Holding

Punja land that is not cultivable and only supports natural grass does not meet the definition of agricultural land under Section 2(18) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and therefore the appellants are not entitled to occupancy rights.

Summary

The appellants, Subhakar and others, claimed occupancy rights as Chalgeni tenants over two parcels of "Punja" land in Dakshina Kannada under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The respondent, Harideesh Kumar, asserted ownership based on a gift deed. The Land Tribunal initially granted occupancy rights to the appellants' father but later reduced the award to 0.30 acres on humanitarian grounds. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appellants' writ appeal, holding that Punja land, which is non‑cultivable and supports only natural grass, does not fall within the definition of "agricultural land" under Section 2(18) of the Act. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the land must be used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes and that no evidence was produced to show such use; the mere presence of a few coconut trees was insufficient. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Punja land, which is non‑cultivable and supports only natural grass, qualifies as "agricultural land" within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
Whether the appellants are entitled to occupancy rights as Chalgeni tenants on such land.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961s. 2(18), s. 48A

Subjects

Land reformsAgricultural land definitionPunja landKarnataka Land Reforms ActOccupancy rightsTenancyEvidence

Judgment

SUBHAKAR AND ORS.
A
v.
HARIDEESH KUMAR AND ORS.

MARCH 13, 2007

[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] B
,,. .
Land Reforms:

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961-S.2(18)-'Punja' land-Land not
fit for cultivation-Only grass growing on it naturally-Hence, prayer to C
declare same as agricultural land rightly rejected by High Court.

The land in question is 'Punja' land situated in the Dakshina Kannada
District. The land is not fit for cultivation. Only grass is growing on it
naturally. Prayer of Appellants for declaring such land as agricultural land
was rejected by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. D
- 't
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: A bare reading of s.2(18) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961 shows that land means agricultural land that is to say, land which is
used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes E
subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land,
pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house-site or land used
exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, it has to be established
that the land was capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes
subservient thereto. The Tribunal and the High Court have categorically noted
the fact that the land being Punja land is not cultivable land and only grass is F
grown naturally. If the appellants wanted to establish that it was being used
for agricultural purposes, evidence should have been led in that regard. The
Division Bench has categorically noted that no evidence in that regard was
led. Mere reference to the spot inspection to show the existence of a few
coconut trees does not establish that the land was capable of being used for G
agricultural purpose. In view of the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal
and the High Court there is no merit in the present appeals.
[Paras 9 and IO] [932-E, F, H]

ClVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4992-4993 of
929 H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 3 S.C.R.

A 2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.1999 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 4088/1998 and 4463/1998.

S.N. Bhat, N.P.S. Panwar and D.P. Chaturvedi for the Appellants.
B Basava Prabhu S. Patil, B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Narayan P. Kengasur,
M. Sudhakar Pai and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents. . .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Appellants call in question legality of the
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court dismissing
the writ appeal filed by the appellants.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

D The appellants claim to be Chalgeni tenants and claim grant of
occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the
'Act'). According to them late Sesu Poojary, the father of the appellants filed
an application in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Karkala (for short the:
..
'Tribunal'). The claim was in respect of Survey No.162/1 measuring 2 acres
11 cents and Survey No.176/2 measuring 8 cents in Gandhinagar, Marpady
E village Moodabedri, Karkala Taluk of Dakshina Kannada District.
3. Respondent Harideesh Kumar claimed to be the owner of the land on
the basis of a gift-deed from his grandfather. Originally, the Tribunal granted
occupancy rights to the appellants' father by an order dated 25.4.1981. The
said order was challenged in Writ Petition No.10910/84 before the Kamataka
-~ -
F High Court and the High Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the
matter to the Tribunal. After remand by order dated 18.12.1996 rendered by
a majority Tribunal rejected the claim in respect of 1.81 acres of land and
granted 0.30 acres on humanitarian grounds. The appellants as well as the
respondent-Harideesh Kumar filed writ petitions challenging the order passed
G by the Tribunal. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellants and allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-Harideesh
Kumar by a common order. Appellants filed two writ appeals.

4. Before the High Court the stand of the appellants was that Punja
lands in the district are agricultural lands. According to the appellants, the
H
SUBHAKAR v. HARIDEESH KUMAR [PASA YAT,J.] 931
definition of "land" in terms of Section 2(18) of the Act is wide enough to A
include Punja land. Referring to some earlier decisions the Division Bench
of the High Court came to hold that Punja land is not agricultural land and
only grass is naturally grown in such land. Though the High Court referred
to classification of different Punja lands, it held that whether Punja land is
agricultural land is a question of fact. Finding has been recorded that this B
is not cultivable land and the grass is naturally grown on the land. Therefore,
the stand of the appellants was not correct. It was observed as follows:-

"In view of the above circumstances, we hold that in this case,
the land in question is a Punja Land where only thatched grass is
grown naturally. There may be some trees on the land. That does C
not mean that a natural grass growing land is an agricultural land
particularly, in the facts and circumstances of this case where a built
house is surrounding the land. For all the above reasons, in the
present case, having regard to the facts of the case, we make it clear
that Punja land in Dakshina Kannada is not an agricultural land. We
make it clear that where Punja land is brought under cultivation, it is D
not a bar on the parties to adduce evidence that such land is brought
under cultivation for agricultural purpose. No such evidence is there
in this case."

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the application
under Section 48A of the Act was in relation to two plots. As in Form 7 there E
was no mention of Survey 176/2. The appellants have no grievance with
regard to the findings recorded. But the Tribunal has lost sight of the fact
that on spot inspection certain coconut trees were found on the land in
question. Before the Tribunal, the Chairman allowed the claim while the other
members rejected the same. Reference was made to the fact that the claimant F
was a government servant and his son had admitted that the lease was
obtained from somebody else. It was also admitted that there was tailoring
establishment running on the land in question. However, on humanitarian
grounds the Tribunal allowed retention of the house and 30 cents of land.
Learned Single Judge found that no agricultural activity was possible and the
land admittedly was Punja Land. It was further observed that no agrarian G
relationship was established, and Punja land in the absence of any evidence,
cannot be treated as agricultural land. That also was the finding by the
Division Bench which further noted that no evidence was brought to show
that the land was under cultivation.

6. These are assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants. H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A 7. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-Harideesh Kumar
submitted that land had been obtained on lease for a period 11 months
starting from 1.1.1963 and 29.11.1963. The same also shows that the claimant's
father was a tenant and monthly rent of Rs.2.25 was payable by him. It was
further submitted that the son of Subhakar accepted somebody else to be the
landlord. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that she was aunt
B and was managing the affairs on behalf of the respondent. The said plea is
without any basis. In fact, the rent receipt Ex.PS on which the appellants
placed reliance did not indicate any serial number. It was also noted by the
•
learned Single Judge that there was no basis for allowing retention of the
house and 30 cents and the same has been rightly set aside.
c 8. Section 2(18) of the Act reads as follows:

"Land" means agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or
capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient
thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture
D land, plantation and tope but does not include house-site or land used
exclusively for non agricultural purposes."

9. A bare reading of the provision shows that land means agricultural
land that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural
purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes horticultural land,
E forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but does not
include house-site or land used exclusively for non- agricultural purposes.
Therefore, it has to be established that the land was capable of being used
for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto. The Tribunal and
the High Court have categorically noted the fact that the land being Punja
F land is not cultivable land and only grass is grown naturally. If the appellants ...\. .
wanted to establish that it was being used for agricultural purposes, evidence
should have been led in that regard. The Division Bench has categorically
noted that no evidence in that regard was Jed. Mere reference to the spot
inspection to show the existence of a few coconut trees does not establish
that the land was capable of being used for agricultural purpose.
G
I 0. In view of the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal and the High ~ ..
Court (both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench) there is no merit
in the present appeals which are accordingly dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.

H B.B.B. Appeals Dismissed.