Supreme Court of India
RAMACHANDRA KRISHNA BHATTAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 365
- Decided
- 14 March 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- TARUN CHATTERJEE
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Land Tribunal failed to give mandatory notice under s.48A and the appellant’s tenancy claim was unsubstantiated, so the Appellate Authority’s and High Court’s decisions were correct and the appeal was dismissed.
Summary
The appellant, Ramachandra Krishna Bhatta, claimed occupancy rights over agricultural lands owned by the Gopal Krishna Devaru Temple, asserting that he was a tenant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Land Tribunal granted him occupancy rights, but the Land Reforms Appellate Authority set aside the order, finding that the Tribunal had not issued the public and personal notices required by Section 48A of the Act and that the lands were joint family property, not a tenancy. The High Court affirmed the Appellate Authority’s decision, holding that the appellant’s claim of tenancy was unsupported and that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 121A was limited to checking procedural regularity. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136, contending that the Tribunal’s order should stand. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Appellate Authority and the High Court, noting the procedural lapse and lack of evidence of tenancy, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the Land Tribunal complied with the notice requirements of Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in granting occupancy rights.
- Whether the appellant was a tenant entitled to occupancy rights under the Act.
- Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to revise the Appellate Authority’s order under Section 121A.
- Whether the Supreme Court could interfere with the appellate and revisional decisions under Article 136.
Legislation cited
- Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961s. 121, s. 121A, s. 132, s. 133, s. 45, s. 48, s. 48A
Subjects
land reformsoccupancy rightstenancyjoint family propertypublic noticeKarnataka Land Reforms ActrevisionArticle 136
Judgment
(2008] 5 S.C.R. 101
-;;,,
RAMACHANDRA KRISHNA BHATTA A
v
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos.7119-7120 of 2000)
MARCH 14, 2008
B
, [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Land Reforms:
Land belonging to temple - Land Tribunal granted
c
occupancy rights to appellant - Appellate Authority and High
Court held that lands in question were joint family properties
and that land Tribunal failed to cause public notice in the village
and to deity before granting occupancy rights and that nature
of possession of appellant cannot be regarded as tenant -
Even appellant's plea that he was tenant was rejected in a suit D
., which had become final- In view offactual finding by Appellate
Authority and High Court, interference under Article 136 of
Constitution not called for - Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961 - ss.48A, 121, 133.
The lands in question owned by temple were granted E
for cultivation on tenancy basis to 'M' who was performing
pooja in the temple. He had three sons. After his death,
his eldest son started performing pooja and cultivating
the lands, and on his death, it was performed by second
son. Third son expired. After death of second son, F
' respondent no.2, son of eldest son started performing
~
pooja and cultivation. In 1940, he relinquished his rights
and surrendered the lands to temple authorities and left
the village. In 1943, temple authorities entrusted the work
to appellant, who was son of third son of 'M' and to his G
mother.
-+
In 1953, respondent no.2 filed a suit for partition and
possession of joint family properties, which was
101 H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
A dismissed on the nround that properties were
relinquished and for want of sanction of Charity
commissioner.. The name of appellant was registered in
records of right. The objection raised thereagainst by
respondent no.2 was re!jected. In 1963, respondent no.2
B filed another suit for partition and possession of suit
lands, which was also dismissed. Respondent no.2 filed
second appeal before High Court, during pendency of
which Karnataka Land neforms Act, 1961 was amended
and it was provided that: all agricultural lands held by or
c in possession of tenants would vest in the Government
free from all encumbrances.
S.133 of the Act provided that Tribunal constituted
under the Act alone has jurisdiction to decide the question
of tenancy. The appellant filed application for grant of
D occupancy rights. No application for grant of occupancy
rights was filed by respondent no.2. Meanwhile during
pendency of proceeding1s before Tribunal, High Court
allowed the second appeal of respondent no.2 and
remanded the matter to trial Court for disposal on merits
E by fixing the share. In 1974, Tribunal considered the
application filed by appellant and held that appellant was
tenant and granted occupancy rights to him. Against the
said order, respondent no.2 filed writ petition.
-
The remanded suit was decreed. Accordingly
F respondent no.2 was held entitled to 2/3rd sha1e in suit
properties.
The writ petition of respondent no.2 was allowed by
High Court and matter remanded to Tribunal. Tribunal
G granted occupancy rights .1to appellant. Aggrieved by the
said order, respondent no.~! filed writ petition, which was
transferred to appellate authority. Appellate authority
allowed the appeal holding that disputed lands were joint ......
family properties belonging to all three parties, which was
H upheld by High Court. Hence the present appeal.
RAMACHANDRA KRISHNA BHATTA v. STATE OF 103
. KARNATAKAAND ANR.
-:.i: Dismissing the appeal, the Court A
HELD: 1. The Appellate Authority has rightly pointed
out that as per s.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
it is incumbent upon the part of the Land Tribunal to give
public and personal notices before passing an order in
an application filed under s.48. It is not in dispute that the 8
)- Land Tribunal has not heard the representative of the
Temple. A reading of sub-section (2) of s.48A makes it clear
that on receipt of application, the Tribunal has to issue
public notice in the village in which the Ian{:! is situated
calling upon the landlord and all other persons having c
interest in the land to appear before it on the date specified
in the notice. It is also incumbent on the part of the
Tribunal to issue individual notice to the persons
mentioned in the a_pplication and also to such others as
may appear to it to be interested in the land. The factual D
finding of the Appellate Authority shows that the Land
,
...., Tribunal failed to cause either public notice in the village
or to the deity Temple. In view of the same, it is clear that
the Land Tribunal has not fulfilled the requirement which
is mandatory and the Appellate Authority rightly interfered E
with the order of the Land Tribunal and set aside the same.
A reading of the order of the High Court shows that only
for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the illegality or as
to the regularity of such order or proceeding, the High
Court ii; permitted to interfere ..The High Court, in the F
impugned order, very well noted the factual finding of the
..., Land Reforms Appellate Authority that the nature of
• possession of the appellant cannot be regarded as tenant
of the land, and that there is absolutely no evidence in
respect of its claim that he paid rent to the 3rd respondent
G
as a tenant under him. On the other hand, his plea that he
was a tenant of the land was not allowed to be raised and
rejected in suit by respondent no.2 which had become
final. In the light of the said materials, after finding that the
Appellate Authority was right in holding that the
H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
A appellant's claim of tenancy was not established and there ,C
is no illegality or proc:edural irregularity which calls for
interference in revision, under s.121, dismissed the same.
[Paras 6-8] [109-B, C, D, F, G; 110-A, B, C, D]
2. In view of the factual finding arrived by the Land
B Reforms Appellate Authority and affirmed by the High
Court which is a Revisional Authority, in the absence of
any acceptable material, interference by this Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not warranted.
[Para 9] [110-D, E]
c
CIVIL APPELLATE ,JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
7119-7120 of 2000,
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.1998 and
5.11.1999 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in
D L.R.R.P. No. 2810/1989 and C.P. No. 487/1999 respectively.
R.S. Hegde (for P.P. Singh) for the Appellants.
r-
S.N. Bhat, N.P.S. Panwar, D.P. Chaturvedi, Amit Kr.
Chawla and Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1) These appeals ~re directed
against the judgment and order dated 15.12.1998 passed by
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in L.R.R.P. No. 2810
F of 1989 and the judgment and order dated 5.11.1999 in C.P.
No.487 of 1999 dismissing the same.
2) BriE?f facts, in a nutsh1:ll, are as under: -.
r
Land bearing Survey No. 7/3 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas
G (Bagayath) and Survey No. Ei6/1 measuring acres 21 guntas
(wet) of Kannenhalli village, Yellapur Taluq are agricultural lands
and were owned by the Gopal Krishna Devaru Temple. The lands
were gra11ted for cultivation on tenancy basis to the person
performing the daily pooja in the temple. No separate rent was
being paid. Originally one Mahabaleshwar Bhatta was
H
RAMACHANDRA KRISHNA BHATTA v. STATE OF 105
KARNATAKAAND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
-'..\ performing pooja in the temple and was cultivating the lands. A
He had three sons namely, Shambu Bhatta, Narayan Bhatta and
Krishna Bhatta. After his death, his eldest son, Shambu Bhatta
started performing the pooja in the temple and cultivating the
lands in question. After the death of Shambu Bhatta, Narayan
Bhatta, second son of Mahabaleshwar Bhatta, started B
y performing pooja in the temple and also cultivating the lands.
Krishna Bhatta, third son of Mahabaleshwar Bhatta expired in
the meantime. After the death of Narayan Bhatta, Thimmappa,
son of Shambu Bhatta started performing the pooja in the temple
and also cultivating the lands. In the year 1940, Thimmappa c
Bhatta, respondent No.2 herein, relinquished his rights and
surrendered the lands to the temple authorities and left the village
and started cultivating other lands thereat. In the year 1943, the
Trustees of the temple entrusted the rights of performing pooja
in the temple and cultivating the lands to Ramachandra Krishna
D
Bhatta, appellant herein and his mother. The appellant is the
> son of Krishna Bhatta. On 10.2.1948, the name of the mother of
...
the appellant herein was recorded in the Record of right as
protected tenant of Sy. No. 7/3 and the name of the appellant as
ordinary tenant for Sy. No. 56/1 vide Entry Nos. 198 and 238
respectively. l,n the year 1953, Thimmappa Bhatta, respondent E
No.2 herein, filed a suit being Suit No. O.S. 19/1953 before the
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Haliyal for partition and possession
of joint family properties. In the plaint itself, respondent No.2
admitted that he had left the village and gone to village Hittalli to
look after the properties of his sister. On 31.5.1958, the trial F
.... Court held that in so far as the scheduled lands are concerned,
(
/> the properties were shown as tenanted lands assigned for
worship of Shri Gopal Krishna Dev Temple. The trial Court also
held that the plaintiff (respondent No.2 herein) had given up his
claim for the purpose of the suit and that the suit insofar as it G
relates to these lands is held to be incompetent for want of
sanction of Charity Commissioner. As regards the remaining
immovable properties, there was no dispute and it was ordered
.....
to be partitioned. After the death of the mother of the appellant
herein, the name of the appellant was registered vide No. 303 H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 5 S.C.R.
A in respect of both the surveys in the Record of rights dated
27.8.1961. In this regard, an objection was raised by respondent
No.2 herein but the same was rejected. Thereafter, in the year
1963, respondent No.2 filed another suit being O.S. No. 70 of
1963 for partition and possession of the suit lands. Prior to filing
B of the suit, he applied to the Charity Commission for permission
to file the suit for partition of the suit lands. The said request
was rejected. O.S. No.70of1963 was also dismissed. Against
the said judgment and decree, respondent No.2 filed an appeal
being R.S.A. No. 930 of 1973 before the High Court of
C Karnataka.
3) During the pendency of the second appeal, the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act") was amended and it was, inter alia, provided that all
agricultural lands held by or in possession of tenants shall vest
D in the Government free from all encumbrances. Section 45
confers a right on the tenants to apply for grant of occupancy
rights. Section 48 A provid13s for filing of application by a tenant
to the Tribunal holding of enquiry etc. Section 133 provides that
a Tribunal constituted under the Act alone shall have jurisdiction
E to decide the question of tenancy and Section 132 bars the
jurisdiction of Civil Courts to decide any question required to
be decided by the Tribunal. The appellant herein filed an
application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. However,
no application was filed by respondent No.2 for grant of
F occupancy rights either for himself or on behalf of the joint family.
In the meantime, during the pendency of the proceedings before
, the Land Tribunal, the High Court considered RSA No. 930 of
1973 filed by respondent l\lo.2 herein and while allowing the
appeal remanded the matter to the trial Court for disposal on
G merits by fixing the share. On 5.11.1974, the Tribunal constituted
under the Act considered th1e application filed by the appellant
and held that the appellant was the tenant as on 1.3.1974 and
accordingly granted occupancy rights to the appellant. Against
the said order, regpondent No.2 moved Writ Petition No. 19619
H of 1979 before the High Court of Karnataka. The remanded
RAMACHANDRA KRISHNA BHATTA v. STATE OF 107
KARNATAKAAND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
- :i.. suit which was renumbered as O.S. No.34of1979 was decreed A
on 18.12.1980 holding that the defendants had not perused all
issues except issue No.5 and that as regards issue No.5 the
suit was not affected by Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation
and Consolidation of Holdings Act. Accordingly, plaintiff -
Thimmappa (respondent No.2 herein) was held entitled to 2;3rd B
share in both the surveys. On 9.6.1983, the High Court passed
an order in W.P. No.19619of1979 filed by respondent No.2 by
allowing the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the
Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal considered the
application afresh and held enquiry as contemplated in the Act c
and the Rules. On 16.8.1985, the Tribunal held that the appellant
alone was cultivating the land as tenant on the appointed date
and the temple was the owner of the lands and accordingly
granted occupancy rights to the appellant. Aggrieved by the said
'
order, respondent No.2 herein filed Writ Petition before the High
D
Court. Consequent upon constitution of appellate authority, the
matter was transferred before the said Authority for consideration
.... and was registered as DAAA: AP: 244.330/86. On 31.1.1989,
the appellate Authority held that the lands were tenanted lands,
therefore, allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the
Tribunal. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant preferred LRRP E
No. 2810 of 1989 before the High Court and the same was
dismissed by order dated 15.12.1998. On 5.11.1999, the review
petition filed by the appellant herein was also dismissed. Hence,
aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant preferred the above
appeals before this Court by way of special leave. F
4) Heard Mr.R.S. Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant,
"
)..
and Mr. S.N. Bhat. learned counsel for the respondents.
5) It is the grievance of the appellant that though the Land
Tribunal, by order dated 16.08.1985, declared and granted G
occupancy right in his favour in respect of the land in Survey
Nos. 56/1 to an extent of 2-21-0 and 7/3 to an extent of 1-4-0 of
Kannenalli village, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and
the High Court exercising power under the Act committed an
error in setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal and rejecting H
108 SUPREME COUFn REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
A the application of the appellant seeking occupancy right in i:.
respect of the said lands. In view of narration of the facts in the
earlier paragraphs, there is no need to traverse the same once
again. It is true that on the application made by the appellant
who is the son of Krishna Bhatta and grand-son of
B Mahabaleshwar Bhatta, Karnataka Land Tribunal, after finding
that the lands in question are temple lands which are being
cultivated by the applicant (appellant herein) in recognition of
his temple service and is being continuously cultivating these
lands from 1944, arrived at a conclusion that he is cultivating
c the lands which belong to the temple as tenant and, therefore,
he is entitled to occupancy rights. Aggrieved by the said
decision, Mahabaleshwar Narayan Bhatta and Thimmappa
Bhatta, sons of Shambu Bhatta and Narayan Bhata respectively
and grand-sons of Mahabaleshwar Bhata filed appeal before
the Land Reforms Appellate! Authority. The Appellate Authority,
D
after analyzing the materials, particularly judgment and decree
of the civil court as well as orders of the authority, came to the 'I
y
conclusion that the disputed lands are joint family properties
belonging to all the three parties, namely, Ramachandra Krishna
Bhatta, Mahabaleshwar Bhata and Thimmappa Bhatta. It is
E relevant to point out that the Appellate Authority came to such
conclusion on the basis of the decree of the civil court vide O.S.
No. 37 of 1979. The following conclusion of the Appellate
Authority is relevant:
F " ... Since the 3rd respondent has not taken any objection,
we come to the conclusion that the disputed lands are the
tenancy lands of undivided family of the appellants and ~
-l
the 3rd respondent. From these undisputed facts, it is clear
that the right of performing the pooja of Sri Gopalkrishna
deity and other services and the enjoyment of disputed
G
lands were not given to the 3rd respondent, but pooja and
other services were the undivided rights of the joint family
in addition to the tenancy rights."
Based on the finding rendered by the civil court and other
H materials placed before it, the Appellate Authority has concluded:
RAMACHANDRA KRISHNA BHATTA v. STATE OF 109
KARNATAKAAND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
-'..I "Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the 3rd A
respondent that he alone is in possession and cultivating
the disputed lands for the relevant period and he is eligible
for the occupancy rights and we answer accordingly by
rejecting his contention."
6) The Appellate Authority has rightly pointed out that as B
y
per Section 48A of the Act, it is incumbent upon the part of the
Land Tribunal to give public and personal notices before passing
an order in an application filed under Section 48. It is not in
dispute that the Land Tribunal has not heard the representative
of Shri Gopalkrishna Devaru Temple. A reading of sub-section c
(2) of Section 48A makes it clear that on receipt of application,
the Tribunal has to issue public notice in the village in which the
land is situated calling upon the landlord and all other persons
having interest in the land to appear before it on the date
specified in the notice. It is also incumbent on the part of the D
Tribunal to issue individual notice to the persons mentioned in
"
--; the application and also to such others as may appear to it to
be interested in the land. Sub-section (3) prescribes form of the
application, form of the notices and the manner of publishing or
seNing the notices. Sub-section (4) says that where no objection E
is filed, the Tribunal, after verification, pass an order to either
grant or reject the application. As per sub-section (5) where an
objection is filed disputing the validity of the applicant's claim
or setting of a rival claim, it is incumbent on the part of the Tribunal
to conduct enquiry and thereafter determine the person entitled F
to be registered as occupant and pass orders accordingly. The
'I factual finding of the Appellate Authority shows that the Land
;...
Tribunal failed to cause either public notice in the village or to
the deity Gopalkrishna Devaru Temple. In view of the same, it is
clear that the Land Tribunal has not fulfilled the requirement which
G
is mandatory and the Appellate Authority rightly interfered with
the order of the Land Tribunal and set aside the same.
7) The Appellate Authority has also concluded that there is
no acceptable material holding that the appellant alone was
cultivating the land and entitled for the grant of occupancy right. H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
A 8) The High Court considered the revision petition filed by ~-
the appellant before it under Section 121A of the Act. A reading
of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court shows that only
for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the illegality or as to the
regularity of such order or proceeding, the High Court is
B permitted to interfere. The! High Court, in the impugned order,
very well noted the factual finding of the Land Reforms Appellate
Authority that the nature of possession of the appellant cannot "
be regarded as tenant of the land. The High Court has also
concluded that there is absolutely no evidence in respect of its
c claim that he paid rent to the 3rd respondent as a tenant under
him. On the other hand, his plea that he was a tenant of the land
was not allowed to be rai:sed and rejected in O.S. No. 34/79
which had become final. In the light of the said materials, after
finding that the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was right in
holding that the appellant's claim of tenancy was not established
D
and there is no illegality or procedural irregularity which calls for
interference in revision, under Section 121, dismissed the same. f
y
9) In view of the factual finding arrived by the Land Reforms
Appellate Authority and affirmed by the High Court which is a
E Revisional Authority, in the absence of any acceptable material,
we are of the view that inte~rference by this Court under Article
136 of the Constitution of India is not warranted.
10) In the light of the above conclusion, the appeals are
liable to be dismissed as devoid of any merit and accordingly
F dismissed. No costs.
D.G. Appeal dismissed. f
"""'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land reforms"Sign in to search