Holding

Tenants in possession of land at the date of vesting are entitled to occupancy rights over the whole land under Section 44 read with Section 45, regardless of any prior concession under the repealed Section 14.

Summary

The appellant, a permanent tenant of a 5‑acre plot in Karnataka, faced a resumption order under Section 14 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for half of his land. Although the order was partially in the landlord's favour, the landlords never took possession and appealed for the entire plot. While the appeal was pending, the Act was amended in 1974, deleting Section 14 and inserting Section 44, which vests all lands in the possession of tenants in the State Government and confers occupancy rights under Section 45. The tenant claimed occupancy rights over the whole land based on the amendment, but the Tribunal and the High Court rejected the claim, reasoning that the tenant had earlier consented to the partial resumption. The Supreme Court held that, under Section 44 read with Section 45, any tenant in possession at the date of vesting is entitled to occupancy rights over the entire land, irrespective of the earlier concession, and set aside the lower courts' orders. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a tenant who earlier consented to the resumption of part of his land under the now‑repealed Section 14 can invoke the amended Section 44 to claim occupancy rights over the whole land he continues to occupy.
Effect of the 1974 amendment inserting Section 44 on the rights of tenants in possession when a resumption order is pending.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961s. 14, s. 44, s. 45, s. 5

Subjects

TenancyLand reformsOccupancy rightsVesting of landSection 44 Karnataka Land Reforms ActSection 45 Karnataka Land Reforms ActResumption of landLandlord‑tenant dispute

Judgment

SRI SIDDAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. A
.,, -4 v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

MAY4, 2000

[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETill, JJ.] B

Tenancy and Land Laws :

KamatakaLandRefonns Act, 1961 (as amended by Act No. 1of1974)-
Ss. 44 and 45-Vesting of land in State Govemment-Tenant's right to claim c
occupancy rights-Landlord's claim for resumption of land for personal culti-
vat ion, pa11ly allowed-Landlord instead of taking possession of land, filing
appeal before the Tribunal-Land continued to remain in possession of ten-
.... ants-During pend.ency of appeal, Act amended by which S. 14 omitted and S.
44 was inse11ed-Tenant's claim for occupancy rights on the gmund o.f being
in possession of land on the relevant date-Rejected-On appeal, Held, tenant D
entitled to claim occupancy rights on the whole land in his possession-High
Court not justified in rejecting the claim of tenant.

Predecessor in interest of appellants was a tenant of the land belong-
ing to respondent-landlord. Respondents initiated proceedings under S. 14 E
of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for resumption of half of the
land for their personal cultivation, which was partly allowed. But despite
resumption order, respondent-landlord instead of taking possession of said
land, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal for resumption of entire
land. Thus, appellant-tenant continued to remain in possession of the land. F
In the meantime, the Act was amended (by Act No. 1of1974) by which S.
14 was omitted and S. 44 providing vesting of land in State Government
was inserted. Consequently, appellant-tenant, invoking the provisions of S.
44 of Act, claimed occupancy rights on the ground of being in possession
on the relevant date. The said claim was rejected both by the authorities
under the Act and the High Court on the ground that the appellants
G
having themselves agreed for resumption of 50% of the land, cannot
--i invoke the subsequent amendment made in the Act. Hence the present
appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court H
995
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A HELD: 1.1. Appellants are entitled to the conferment of occupancy
rights on the whole land in their possession under S. 44 r/w. S. 45 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. [999-D]

1.2. Under S. 44 of the Act, all lands in possession of the tenants
stood transferred to and absolutely vested in the State Government free
B from all encumbrances. Under S. 45 of the Act every person who was a
permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or where a tenant had
lawfully sub-let, such sub-tenant was, with effect from and from the date of
vesting, held entitled to be registered occupants in respect of the land of
which he was a tenant. In the instant case, it is not disputed that despite .
c passing of order of resumption in their favour, the respondent-landlords
had not taken possession of the land which continued to be in possession of
the appellant-tenants. Thus, High Court was not justified in negativing the
claim of tenants to which they were entitled under S. 44 r/w. S. 45 of the
Act. [998-E-G]

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 771of1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.8.93 of the Kamataka High
Court in W.P. No. 4341 of 1979.

P. Mahale, (Rajesh Mahale for R.C. Kohli for the Appellants.
E
K.H. Nobinsingh and M. Veerappa for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

--.. · SETHI, J. Invoking the provisions of Section 44 of the Kamataka Land
F Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "the Act"), the original appellant-
tenant approached the authorities under the Act for conferment of occupancy
rights on the ground of being in possession on the relevant date. His clai1n
was negatived both by the authorities under the Act and the High Court
allegedly on the ground that he had made a concession in proceedings
initiated under Section 14 of the Act for resumption of land by the landlord.
G
It wa~ found that as the appellant himself had agreed to forego his claim to
the extent to 50% of the land in his occupation, he could not invoke the
subsequent amendment made in.the Act vide Section 44.

It is not in dispute that the appellant's father Shri Sadappa was a tenant
H of the land bearing Survey No.14 measuring 5 acres 6 guntas situated at
SIDDAPPA v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 997

_.... -"" Hulaganaktti Village, Kalaghatgi Taluk since about 50 years. The respondents A
are alleged to have initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the Act for
resumption of half of the land for their personal cultivation in the year 1967.
The application filed by the landlords was partly allowed on 15.10.1968 in
~ RLC No.348 of 1967 permitting them to resume 2 acres 23 guntas of the land.
It is also not disputed that despite orders in their favour, the respondents-
B
landlords did not take the possession in execution of the orders of resumption
passed. Instead they preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with a prayer
~ for resumption of the entire extent of land. During the pendency of the appeal,
.the Act was amended on 1.3.1974 (by Act No.I of 1974) by which Section
14 was omitted and Section 44 providing vesting of land in Government was
inserted. For rejecting the claim of the appellant, the Tribunal and the High c
Court relied upon the orders passed in favour of the landlords under Section
14 of the Act and did not consider the effect of Section 44 of the Act, which
so far as relevant for our purposes, reads:

"44. Vesting of land in the State Government._(1) All lands held by
or in the possession of tenants (including tenants against whom a D
decree or order for ·eviction or a certificate for resumption is made
or issued) immediately prior to the date of commencement of the
Amendment Act, other than lands held by them under leases permit-
ted under Section 5 shall, with effect on and from the said date, stand
; transferred to and vest in the State Government. E
(2) Notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate
issued by any Court or authority directing or specifying the lands
which may be resumed or in any contract, grant or other instrument
or in any law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the
date of vesting and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, F
the following consequences shall ensue, namely:-

(a) all rights, title and interest vesting in the owners of such lands
and other persons interested in such lands shall cease and be
ves.ted absolutely in the State Government free from all encum-
brances;
G

~ (b) xx xx xx xx

(c) xx xx xx xx

(d) xx xx xx xx H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A (e) xx xx xx xx

(f) the land-owner, landlord and every person interested in the land
whose rights have vested in the State Government under clause
, (a), shall be entitled-only to receive the amount from the State
Government as provided in this Chapter;
B
(g) pe1manent tenants, protected tenants and other tenants holding
such lands shall, as against the State Government, be entitled
only to such rights or privileges and shall be subject to such
conditions \1-S are provided by or under this Act; and any other
c rights and privileges which may have occurred to them in such
lands before the date of vesting against the landlord or other
person shall cease and determine and shall not be enforceable
against the State Government."

A perusal of the Section shows that all lands in possession of the
D tenants, including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a
certificate for resumption had been made or issued, stood transferred to and
vested in the State Government. The rights, privileges and interests vesting
in the owner of such lands stood extinguished and vested absolutely in the
State Governme.µt free from all encumbrances. Such owners were held
E entitled only to receive the amount from the State Government as provided
in Chapter III of the Act. Consequently, permanent tenants, protected tenants
and other tenants holding such lands were held entitled to such iights and
privileges and be subject to such conditions as were provided under the Act.
Under Section 45 of the Act every person who was a permanent tenant,
protected tenant or other tenant or where a tenant had lawfully sub-let such
F sub-tenant was, with effect from and from the date of vesting, held entitled
to be registered occupant in respect of the land of which he was a tenant.

There does not appear to be any dispute regarding the fact that despite
passing of order of resumption in their favour, the respondents-landlords had
G not taken the possession of the land which continued to be in possession of
the appellants-tenants. The Tribunal in its order dated 22nd March, 1979
noted:

"The records show the applicant's father and then the applicant's
name as protected tenant and cultivator since 1960 onwards. But there
H was also order passed by the Tribunal inRCC 348/67 dated 15.10.1968

"
SIDDAPPA v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 999
according to which the landlord was allowed to resume 50% of the A
land i.e. 2 acres 23 guntas. This was not executed because according
to the landlord, he had filed an appeal to resume the entire land and
because he was sick. After 1974 he could not take any action to
resume the land."

Similarly the High Court also observed: B
"It also noticed that the landlord had not resumed the land on account
of illness and an appeal also had been preferred thereto."

It appears that being more influenced by equity than by law, the
Tribunal and the High Court rejected the claim of the appellants-tenants to C
which he was entitled under Section 44 of the Act. The orders of the Tribunal
and the High Comt, therefore, cannot be sustained and are required to be set
aside.

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and
.the impugned order of the Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court as
D
well as of the Tribunal are set aside. The appellants are held entitled to the
conferment of rights on the whole land in their occupation under Section 44
read with Section 45 of the Act. As no-one has appeared for the respondents
to seriously contest the appeal, the appellants are left to bear their own costs.
E
S.V.K. Appeal allowed.