Supreme Court of India
D.M. NANJJAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS.versusS.A. RAMAPPA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2000 INSC 455
- Decided
- 20 September 2000
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S S M QUADRI
Holding
For grants under sub‑rule (2) of Rule 4, the reservation and priority provisions of Rules 5 and 6 do not apply; eligibility is determined by the criteria of Rule 4(1) and the definition of “sufficient holder”, and since the appellant held less than four hectares, he was not a sufficient holder and the grant was lawful.
Summary
The appellant was granted a parcel of land by the revenue authority under sub‑rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, because the land was adjacent to his existing holding and was needed for better cultivation. The grant was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. The respondent challenged the grant in a writ petition; the High Court’s Division Bench set aside the earlier order and directed the Tehsildar to allocate the land according to the reservation and priority provisions of Rules 5 and 6, also holding that the appellant was not a poor or landless person. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that when land is allotted under sub‑rule (2) of Rule 4, the reservation and priority rules of Rules 5 and 6 are inapplicable, and eligibility must be assessed solely under Rule 4(1) and the definition of “sufficient holder”. Since the appellant owned only 4 acres (less than four hectares), he did not qualify as a “sufficient holder” under Rule 2(15) and thus satisfied the eligibility criteria. Consequently, the grant was lawful and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s decision.
Issues considered
- Whether the reservation and priority provisions of Rules 5 and 6 apply to a land grant made under sub‑rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969.
- Whether the appellant qualifies as a “sufficient holder” under Rule 2(15) given his existing landholding of 4 acres.
- Whether the grant of land to the appellant was valid under the criteria laid down in Rule 4(1) and Rule 4(2).
Legislation cited
- Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969s. Rule 2(15), s. Rule 4, s. Rule 5, s. Rule 6
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964s. 197
Subjects
land grantKarnataka Land Grant Rulessufficient holderreservationpriorityagricultural landbetter cultivationrule interpretation
Judgment
A D.M. NANJJAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS.
v.
S.A. RAMAPPA AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2000
B [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]
Land Laws:
Karnataka Land Grant Rules, I 969 : Rules 4, 5 and 6.
c Grant of land-For better cultivation and enjoyment-Conditions to be
fulfilled-Held : (i) whether the person is eligible; (ii) whether his land is
adjacent or close to land to be allotted; and (iii) whether land is required
for better enjoyment or cultivation-Rules 5 and 6 not applicable for grant
of land to such special class ofpersons-Karnataka Land Revenue Act, I 964.
D
Rule 2(15)-Sufficient holder-Means a person who holds not less
than 4 hectares of wet land or 8 hectares of dry land
Words and Phrases:
E "Sufficient holder"-Meaning of-In the context of R.2(15) of the
Karnataka Land Grant Rules, I 969.
The appellant was granted the land in dispute by the Revenue authority
under Rule 4 (2) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 for better
cultivation of the land as the appellant's land was adjacent to the disputed
F land. The Deputy Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the
grant
Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High
Court, which was dismissed by Single Judge but allowed by the Division
Bench. The Division Bench directed the Tehsildar to grant the disputed land
G after taking into consideration the priorities under Ruis 5 read with Rule
6 of the Rules. The Division Bench also held that as the appellant was already
having 4 acres of land he could not be said to be poor or a landless person.
.Hence this appeal.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
H 346
•
I
D.P. NANJJAPPA v. S.A. RAMAPPA [PHUKAN, J.] 347
HELD : 1. Though the Division Bench of the High Court has directed A
the Tehsildar to grant land 'taking priority under Rule 5 read with Rule 6
of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969', this direction is not in conformity
with Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. The said direction is therefore, not
sustainable in law. [350-E)
2. For grant of land under Rule 4(2), what is necessary to be determined B
is whether the person is eligible for grant of land under Rule 4(1), whether
he has land adjacent or close to the land to be allotted and whether the land
is required for better enjoyment or better cultivation. If these conditions are
fulfilled, land can be allotted on collection of market value of the land by the
Revenue authority. Reading Rules 4, 5 and 6 it has to be held that while C
granting land to such special class of persons under Rule 4(2), the provisions
of Rules 5 and 6 viz., percentage of reservation and order of priority would
not be applicable. [330-G-H]
3. The appellant is holding 4 acres of land and, therefore, he would not
come under the definition of"sufticient holder" vide Rule 2(15) as his holding D
is less than four hectares. Therefore, the appellant has fulfilled all the
conditions of Rule 4(2) includiitg the eligibility criterion No (iv) of Rule 4(1 ).
Therefore, the grant of land to the appellant was in accordance with Rule
4(2) and the land was rightly granted to the appellant. (351-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5215 of E
2000.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.1998 in WA 6427/97 of the
High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore.
Shankar Divate for the Petitioner. F
P.P. Singh and N. Ganpathy for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PHUKAN, J. Leave granted. G
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of
Kamataka High Court in the Writ Appeal. The Division Bench allowed the
Writ Petition by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Briefly stated, the land in dispute was granted to the appellant by the H
348 ~SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A revenue authority under sub-rule (2) of rule 4 of the Kamataka Land Grant
Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules') framed under Section 197 of the Kamataka
Land Revenue Act. 1964, for better cultivation of the land as the land of the
appellant was adjacent to the disputed land. The grant was confirmed both
by the Deputy Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. Being aggrieved,
B respondent filed the Writ Petition before the High Court which was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge but allowed by the Division Bench. The Division
Bench directed the Tehsildar to grant the disputed land after taking into
consideration the priorities under rule 5 read with rule 6 of the Rules. The
Division Bench also held that as the appellant was already having 4 acres of
land he could not be said to be poor or a landless person.
c
To decide the dispute, it will be pertinent to extract relevant provisions
of the Rules viz. clauses (8) and (15) of rule 2, rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules.
"2(8) "insufficient holder" means a person who is not sufficient.holder."
D "2(15) "Sufficient holder" means a person who owns not less than
four hectares of garden or wet land possessing facilities for assured
irrigation or 8 hectares of dry or rained wet land."
"4. Persons eligible for grant of land for agricultural purposes.-(!)
Lands available for disposal may be granted for agricultural purposes
E under these rules to a person,-
(i) who has attained the age of eighteen.; and
(ii) whose gross annual income does not exceed rupees eight
thousand; and,
F (iii) who is either a bona fide agriculturist cultivating the land
personally or has bona fide intention to take up personal
cultivatiori; and
(iv) who is not a sufficient holder:
G Provided that in the case of ex-servicemen and soldiers, lands may be
granted, if the gross income of the applicant exceed Rupees eight
thousand but less than rupees twelve thousand.
Provided further that the extent of land granted to any person shall
not together with the land already held by such person exceed the
H limits prescribed for a sufficient holder in rule 2(15).
D.P. NANJJAPPA v. S.A. RAMAPPA [PHUKAN, J.] 349
-- (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) by any person
may be granted the land adjacent or close to the land already held by
him on collection of market value as on the date of grant to be
A
determined by the authority granting the land, if such land is, in the
opinion of such authority required for better enjoyment or better
cultivation of the land so held: (emphasis supplied)
B
Provided that no such grant shall be made of an extent exceeding in
the case of wet or garden land half hectare and in the case of dry land
one hectare and that the total extent of land held after such grant does
not exceed the ceiling area according to the Kamataka Land Reform
Act 1961."
c
"5. Reservations.-(l) The land available for disposal in any village
shall be granted observing the reservation indicated below:-
(i) Ex-servicemen and Soldiers 10 per cent
(ii) Persons belonging to Scheduled Castes D
and Scheduled Tribes 50 percent
(ii-a) Backward Tribes 05 percent
(iii) Political sufferers 10 per cent
(iv) Others 25 percent E
(2) Where the extent reserved under (ii) and (iii) is in excess of the
--- extent that can be granted to the person belonging to those
categories, the excess land shall be with the approval of the
Deputy Commissioner be disposed of among persons in category
(iv). F
(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-rule (1) where the land available
for disposal in village is less than four hectares, the whole of
such land shall be disposed of to persons belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are ordinarily
residents of such village or who reside in the neighbouring G
village and where no persons belonging to Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes apply, it shall be disposed to others."
"6. Order of Priority.-ln disposing of land among persons belonging
to Category (iv) of sub-rule (I) of rule 5, the following order of priority
shall be observed:- H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A (i)
(it)
landless persons residing in the village
insufficient holders residing in the village;
-
(iii) landless persons residing in other villages in the same or adjacent
taluk:
B (iv) others:
Provided that when Government directs under Section 71 of the Act
that in any particular area Government land shall be reserved for grant
to displaced persons and tenants affected by any Government Project,
provisions of rule 5 and 6 will not apply."
c Rule 4 defines the persons who would be eligible for grant of land for
agricultural purposes. Rule 5 fixes the percentage of reservation to be
maintained while granting land to the categories mentioned in sub-rule (I) of
this rule. For disposal of land among persons belonging to category IV i.e.
'others' in sub-rule (1) of rule 5, the priority mentioned in rule 6 has to be
D followed.
Though the Division Bench of High Court has directed the Tehsildar to
grant land 'taking priority under rule 5 read with rule 6, first to landless poor
persons. Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and backward class persons and
thereafter to others', this direction is not in conformity with rules 4, 5 and 6.
E The said direction, therefore, is not sustainable in law.
The appellant herein prayed for grant of land only under sub- rule (2)
of rule 4. Under this sub-rule, any person may be granted the land adjacent ...
_
or close to the land already held by him subject to fulfilment of other conditions
of the said sub-rule and on the payment of market value of land if in the
F opinion of the authority such land is required for better enjoyment or better
cultivation of the land. In case of grant of other land for agricultural purposes,
the grantee has to pay price at a concessional rate to be fixed urider sub-rule
(I) of rule 12 but market value of the land has to be paid under sub-rule (2)
of rule 4. For grant of land under sub-rule (2) of rule 4, what is necessary to
G be determined is whether the person is eligible for grant of land under sub-
rule (I) of rule 4, whether he has land adjacent or close to land to be allotted
and whether the land is required for better enjoyment or better cultivation. If
these conditions are fulfilled, land can be allotted on collection of market
value of the land by the revenue authority. Reading the above rules viz. 4,
5 and 6, we have no hesitation to hold that while granting land to this special
H class of persons under sub.-rule-(2) of rule 4, the provisions of rules 5 and
D.P. NANJJAPPA v. S.A. RAMAPPA [PHUKAN, J.] 351
.... 6 viz. percentage of reservation and order of priority would not be applicable. A
Though the Division Bench was of the view that the appellant could
not be said to be poor or a landless person, we are of the opinion that this
consideration, is irrelevant for the present purpose as we have to ascertain
whether the appellant is eligible for grant of land under sub-rule (2) of rule
4. The revenue authority on facts held that the appellant has got land adjacent B
to the disputed land and in fact it was found that the appellant was cultivating
disputed land for about l 0 years prior to date of grant of land. The appellant
also paid market price as fixed by the revenue authority for the disputed land.
No dispute has been raised regarding eligibility of the appellant under clause
(i) to (iii) ofsub_-rule (I) of rule 4. In view of the observations of the Division C
Bench of the High Court that the appellant could not be said to be poor or
lai;idless person, we have to consider whether appellant is a sufficient holder
ofland or not for being eligible under clause (iv) of sub-rule (1) of rule 4. As
per the record and as noticed by the Division Bench of High Court, appellant
holds 4 acres of land, therefore, he would not come under definition of
"sufficient holder" vide clause ( l 5) of rule 2 as his holding is less than four D
hectares. Therefore, the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions of sub-rule
(2) including the eligibility criterion No. (iv) of sub-rule (I) of rule 4. According
to the revenue authorities the land of the appellant is adjacent to the disputed
land and he would require the disputed land for better cultivation. Therefore,
we hold that grant of land to the appellant was in accordance with sub-rule E
(2) of rule 4 and the land was rightly granted to the appellant.
- For the reasons stated above we find merit in the present appeal and
accordingly it is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. Cost on
the parties.
v.s.s. F
Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land grant"Sign in to search