STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.versusUPPEGOUDA AND ORS. ETC.

A                   STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.
                                 v.
                      UPPEGOUDA AND ORS. ETC.

                             SEPTEMBER 24, 1996

B                 [K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATA SWAMI
                        AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

          Kamataka Land Refonns Act, 1961/Mysore Tenancy Act 1952:

C       Ss. 44 and 4515(2}-'Land holder' giving the land to te11ant in 1950 for
  a period of 5 yeQl'S--Tenallt remained in possession till after 2.6.1965-Land
  holder claiming that the tenant had su1Tendered the land and entries in
  revenue records were made accordingly-Held, entries in revenue record are
  of no relevance-Mysore Tena11cy Act protected possession of the tenant-On
  contractual tenancy coming to an end, statutory tenancy sets in operation and
D tenant would be liable for ejectment only on proved grounds of statutory
  comravention-17iere is no order of competent authority for eviction of tenant .
  on SUC/i gTQUnds-17te tenant Who Was lawfully eiatitled to CUitivate t/ti /and
  personally immediately prior to coming into fol-ce of the amendment Act, but
  was wrong/Ully prevented from doing so, is entitled to registration of ocatpan-
E cyu/s45.
          P.G.. Esltwarappa v. M. Rudrappa & Ors., .JT (1996) 8 SC 171, i"elied.
    on.

          Bales/ta Ram Kltot & Ors. v. Land Tribunal, Cltikodi & Ors., (1978) K
F KW 116, referred to.
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1284-85
    of 1980.

          From the Judgment and Order dated '21J.6.77 of the Karnatalca High
G Court lo W.A. No. 196(A) and 197 of 1977.
          M. Veerappa for the Appellants.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H         We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
                                    692
                          STATE v. UPPEGOUDA                              693

      Though the respondents were served with notice, they do not appear A
either in person or through counsel.

      These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court made on June 20, 1977 in
Writ Appeal Nos. 196A and 197 of 1977.
                                                                                 B
      The admitted facts are that Sy. No. 16 admeasuring 2 acres and 30
gunthas of land of Mattighatta village belonged to respondent No. 2
(hereinafter called, the 'Land holder'). Respondent No. 1, Puppegouda was
put in possession of the land from the year 1950 as tenant under a lease
for 5 years which was extended from time to time upto 1960. Renewal of C
lease deed was executed in 1960 for a further period of 5 years. The
Karnataka Tenancy Act, 1961 came into force protecting the tenancy rights.
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act introducing Section 44 and other
provisions came into force w.e.f. March 1, 1974 abolishing intermediary
right of land-holders and conferment of permanent rights to the tiller of. D
the soil, i.e., tenant. The land-holder became entitled to compensation ·
payable under the Act.

         The question· is : whether the tenant was continuing in possession as
  on the date the land stood vested in the State Government so as to confer
  title on the tenant? A Full Bench of the High Court in Balesha Ram Khot        E
  & .Ors. v. Land Tribuna~ Chikodi & Ors., {1978) (k) KU 116 had held that
· "even if the land was not in a:c~ possession of the tenant, immediately
  prior to 1st March, 1974 if it was tenanted land, it vested in the State
  Governinent. That the land could not be registered in favour of the tenant
  who was not in actual possession immediately prior to 1st March, 1974 was      F
  not relevant for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether the
  land stood vested in the State Government under Section 44 of the Act".

      The tenant who was lawfully entitled to cultivate the land personally
 immediately prior to the commencement of the Amendment act, but was             G
 wrongfully prevented from doing so is entitled to registration of occupancy
 under Section 45 of the Act.

       The Act provides procedure to recover possession from an un-
 authorised occupant by a person entitled to such possession (Sections 41,
 121 and 129). A tenant who has been wrongfully or illegally prevented from      H
    694                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   cultivating the land may request the land Tribunal to defer consideration
    of his application till possession is restored to him and if he recovers
    possession, he may ask the Tribunal to proceed with his application.

          In this case, in view of the fact that the tenant continued in possession
    of the land from January 30, 1950 upto 2nd June 1965 when the Mysore
B   Tenancy Act was in force, it protected his possession. Sub-section (2} of
    Section 5 of the Tenancy Act reads as under :

             "Notwithstanding any agreement usage or law to the contrary, no
             tenancy shall be terminated before the expiry of a period of five
c            years except on the grounds mentioned is Section 15.

             Provided that with the consent of the landlord any ten~ncy may be
             terminated by a tenant before the expiry of a period of five years
            ·by surrendering his interest as a tenant in1 favour of the landlord."

D          This Court in a recent judgment in P.G. Eshwarappa v. M. Rudrappa
     & Ors., JT (1996) 8 SC 171 had held that ejection of a tenant under a
     decree obtained prior to the coming into force of the Karnataka Land
     Reforms Act, 1961 had come into force was illegal and that he was entitled
     to restitution of the possession illegally taken away from him. It was held
E   'that on the date when the Act had come into force and the tena~t was
     found to be ii;i possession of the land by operation' of sub- section (1) of
     Section 22, with a 11011-obstante clause, the tenant shall not be evicted from
     the land held by him except on the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to
     (e) of Section 22.
F       In this case, land holder has merely asserted that the tenant had
  surrendered the land and entries in revenue records were received in
  support thereof. It is easy to have the entries made with the assistance of
  patwari who had exclusive custody of records. The object of the Tenancy
  Act is to protect the tenanLs to remain in possession and enjoy it subject
G to c0mpliance of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Contracted tenancy
  come to an an end and statutory tenancy sets in operation an'd so he would
  be liable for cjectment only on proved grounds of statutory contravention,
  the entries of revenue recordc; arc self-~erving. There was no order of a
  competent authority of eviction of tenant for contravention of the above
H mentioned grounds. The proviso, though enables a landlord to .obtain
                             STATE v. UPPEGOUDA                              695

    possession on surrender, it must be proved strictly, as several devices would A
    be used to circumvent the beneficial provision and illiteracy and ignorance
    of the tenant would be taken advantage of. There is no proof of eviction
    of the tenant. The stand taken by the land-holder is not supported by legal
    setting. The High Court committed grave error of law. Accordingly, the B
    judgment of the High Court is not correct in law and stands set aside.




-
           The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.

    R.P.                                                        App~als allowed.




I