G H RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDEversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

560                       [2018]
               SUPREME COURT     5 S.C.R. 560
                              REPORTS                       [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A                       RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE
                                        v.
                        STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 3621 of 2018)
B                                APRIL 06, 2018
                 [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
                              NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
             Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 – s.14(5) – Resumption of
      land from tenants – High Court held against the appellant mainly
C     on the ground that the possession as required under s.14(5) of Act,
      1961 as it then existed was not handed over in favour of landlord
      – Held: It is clear from the language of s.14 as it then existed that
      the landlord could have filed an application if he needed the land
      for bona-fide use and occupation before the Tribunal seeking
D     resumption of the land from the tenants – A certificate is then issued
      by the Tribunal in case the application of the landlord for resumption
      is allowed – The landlord takes possession of the property by making
      further application before the Tribunal with support of the certificate
      issued – Pursuant thereto, the tenants are dispossessed before the
      31 st March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar year in
E     which the application for possession is made – In the matter on
      hand, the compromise was entered into before the Munsiff/Tribunal
      and the same was recorded as per law – The existence of such
      compromise between the parties is not disputed by the respondents
      at any stage – The parties also filed a memo in the resumption
F     proceedings to the effect that the landlord had already been given
      possession of the resumed lands by the respondents 2 to 9 – On the
      face of these documents, it would be futile exercise on the part of
      the landlord to once again carry out the procedure as contemplated
      under s.14(5) that too only in order to fulfil the formalities – Since
      the composite compromise, is acted upon by handing over the
G     possession of 4 acres of property in favour of the landlord by virtue
      of the order dated 02.03.1970 passed by the Munsiff/Tribunal and
      as handing over of possession in favour of the landlord is
      undisputed, it can be concluded that the landlord was in possession
      of the property to the extent of 4 acres since 02.03.1970, legally –
H
                                      560
 RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                                 561
                   & ORS.

The view of the High Court is hyper technical and too sophisticated           A
under the facts of the case – The land is already acquired by the
State Government – Civil Judge while deciding the reference
application seeking enhancement of compensation observed that
the beneficiaries under acquisition and the State Government have
taken possession of 4 acres of land from the landlord – The impugned
                                                                              B
judgments set aside – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3621
of 2018.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2013 of the High Court
of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Writ Appeal No. 6373 of             C
2010(LR-REF).
     S. S. Javali, Sr. Adv., Azeem A. Kalebudde, Ankolekar Gurudatta,
Neelkanth Dnyashwar Aher, Advs. for the Appellant.
      V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. for the Respondents.
                                                                              D
      The following Order of the Court was passed :
                               ORDER
      Despite service, none appears for respondent nos. 2 to 9.
      Leave granted.
                                                                              E
       2. Both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of
the High Court have concluded against the appellant mainly on the ground
that the possession, as required under Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land
Reforms Act, 1961, as it then existed, was not handed over in favour of
the landlord.
                                                                              F
      3. Before proceeding further it is relevant to note the provisions
of Sections 14(1) and 14(5) of Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (now
called as Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961) as they existed in the
year 1961-1970, the relevant years for the purpose of this case:-
      “14. Resumption of land from tenants – (1) Notwithstanding              G
      anything contained in Sections 22 and 43, but subject to the
      provisions of this Section and of Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and
      41, a landlord may, if he bona fide requires land, other than land
      held by a permanent tenant, -

                                                                              H
562      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A     (i) For cultivating personally, or
      (ii) For any non-agricultural purpose,
      file with the Tribunal a statement indicating the land or lands owned
      by him and which he intends to resume and such other particulars
      as may be prescribed. On such statement being filed, the Tribunal
B     shall, as soon as may be, after giving an opportunity to be heard to
      the landlord and such of his tenants and other persons as may be
      affected, and, having due regard to contiguity, fertility and fair
      distribution of lands, and after making such other inquiries as the
      Tribunal deems necessary, determine the land or lands which the
      landlord shall be entitled to resume, and shall issue a certificate to
C     the landlord to the effect that the land or lands specified in such
      certificate has been reserved for resumption; and thereupon the
      right to resume possession shall be exercisable only in respect of
      the lands specified in such certificate and shall not extend to any
      other land.
D     Explanation – Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the
      Tribunal within the jurisdiction of which the greater part of the
      land held by the landlord is situated shall be the Tribunal
      competent to issue a certificate under this Section.

      14(5) Where a certificate is issued in respect of any land under
E     sub-section (1)

      (a) In the case of tenancies existing on the appointed day, the
      landlord shall make an application to the Tribunal for possession
      of such lands within twelve months from the date of issue of the
      certificate, but the tenants shall not be dispossessed before the
F
      31st March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar year in
      which the application for possession is made;

      (b) In the case of tenancies created after the appointed day, the
      landlord shall not be entitled to resume the land before the expiry
G     of five years from the date of creation of the tenancies concerned
      and the tenants shall not be dispossessed before the 31st March of
      the calendar year succeeding the calendar year in which the
      application for possession is made.”


H
 RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                                563
                   & ORS.

       From the scheme of afore-mentioned provisions it is clear that        A
the landlord could have filed an application if he needed the land for
bona-fide use and occupation before the Tribunal seeking resumption
of the land from the tenants. The order was to be passed by the Tribunal
under Section 14(1) of the Act on such application being filed by the
landlord. A certificate would be issued by the Tribunal in case the
                                                                             B
application of the landlord for resumption was allowed. The landlord
would take possession of the property by making further application
before the Tribunal with support of the certificate issued as mentioned
supra. Pursuant thereto, the tenants would be dispossessed before the
31st March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar year in which
the application for possession was made. In the matter on hand the           C
compromise entered into as well as the order accepting the compromise
passed by the Tribunal was a composite order made under Sections
14(1) and 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961. It is relevant
to note herein itself that the Tribunal during the relevant point of time
was to be constituted under Section 111 of the Mysore Land Reforms
                                                                             D
Act, 1961. Section 111 (as it then existed) reads thus:
      “111. Constitution of Tribunal – (1) The State Government may,
      by notification, constitute for the area specified therein a Land
      Tribunal consisting of a sole member who shall be a judicial officer
      of the rank of a Munsiff who shall perform all the functions of the
      Tribunal under this Act.                                               E

      (2) For any area for which a Tribunal has not been constituted,
      the Munsiff having jurisdiction over such area or any other judicial
      officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall
      exercise all the powers and perform all the duties and functions
      of the Tribunal under this Act.                                        F

      Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, a Munsiff means (i)
      in the Bombay Area, a Civil Judge (Junior Division); and (ii) in the
      Madras Area, a District Munsiff.”
       From the afore-mentioned provision it is clear that the Land          G
Tribunal was to be constituted of a sole member who shall be a judicial
officer. In the matter on hand also the compromise was entered into
before the Munsiff/Tribunal and the same was recorded as per law.


                                                                             H
564             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A             4. Non-compliance of the procedural aspect, as contemplated
      under Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (as it stood
      originally), is properly explained by the appellant by drawing the attention
      of the Court to the compromise deed entered into between the parties
      on 02.03.1970. The compromise deed reads thus:-
B               “The Respondent has no objection for resumption of 4 acres of
              land southern portion of petition land.
                 The Respondent has already given the possession of the said
              resumed land to the petitioner.
                The petitioner has no other land except the land in dispute which
              is less than the ceiling limit.”
C
              From the aforementioned, it is clear that it was a composite
      compromise entered into between the parties keeping in mind Sections
      14(1) and 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (as it then
      stood) and submitted before the Munsiff/Tribunal, Dharwad in RLC
      109/70. The existence of such compromise between the parties is not
D     disputed by the respondents at any stage. However, their only contention
      is that the procedure as contemplated under Section 14(5) of the Mysore
      Land Reforms Act was not followed. In the resumption proceedings
      RLC No. 543/1970 dated 31.10.1970, RLC No. 109 of 1970 dated
      02.03.1970, RLC No. 55 of 1970 dated 17.04.1971, a compromise petition
E     was filed before the Munsiff/Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order in
      terms of the said compromise. The parties also filed a memo in those
      proceedings to the effect that the petitioner herein had already been
      given possession of the resumed lands by the respondents 2 to 9. On the
      face of these documents, it would be futile exercise on the part of the
      petitioner to once again carry out the procedure as contemplated under
F     Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, that too only in order to
      fulfil the formalities.
             5. Since the composite compromise, mentioned supra, is acted
      upon by handing over the possession of 4 acres of property in favour of
      the petitioner by virtue of the order dated 2.3.1970 passed by the Munsiff/
G     Tribunal, Dharwad in RLC No. 109 of 1970, and as handing over of
      possession in favour of the petitioner in respect of 4 acres of land is
      undisputed, it can be concluded that the petitioner was in possession of
      the property to the extent of 4 acres since 02.03.1970, legally. The view
      of the High Court, in our opinion, is hyper technical and too sophisticated
      under the facts of the case.
H
  RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                                 565
                    & ORS.

        6. It is relevant to note that the land is already acquired by the     A
State Government. The 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad,
while deciding the reference application seeking enhancement of
compensation in LAC case no. 82 of 1994 has observed in its judgment
dated 30.11.2015 that the beneficiaries under acquisition and the State
Government have taken possession of 4 acres of land from the landlord,
                                                                               B
i.e. the petitioner herein.
       7. From the aforesaid undisputed facts, it is amply clear that the
petitioner was permitted to resume the land and that the respondent nos.
2 to 9 have surrendered 4 acres of land in favour of petitioner herein by
virtue of the compromise deed entered into between the parties before
the competent authority as on 02.03.1970.                                      C

      8. Hence, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside and
the same are set aside.
       9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
       10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.            D
       11. There shall be no order as to costs.


Devika Gujral                                                Appeal allowed.
                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H