State Of Karnataka & Ors vs Munikadirappa & Ors

State of Karnataka & Ors. ...Appellants

Versus

Munikadirappa & Ors. ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

These appeals by special leave arise out of an order

passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore

whereby Writ Appeals No.3470 of 2001 and 3989-3999 of

2001 filed by the respondents have been allowed and the

order passed by a learned Single Judge of that Court in Writ

2

Petition No.30500 of 1993 set aside to the extent the same

directed apportionment of the compensation payable for the

acquisition of the land in dispute. The controversy arises in

the following backdrop:

The respondents claimed to be in cultivating occupation

of certain Inam lands endowed to the temple of

Kumaraswamy situate at Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore City.

They made applications before the Land Tribunal under the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy rights in

their favour. The Tribunal by an order dated 10th April, 1987

allowed the said applications and granted occupancy rights

to the respondents for the respective parcels of land in their

occupation. The temple which happens to be a Muzurai

Institution challenged the said order before the Land

Reforms Appellate Authority in appeal. During the pendency

of the said appeal the Appellate Authority was abolished with

the result that the records of the appeal case pending before

the Authority were transferred to the High Court and

registered as Writ Petition No.30500 of 1993. While the said

3

writ petition was still pending the lands in question were

acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority for the

formation to what is known as Kumaraswamy layout. The

writ petition eventually came up for hearing before a Single

Judge of the High Court who took the view that the

respondents were in occupation of different parcels of land

even prior to 1970 and that applications filed by them for

grant of occupancy-tenancy rights were within time. The

High Court also came to the conclusion that the Land

Tribunal was right in holding that the respondents were

cultivating the land in question as tenants and in granting

occupancy rights to them. In the ordinary course the Court

could have simply dismissed the writ petition upholding the

order passed by the Land Tribunal but instead of doing so it

went a step further. Taking note of the fact that the lands in

question stood acquired the learned Single Judge directed

that compensation payable for the lands in question shall be

apportioned between the Muzurai Institution who happened

to be erstwhile owner of the land and the tenants-occupants

4

in the ratio of 60:40. It is noteworthy that the Muzurai

Institution did not question the aforementioned order passed

by the Single Judge. The respondents, however, assailed the

said order in writ appeals which were allowed by the Division

Bench of the High Court in terms of the order impugned in

the present appeals. The Division Bench held that since the

respondents were found to be in cultivating occupation of

the land on the appointed date on 1st March, 1974 they shall

be deemed to be so even on the date of acquisition and that

they shall be entitled to claim full compensation payable for

the land acquired from them. The present appeals assail the

said judgment as already noticed above.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The only

question that fell for consideration before the High Court in

the writ petition filed by the respondents was whether the

grant of occupancy rights in their favour by the Land

Tribunal was justified. The Single Judge of the High Court

answered the said question in the affirmative and in our

opinion rightly so. The fact that the land had been acquired

5

in the meantime could not have deterred the Single Judge

from dismissing the writ petition and upholding the order

granting occupancy rights unconditionally. Instead of doing

so, the Single Judge took upon himself the duty of

apportioning the compensation between the writ petitioners-

erstwhile owners of the land and the respondents. That was,

in our opinion, wholly unnecessary and dehors the provisions

of the Land Reforms Act. The question as to who was

entitled to claim how much compensation for parcels of land

acquired by the Government was a matter which had to be

agitated by the persons interested only in terms of the

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Tribunal or

the High Court hearing a writ petition arising out of an order

passed by the former was not concerned with the question

of quantum of compensation or its apportionment among

different claimants, nor has any provision in the Land

Reforms Act been brought to our notice, which required the

Tribunal to determine the said questions in case where lands

that are the subject matter of proceedings under the said

6

Act get acquired for a public purpose. The only question that

fell for consideration before the High Court was whether the

respondents were in cultivating occupation of the land on

the appointed date as stipulated under the Act so as to be

entitled to the grant of occupancy rights. Once that question

was answered the fact that the land had been acquired and

the cultivating tenant had gone out of possession of such

land did not affect his entitlement to be declared as a tenant

occupant.

As noticed earlier the finding that the respondents were

entitled to occupancy tenancy rights qua the lands in

question was not assailed by the Muzurai Institution. This

implied that the question regarding grant of such rights had

gone beyond the pale of any controversy. In the appeals

filed by the respondents occupants of the lands the Division

Bench was concerned only with the limited question whether

the directions regarding apportionment of the compensation

was justified. Instead of simply setting aside the said

direction on the ground that the same was beyond the

7

provisions of the Land Reforms Act the Division Bench held

the respondents entitled to claim full compensation. Now

that may indeed be the position, in cases where the land is

under the Land Reforms Act vested in the State and then

granted to the persons entitled to the occupancy rights over

the same, but the question is whether any such declaration

ought to have been granted in the proceedings under the

Land Reforms Act. Our answer is in the negative. The

Division Bench would have been justified in setting aside the

direction given by the Single Judge regarding apportionment

but it need not have fallen into the same error as was

committed by the Single Judge, by directing payment of the

full compensation to the respondents. That was a matter to

be determined by the Collector in appropriate proceedings

under the Land Acquisition Act and eventually by the

competent Civil Court in a reference if the same became

necessary. In as much as the Division Bench itself

determined the extent of compensation payable to the

respondents it committed a mistake.

8

In the result, we direct that while grant of occupancy-

tenancy rights in favour of the respondents qua the parcels

of land in their respective possession as on the appointed

date shall stand affirmed, the question as to who is entitled

to what compensation for the acquisition of said lands in

question is left open to be determined in appropriate

proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 if not

already determined. The appeals are accordingly disposed

off, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

.................................J.

(MARKANDEY KATJU)

.................................J.

(T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi

October 8, 2010