Supreme Court of India
G H RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. on 6 April 2018
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
A
RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3621 of 2018)
B
APRIL 06, 2018
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ANDNAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 – s.14(5) – Resumption ofland from tenants – High Court held against the appellant mainlyCon the ground that the possession as required under s.14(5) of Act,1961 as it then existed was not handed over in favour of landlord– Held: It is clear from the language of s.14 as it then existed thatthe landlord could have filed an application if he needed the landfor bona-fide use and occupation before the Tribunal seekingDresumption of the land from the tenants – A certificate is then issuedby the Tribunal in case the application of the landlord for resumptionis allowed – The landlord takes possession of the property by makingfurther application before the Tribunal with support of the certificateissued – Pursuant thereto, the tenants are dispossessed before the31[st] March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar year inEwhich the application for possession is made – In the matter onhand, the compromise was entered into before the Munsiff/Tribunaland the same was recorded as per law – The existence of suchcompromise between the parties is not disputed by the respondentsat any stage – The parties also filed a memo in the resumptionproceedings to the effect that the landlord had already been givenFpossession of the resumed lands by the respondents 2 to 9 – On theface of these documents, it would be futile exercise on the part ofthe landlord to once again carry out the procedure as contemplatedunder s.14(5) that too only in order to fulfil the formalities – Sincethe composite compromise, is acted upon by handing over theGpossession of 4 acres of property in favour of the landlord by virtueof the order dated 02.03.1970 passed by the Munsiff/Tribunal andas handing over of possession in favour of the landlord isundisputed, it can be concluded that the landlord was in possessionof the property to the extent of 4 acres since 02.03.1970, legally –
H
The view of the High Court is hyper technical and too sophisticatedunder the facts of the case – The land is already acquired by theState Government – Civil Judge while deciding the referenceapplication seeking enhancement of compensation observed thatthe beneficiaries under acquisition and the State Government havetaken possession of 4 acres of land from the landlord – The impugnedjudgments set aside – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3621of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2013 of the High Courtof Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Writ Appeal No. 6373 of2010(LR-REF).
S. S. Javali, Sr. Adv., Azeem A. Kalebudde, Ankolekar Gurudatta,Neelkanth Dnyashwar Aher, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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 ofthe High Court have concluded against the appellant mainly on the groundthat the possession, as required under Section 14(5) of the Mysore LandReforms Act, 1961, as it then existed, was not handed over in favour ofthe landlord.
3. Before proceeding further it is relevant to note the provisionsof Sections 14(1) and 14(5) of Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (nowcalled as Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961) as they existed in theyear 1961-1970, the relevant years for the purpose of this case:- “14. Resumption of land from tenants – (1) Notwithstandinganything contained in Sections 22 and 43, but subject to theprovisions of this Section and of Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and41, a landlord may, if he bona fide requires land, other than landheld by a permanent tenant, - A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
(i) For cultivating personally, or
(ii) For any non-agricultural purpose,
file with the Tribunal a statement indicating the land or lands ownedby him and which he intends to resume and such other particularsas may be prescribed. On such statement being filed, the Tribunalshall, as soon as may be, after giving an opportunity to be heard tothe landlord and such of his tenants and other persons as may beaffected, and, having due regard to contiguity, fertility and fairdistribution of lands, and after making such other inquiries as theTribunal deems necessary, determine the land or lands which thelandlord shall be entitled to resume, and shall issue a certificate tothe landlord to the effect that the land or lands specified in suchcertificate has been reserved for resumption; and thereupon theright to resume possession shall be exercisable only in respect ofthe lands specified in such certificate and shall not extend to anyother land.
Explanation – Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, theTribunal within the jurisdiction of which the greater part of theland held by the landlord is situated shall be the Tribunalcompetent to issue a certificate under this Section.
14(5) Where a certificate is issued in respect of any land undersub-section (1)
(a) In the case of tenancies existing on the appointed day, thelandlord shall make an application to the Tribunal for possessionof such lands within twelve months from the date of issue of thecertificate, but the tenants shall not be dispossessed before the31[st] March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar year inwhich the application for possession is made; (b) In the case of tenancies created after the appointed day, thelandlord shall not be entitled to resume the land before the expiryof five years from the date of creation of the tenancies concernedand the tenants shall not be dispossessed before the 31[st] March ofthe calendar year succeeding the calendar year in which theapplication for possession is made.”
From the scheme of afore-mentioned provisions it is clear thatthe landlord could have filed an application if he needed the land forbona-fide use and occupation before the Tribunal seeking resumptionof the land from the tenants. The order was to be passed by the Tribunalunder Section 14(1) of the Act on such application being filed by thelandlord. A certificate would be issued by the Tribunal in case theapplication of the landlord for resumption was allowed. The landlordwould take possession of the property by making further applicationbefore the Tribunal with support of the certificate issued as mentionedsupra. Pursuant thereto, the tenants would be dispossessed before the31[st] March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar year in whichthe application for possession was made. In the matter on hand thecompromise entered into as well as the order accepting the compromisepassed by the Tribunal was a composite order made under Sections14(1) and 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961. It is relevantto note herein itself that the Tribunal during the relevant point of timewas to be constituted under Section 111 of the Mysore Land ReformsAct, 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 LandTribunal consisting of a sole member who shall be a judicial officerof the rank of a Munsiff who shall perform all the functions of theTribunal 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 judicialofficer authorised in this behalf by the State Government shallexercise all the powers and perform all the duties and functionsof 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 theMadras Area, a District Munsiff.”
From the afore-mentioned provision it is clear that the LandTribunal was to be constituted of a sole member who shall be a judicialofficer. In the matter on hand also the compromise was entered intobefore the Munsiff/Tribunal and the same was recorded as per law.
AB
C
D
E
F
G
A4. Non-compliance of the procedural aspect, as contemplatedunder Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (as it stoodoriginally), is properly explained by the appellant by drawing the attentionof the Court to the compromise deed entered into between the partieson 02.03.1970. The compromise deed reads thus:- B “The Respondent has no objection for resumption of 4 acres ofland southern portion of petition land.
The Respondent has already given the possession of the saidresumed land to the petitioner.
The petitioner has no other land except the land in dispute whichis less than the ceiling limit.”C
From the aforementioned, it is clear that it was a compositecompromise entered into between the parties keeping in mind Sections14(1) and 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (as it thenstood) and submitted before the Munsiff/Tribunal, Dharwad in RLC109/70. The existence of such compromise between the parties is notDdisputed by the respondents at any stage. However, their only contentionis that the procedure as contemplated under Section 14(5) of the MysoreLand Reforms Act was not followed. In the resumption proceedingsRLC No. 543/1970 dated 31.10.1970, RLC No. 109 of 1970 dated02.03.1970, RLC No. 55 of 1970 dated 17.04.1971, a compromise petitionEwas filed before the Munsiff/Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order interms of the said compromise. The parties also filed a memo in thoseproceedings to the effect that the petitioner herein had already beengiven possession of the resumed lands by the respondents 2 to 9. On theface of these documents, it would be futile exercise on the part of thepetitioner to once again carry out the procedure as contemplated underFSection 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, that too only in order tofulfil the formalities.
5. Since the composite compromise, mentioned supra, is actedupon by handing over the possession of 4 acres of property in favour ofthe petitioner by virtue of the order dated 2.3.1970 passed by the Munsiff/GTribunal, Dharwad in RLC No. 109 of 1970, and as handing over ofpossession in favour of the petitioner in respect of 4 acres of land isundisputed, it can be concluded that the petitioner was in possession ofthe property to the extent of 4 acres since 02.03.1970, legally. The viewof the High Court, in our opinion, is hyper technical and too sophisticatedunder the facts of the case.H
6. It is relevant to note that the land is already acquired by theState Government. The 2[nd] Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad,while deciding the reference application seeking enhancement ofcompensation in LAC case no. 82 of 1994 has observed in its judgmentdated 30.11.2015 that the beneficiaries under acquisition and the StateGovernment have taken possession of 4 acres of land from the landlord,i.e. the petitioner herein.
7. From the aforesaid undisputed facts, it is amply clear that thepetitioner 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 byvirtue of the compromise deed entered into between the parties beforethe competent authority as on 02.03.1970.
8. Hence, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside andthe 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.
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H