of a Munsiff who shall perform all the functions of the Tribunal under this Act. (2) For any area for which a Tribunal has not been constituted, the Munsiff having jurisdiction over such area or any other judicial officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall exercise all the powers and perform all the duties and functions of the Tribunal under this Act.

Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, a Munsiff means (i) in the Bombay Area, a Civil Judge (Junior Division); and

(ii) in the Madras Area, a District Munsiff.” From the afore-mentioned provision it is clear that the Land

Tribunal was to be constituted of a sole member who shall be

a judicial officer. In the matter on hand also the

compromise was entered into before the Munsiff/Tribunal and

the same was recorded as per law.

4. Non-compliance of the procedural aspect, as

contemplated under Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms

Act, 1961 (as it stood originally), is properly explained by

the appellant by drawing the attention of the Court to the 5

compromise deed entered into between the parties on

02.03.1970. The compromise deed reads thus:-

“The Respondent has no objection for resumption of 4 acres of land southern portion of petition land.

The Respondent has already given the possession of the said resumed land to the petitioner.

The petitioner has no other land except the land in dispute which is less than the ceiling limit.”

From the aforementioned, it is clear that it was a composite

compromise entered into between the parties keeping in mind

Sections 14(1) and 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act,

1961 (as it then stood) and submitted before the

Munsiff/Tribunal, Dharwad in RLC 109/70. The existence of

such compromise between the parties is not disputed by the

respondents at any stage. However, their only contention is

that the procedure as contemplated under Section 14(5) of

the Mysore Land Reforms Act was not followed. In the

resumption proceedings RLC No. 543/1970 dated 31.10.1970,

RLC No. 109 of 1970 dated 02.03.1970, RLC No. 55 of 1970

dated 17.04.1971, a compromise petition was filed before the

Munsiff/Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order in terms of

the said compromise. The parties also filed a memo in those

proceedings to the effect that the petitioner herein had

already been given possession of the resumed lands by the 6

respondents 2 to 9. On the face of these documents, it

would be futile exercise on the part of the petitioner to

once again carry out the procedure as contemplated under

Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, that too only

in order to fulfil the formalities.

5. Since the composite compromise, mentioned supra, is

acted upon by handing over the possession of 4 acres of

property in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the order

dated 2.3.1970 passed by the Munsiff/Tribunal, Dharwad in

RLC No. 109 of 1970, and as handing over of possession in

favour of the petitioner in respect of 4 acres of land is

undisputed, it can be concluded that the petitioner was in

possession of the property to the extent of 4 acres since

02.03.1970, legally. The view of the High Court, in our

opinion, is hyper technical and too sophisticated under the

facts of the case.

6. It is relevant to note that the land is already

acquired by the State Government. The 2nd Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Dharwad, while deciding the reference

application seeking enhancement of compensation in LAC case

no. 82 of 1994 has observed in its judgment dated 30.11.2015

that the beneficiaries under acquisition and the State

Government have taken possession of 4 acres of land from the

landlord, i.e. the petitioner herein. 7

7. From the aforesaid undisputed facts, it is amply clear

that the petitioner was permitted to resume the land and

that the respondent nos. 2 to 9 have surrendered 4 acres of

land in favour of petitioner herein by virtue of the

compromise deed entered into between the parties before the

competent authority as on 02.03.1970.

8. Hence, the impugned judgments are liable to be set

aside and the same are set aside.

9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

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

of.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

..........................J. (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)

..........................J. (Navin Sinha) New Delhi, April 6, 2018