Y.R. Veeranna vs State Of Karnataka & Ors
- SCC(1997) 6 SCC 27
- Neutral1997 INSC 495
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 2697
- SCR[1997] Supp (1) SCR 261
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A tenant in cultivation is entitled to claim occupancy tenant status under Sections 44 and 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act; a person who has not personally cultivated the land himself is not entitled to file an application for such recognition, even if his sons have cultivated it on behalf of the family. Where a person holds status as Karta of a joint family and the land is joint family property, the cultivation by his sons does not constitute personal cultivation by him sufficient to establish his claim as an occupancy tenant under the Act. Where the sons of a Karta were genuinely occupying land as tenants prior to the date the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act came into force on March 1, 1974, it remains open to those sons to file applications in Form-7 to have their occupancy tenant status adjudicated, and the court should not allow the statutory limitation period to become a ground for rejecting their claims in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Hon`ble Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy Hon`ble Mr. Justice S.Saghir Ahmad Hon`ble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik G.V.Chandrashekhar and P.P.Singh, Advs.for thePetitioner O R D E R Delay condoned.
Itis anundisputed fact thatthe KarnatakaLand Reforms(Amendment) Acthad come into force with effectfrom March 1, 1974.The petitionerlaid claimed asan occupancy tenant,in respect of13 acres and 24 gunthas of theland situated in K.R. Nagar Taluk,Karnataka District. When he filed application in Form- 7 for recognition of his rights as an occupancy tenant, the Tribunal rejectedhis claim on the ground that his sons werecultivating theland. It was held that since the petitionerhad notbeen cultivating the land, he couldnot file the application inForm-7and, therefore, he was not entitledto be treated as a protected tenant.That order came to be affirmedby the High Court in LRRP No.2179/88 and in C.P. No.499/96on June10, 1996 and January6, 1997. Thus, this special leave petition.
Inview of the fact that a tenant in cultivation is entitled to lay the claim under Section 44 and 48-A of the Karnataka LandReformsAct (for short, the `Act'), on his own admittedlyshowingthat hehad notbeen cultivating the land ,the petitioner's right as occupancy tenant was rightlyrejected. His status is that of the co-owner, Karta of the joint family andas suchon behalf of his sons he had filed it and the sons were cultivating the landon behalf of the family; since this land was obtained ata partition betweenthe petitionerand hisbrotherway back in 1957, it is joint family property. In view of the fact that he is not personallycultivating theland onhis ownshowing, the findingrecorded by the Tribunal and the HighCourt is not vitiated by any manifest error of law. However, due to mistaken standthe application in Form-7 cameto be filed. He washeld disentitled to theclaim as a protected tenant. If thesons were really occupying the land as tenants prior to theAmendment Act had comeinto force on March 1, 1974, it maybe opento the sons to make an application in Form-7 and have the matter adjudicated. Thelimitation that has been prescribed in the statute, in the peculiar facts, may not be taken asa ground for rejection of theirclaims.
The special leavepetition are accordingly dismissed with the above observations.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free