Holding

A mis‑description in Form‑7 can be amended irrespective of the statutory cut‑off, and lawful possession alone is sufficient to confer the status of a deemed tenant, so the Appellate Authority’s order stands.

Summary

The appellants filed a Form‑7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 claiming occupancy rights over certain survey numbers and later sought to amend the form to correct mis‑descriptions, adding land in two villages. The Land Tribunal rejected the claim, but the Land Reforms Appellate Authority allowed it, holding the claimant a deemed tenant and accepting the amendment as timely. The High Court, on revision, set aside the appellate order, holding the amendment barred by the statutory cut‑off date and that payment of rent was required for deemed tenancy. The Supreme Court held that a mere mis‑description can be rectified by amendment irrespective of the statutory deadline and that lawful possession alone suffices for a deemed tenancy, rendering the High Court’s findings erroneous. Consequently, the appellate authority’s order was restored and the appeal allowed.

Issues considered

Whether an amendment to Form‑7 filed after the statutory deadline of 30 June 1979 is barred by limitation when the amendment merely corrects a mis‑description of land.
Whether the condition precedent for a deemed tenancy under Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 includes payment of rent or merely lawful possession.
Whether the High Court, exercising its revisional power under Section 121‑A, may interfere with the factual findings of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and on what grounds.
Whether the inclusion of additional survey numbers not present in the original Form‑7 constitutes a new claim barred by the statutory embargo.

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961s. 121, s. 121-A, s. 133, s. 2(18), s. 4

Subjects

land reformstenancydeemed tenantamendment of plaintlimitationrevision jurisdictionKarnatakaForm‑7agricultural landoccupancy rights

Judgment

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 839

HONNAMMA & ORS. A
v.
NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5312-5318 of 2001)
MARCH 31, 2008
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
+
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961:
Form-7 - Tenant claiming right of occupancy -
Application in Form-7 Amendment in Form-7 to rectify c
misdescription of land - Claim denied by Land Tribunal -
Appellate authority allowing the claim except in respect of one
survey number holding that the same needed verification =
High court rejected claimant's case - On appeal, held:
Claimant was entitled to occupancy rights - He was a deemed 0
tenant - The condition precedent for creation of deemed
tenancy is lawful possession and not payment of rent =
Amendment in Form-7 cannot be refused on the ground of
limitation if the amendment is for rectification of mis"
description of the land - Land Laws and Agr/culturn! T~nancy, J;
s. 121-A - Revision - Scope of= Held: lntwference in
revision is justified only on very limited grounds vii. Perversity.
Predecessor-in-interest of the appellantt:M;laimant§
filed an application before Land tribunal In Form No·'7 of
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, eli:1imina gccup~mgy F
rights on specified survey number§ in village 1A',
Thereafter, he filed an application on 13.4.1961 :;;geking
amendment of Form-7. The amendment was ftllow@d ftfld
thereby some land falling In village$ 1M' and 'H' were
included in Form-7. The owners of tlrn land, gpntested the Ql
claim. The Land Tribunal rejected the claim. 1.em:f Reform~
Appellate Authority allowed the i;1ppeal holding theit the
claimant was the tenant of tha land., App@llate AYthgrity
also approved the amendment to Fqrm 7 gn the grgyml
839 H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A that the amendment was carried out within limitation.
However the occupancy rights in respect of one survey
-
.,... '..

number of village 'M' was denied holding that inclusion
of the survey number needed proper verification. High
Court had earlier dismissed two Revision Petitions
B against the order of the appellate authority. Revision
petitions filed by the respondents was allowed by High +
Court, holding that the occupancy rights for the lands
added by amendment was not permissible. The
amendment application was barred by limitation; and that
C the claimant could not be considered as deemed tenant
as he was not a contractual tenant and was not paying
rent. Hence the present appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A mere mis-description while identifying the
0
land in Form no. 7 as originally filed would not be hit by
the embargo with respect to the last date of the filing of ~·
Form no.7 i.e. on 30th June, 1979. A party cannot be
refused amendment in a case of a mis-description of
property as the purpose of amendment is to ensure that
E the real issues are addressed and that in such a case no
question of limitation would arise and the amended plaint
must be deemed to have been instituted on the date on
which the original plaint had been filed. Therefore, the
finding of the High Court on the question of limitation is
F erroneous. [Para 8] [847-D-G]
Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material
Supply, Gurgaon AIR 1969 SC 1267 - relied on.
Pakeera Moo/ya vs. Mari Bhat ILR 1999 Kar. p. 809 -
G distinguished.
2. A comparative reading of Sections 121 and 121-A
of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 would show that
the High Court's power has been circumscribed to
satisfying itself as to the legality of the order impugned
H
HONNAMMA & ORS. v. NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DEAD 841
BY HIS LRS. & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BED!, J.)
--"".,
...... • "?'
and to the regularity of the proceedings. Interference in A
revision on facts would be justified only on very limited
grounds such as perversity and that if the view taken by
the Appellate Authority was possible on the evidence, it
would be inappropriate on the part of the High Court to
differ in its conclusions. [Para 11] [848-H; 849-A-B] B
.,,
+ 3: High Court was deeply impressed by the fact that
the claimant had not been paying rent at the time when
the application in Form No. 7 had been filed. All that is
required for the person to claim the status of a deemed
tenant is that the possession must be lawful, but there is c
nothing which would necessitate the payment of rent ·as
a condition precedent for the creation of a deemed
tenancy. The finding of the High Court with respect to the
deemed tenancy is also erroneous. [Paras 11 and 12]
[849-C-D; 850-F-G] D
Dahya Lala and Ors. vs. Rasul Mahomed Abdul Rahim
·~
and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1320 - followed.
Chokkannagiri Narayanappa vs. Land Tribunal 1982 (2)
Kar. L.J. 21 - disapproved.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
5312-5318 of 2001

From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2000 of
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Land Reforms
Revision Petition Nos. 4381-4383 of 1988, 4659, 5387, 5031 F
& 3553 of 1988.
·~
S.N. Bhat, N. P.S. Panwar and D.P. Chaturvedi for the
Appellants.
P.R. Ramasesh, Sanjay R. Hegde, Amit Kr. Chawla, Arul G
Varma and Vikrant Yadav for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
·~
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. These appeals by special
leave are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 5 S.C.R.
.......
T • .....
A Court dated 27th July, 2000 whereby the orders of the Appellate
Tribunal conferring occupancy rights on the appellants, have
been reversed. The tenant-claimants are before us in these
appeals.
2. The facts of the case are as under:-
B
3. One Nanjundegowda since deceased filed an
application on 2nd January. 1976 before the Land Tribunal,
Nagamangala in Form No.7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") claiming occupancy rights
on specified surveys numbers in Village Anakanahalli. He
C thereafter filed an application on 3th April, 1981 seeking to
amend Form No. 7 on the plea that some of the survey numbers
given therein had not been correctly re-produced. This
application was straightaway allowed by the Land Tribunal
without notice to the opposite party and the necessary changes
D in Form No. 7 including some land falling in the Revenue Estates
of Villages Mylanahalli and Honnenahalli were made. The
landowner, K. Balalingaiah (now represented by his legal
representatives) was the owner of the land in question. One
Javarappa had also filed an application in Form 7 in the year
E 1975 for the same piece of land for which Nanjundegowda had
filed his application in the year 1981. Javarappa's application
was dismissed by the Land Tribunal. He thereafter filed a Writ
Petition in the High Court which too was dismissed on 4th
December, 1980. After the rejection of the aforesaid application
F Balalingiah sold the land in dispute to the respondents herein.
The purchasers were impleaded as parties before the Land
Tribunal and they contested the claim of Nanjundegowda on
various grounds. The tribunal, after taking evidence,
documentary as well as oral, concluded that the claim of tenancy
G rights made by Nanjundegowda was untenable and accordingly
rejected the claim. This order was challenged by
Nanjundegowda by way of a writ petition but on the constitution
of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority by an amendment of
the Act, the writ petition was remitted to the Appellate Authority
for disposal. The Appellate Authority crystallized the points for
H consideration as under:
HONNAMMA & ORS. v. NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DEAD 843
BY HIS LRS. & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
·~ .,,,,
1. Whether the lands in dispute are agricultural lands A
2. Whether the action of the Land Tribunal permitting
amendment of form No. 7 on 8.4.1981 by including
the lands in Milanahalli and Honnenahalli was valid

\. 3. Whether the inclusion of Survey No. 12 of Milanahalli B
-+ village in form no. 7 by the amendment application
dated 8.4.1981 was valid

4. Whether the lands in question were tenanted or not
on 1.3.1974
c
5. Whether the appellant was in occupation as a tenant
of the lands in question as on 1.3.1974

6. Whether the order of the Land Tribunal was correct
and whether it was liable to be interfered with
D
and after an elaborate discussion of the evidence, allowed
·~ the appeal with respect to the land except that covered by survey
Nos.64 and 12 of villages Anakanahalli and Mylanahalli
respectively vide order of 3rd June 1988 observing that the land
was agricultural in nature that Nanjundegowda was indeed a
tenant on the land mentioned in Form No. 7 as his uncle
E
Kallumaligegowda had brought him· from Kenchanahalli to
Anakanahalli where the land was situated and built a house for
him with a promise to give the lands to him, and that after the
death of Kallumaligegowda, his relatives had assured
Nanjundegowda that he could work on the land and bring credit F
·~ to his uncle's family. The Authority also held that the amendment
application pertaining to Form No. 7 filed on 3th April, 1981 could
not be said to be beyond limitation. K. Balalingaiah filed a
revision petition against the order of the Tribunal before the High
Court of Karnataka (CRP No. 3582 of 1988). One Smt. G
Lakshmamma, a respondent herein, also filed a revision petition
against the order of the Tribunal before the High Court of
' ...,. Karnataka (CRP No. 3553of1988). The High Court dismissed
the revision petitions for non prosecution by its order dated 20th
September, 1991 and an application for re-call of the order too H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 5 S.C.R.

T ••
A was dismissed. One Ramegowda, also filed a revision petition
before the High Court against the order of the tribunal (L.L.R.P
No 1 of1997) which too was dismissed by order dated 29th
January, 1997. Some of the alleged purchasers (respondents
herein) again filed revision petitions before the High Court
B challenging the order of the Appellate Authority. The High Court
observed that the three points which arose for consideration I
+
were:

(1) Whether the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was
right in concluding that the amendment application dated
c 8.4.1981 was rightly allowed except to the extent indicated
in the appellate order

(2) Whether the dismissal of CRP No. 3582 and CRP No.
3553 of 1988 for non-prosecution and the dismissal of
LRRP 1 of 1997 by challenging the impugned order
D
constitutes res-judicata as against the petitioners herein
(3) Whether the order of the Land Reforms Appellate ~·

Authority can be legally sustained

and then went to examine each of the issues independently.
E The court concluded that the amendment application dated 8th
April, 1981 having been filed after the cut off date of 30th June,
1979 was not maintainable in the light of the Division Bench
judgment of the High Court in Pakeera Moolya vs. Mari Bhat
( ILR 1999 Kar. p. 809), as a very limited right for an amendment
F had been left with the claimant and that did not cover the inclusion
of land not identified in the original application and as such the
amendment insofar as it dealt with the land in Village
Honnenahalli and partly in Village Anakanahalli could not be
"'
claimed by amendment.
G
On Point No.2, the High Court opined that the earlier
decisions in CRP No. 3582 and CRP 3553of1988 and in LRRP
No. 1 of 1997 did not constitute res-judicata with respect to the
io-' .
present proceedings.

H 4. On the third issue, the High Court found that the evidence
HONNAMMA & ORS. v. NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DEAD 845
BY HIS LRS. & ORS .. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
..;... 'r
produced by the parties did not justify the conclusion that the A
claimant was a person who had been lawfully inducted on the
land in question so as to give him the status of a deemed tenant
as he was not a contractual tenant and was not paying rent and

-
for this purpose relied on several judgments of this Court and of
the High Court and in particular on Chokkannagiri B
-+ Narayanappa vs. Land Tribunal ( 1982 (2) Kar. L.J. p.21).
The High Court accordingly allowed the revision petition and
set aside the order of the Appellate Authority, thus_ dismissing
the application filed by Nanjundegowda. It is in this circumstance,
that the present appeals are before us by way of special leave.
c
5. At the very outset, Mr. S.N. Bhat, the learned counsel for
the appellant has fairly conceded before us that the earlier
proceedings did not constitute res-judicata and the conclusion
drawn by the High Court to that extent was correct. He has

' > )--
however argued that the finding on the other two points i.e.
limitation and the deemed tenancy of Nanjundegowda had been
wrongly decided by the High Court and these findings were
D

required to be set aside. He has laid special emphasis on the
submission that the deemed tenancy under Section 4 of the Act
did not visualize the payment of any rent and all that was required E
for the claimant to assume the status of a deemed tenant was
that he had been cultivating the land lawfully. In support of this
argument, the learned counsel has cited Dahya Lala and
others vs. Rasul Mahomed Abdul Rahim and others Al~
1964 SC 1320. F
t- ~ 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has however
pleaded that by the amendment application dated 81h April,
1981 the applicant had sought to include land which did not
figure in the first application dated 2nd January, 1976 and as an
embargo had been placed by the Act itself under which no G
application in Form No. 7 could be entertained after 30 1h
June, 1979, the question of any amendment thereafter was
....... statutorily barred and that the High Court even otherwise having
found no case in favour of the claimants on facts, no interference
was called for. +t~f ...~- ..tr
H
,;/~: ..
;:''
.. •:,.
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

'T ..<....

A 7. We have considered the arguments advanced by
learned counsel. It is true that the Act itself provides a cut off
date in the filing of the application in Form No. 7. It is also true
that the original application had been filed well within time though

-
the amended application had been filed after the last date
B permitted by the statute. In order to examine the nature of the
amendment, and whether in fact it had set up what was a new +-
case, requires an examination of the application. It r.nay be
mentioned that in the original application the claim was limited
to land in Village Anakanahalli which was identified as under:
c Village Survey No. Extent

Anakanahalli 35 00-27
49-1 0-37
50 1-17
D
52/3 1-32
~~
71/1 1-23
31 0-20
64 0-13 _,
E 81 7-37
75 4-07
75 6-33
13 6-02

F By the amended application dated 81h April, 1981, however
the following amendment was sought: -f -.

Village Survey No. Extent

Anakanahalli 35-1 00-02
G 35-2 0-27
49-1
~0-3
2-3
71-1
0-37
1-17
1-32
1-23
- ~

H
-.
HONNAMMA & ORS. v. NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DEAD 847
BY HIS LRS. & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J]

31-2a 0-15 A
Mylanahalli 12 1-33
13 6-05
Honnenahalli 75-1 7-00
75-2c 0-18
B
81c 5-04
. ·+
8. A perusal of the first and the amended application would
reveal that as survey nos. 64, 81, 75, 75, 13 did not figure in the
original application, the proposed amendment was rejected and
that order has been maintained even by the High Court. The C
claim pertaining to survey No. 12 in village Mylanahalli too has
also been rejected for the same reasons. The amendments have
however been allowed with respect to the other survey numbers
and also with respect to a change in the name of the village(s)
on the understanding that a mere mis-description of the property D
was to be rectified by amendment. To our mind therefore, a mere
mis-description while identifying the land in Form no. 7 as
originally filed would not be hit by the embargo with respect to
the last date of the filing of Form no.7 i.e. on 301h June, 1979.
The judgment referred to by the High Court is· based on a E
different set of facts in as much certain items which had not
been included in the original plaint were sought to be included
by amendment, a proposal which the court held could not be
justified. The observations in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs.
National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon AIR 1969 SC F
1267 are meaningful. It has been observed that a party cannot
be refused amendment in a case of a mis-description of property
as the purpose of amendment is to ensure that the real issues
are addressed and that in such a case no question of limitation
would arise and the amended plaint must be deemed to have
been instituted on the date on which the or.iginal plaint had been G
filed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the finding of the
High Court on the question of limitation is erroneous.
•,
9. Mr. Bhat has also laid great emphasis on the third issue
as to whether the deemed tenancy which Nanjundegowda had H
"

848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 5 S.C.R.

A claimed was justified on facts. He has pointed out that the
.,.. . .;;----

appellate authority as the final fact finding body had found in
favour of the deemed tenants on an appreciation of the evidence
that had been adduced and it was not open to the High Court
sitting in revision to upset these findings of fact unless they were
B perverse or not possible on the evidence. It has also been
emphasized that the High Court had relied on Chokkannagiri
I--
Narayanappa's case (supra) and observed that as no rent
had been paid by Nanjundegowda it could not be said that he
could attain the status of a deemed tenant. He has however
c placed reliance on Dahya Lala's case (supra) wherein a
Constitution Bench of this court while construing Section 4 of
the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (which
is para materia with Section 4 of the Act) had clearly held that
the payment of rent was not visualized in such a situation.
D 10. We have considered the arguments advanced by
learned counsel. Section 121 provides for an appeal to the
Appellate Tribunal and gives it jurisdiction to confirm, modify or ~ -
rescind the order in appeal or its execution or to pass such other
order as may seem legal and just in accordance with the
E provisions of the Act. Section 121 A which confers the revisional
power on the High Court reads as under:
"121-A Revision by the High Court. - The High Court
may at any time call for the records of any order or
proceeding recorded by the Appellate Authority under this
F Act or any other law for the purpose of satisfying itself as
to the legality of such order or as to the regularity of such
-f
proceeding and may pass such order with respect thereto
as it thinks fit;
Provided that no such order shall be made except after
G
giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of
being heard".
11. A comparative reading of Sections 121 and 121-A ,... '

would show that the High Court's power has been circumscribed
H to satisfying itself as to the legality of the order impugned and to
HONNAMMA & ORS. v. NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DEAD 849
BY HIS LRS. & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
""*':.. T
the regularity of the proceedings. Mr. Bhat appears to be right A
in submitting that interference in revision on facts would be
justified only on very limited grounds such as perversity and that
if the view taken by the Appellate Authority was possible on the
evidence it would be inappropriate on the part of the High Court

- -.;
to differ in its conclusions. It bears notice that the Appellate B
Authority had placed reliance on a large number of documents/
letters, the landowners had written to Nanjundegowda. The
Tribunal accordingly found that these letters, when examined in
the light of the other evidence, had discharged the presumption
under Section 133 of the Act with regard to the correctness of
the revenue record which was admittedly in favour of the
c
landowner. It appears also that the High Court was deeply
impressed by the fact that Nanjundegowda had not been paying
rent at the time when the application in Form No. 7 had been
filed. This finding is on the face of it erroneous in the light of the
Judgment in Dahya Lala's case (Supra) . As already noted D
.. )-- above, while construing Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, which is pari materia with Section 4 of
the Act, this Court observed as under:
'The Act of 1948, it is undisputed, seeks to encompass E
within its beneficent provisions not only tenants who held
land for purpose of cultivation under contracts from the
owners but persons who are deemed to be tenants also.
The point in controversy is whether a person claiming the
status of a deemed tenant must have been cultivating land
with the consent or under the authority of the owner. Counsel F
~ "r for the appellants submits that tenancy postulates a relation
based on contract between the owner of land, and the
person in· occupation of the land, and there can be no
tenancy without the consent or authority of the owner to the
occupation of that land. But the Act has by Section 2(18) G
devised a special definition of ter:iant and included therein
persons who are not contractual tenants. It would therefore
..... be difficult to assume in construing Section 4 that the
person who claims the status of a deemed tenant must be
cultivating land with the consent or authority of the owner. H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A The relevant condition imposed by the statute is only that
the person claiming the status of a deemed tenant must
be cultivating land "lawfully": It is not the condition that he
must cultivate land with the consent of or under authority
derived directly from the owner. To import such a condition
B is to rewrite the section, and destroy its practical utility. A
person who derives his right to cultivate land from the
owners would normally be a contractual tenant and he will
obviously not be a "deemed tenant". Persons such as
licencees from the owner may certainly be regarded as
falling within the class of persons lawfully cultivating land
c belonging to others, but it cannot be assumed therefrom
that they are the only persons who are covered by the
section. The Act affords protection to all persons who hold
agricultural lands as contractual tenants and subject to the
exceptions specified all persons lawfully cultivating lands
D belonging to others, and it would be unduly restricting the
intention of the legislature to limit the benefit of its
provisions to persons who derive their authority from the
owner, either under a contract of tenancy, or otherwise. In
our view, all persons other than those mentioned in clauses
E (a}, (b} and (c) of Section 4 who lawfully cultivate land
belonging to other persons whether or not their authority
is derived directly from the owner of the land must be
deemed tenants of the lands".

12. From a perusal of the aforequoted passage all that is
F required for the person to claim the status of a deemed tenant
is that the possession must be lawful, but there is nothing which
would necessitate the payment of rent as a condition precedent
for the creation of a deemed tenancy. We are therefore of the
opinion that the finding of the High Court with respect to the
G deemed tenancy under Issue No.3 is also erroneous.
13. This appeal is accordingly allowed, the order of the
High Court is set aside and that of the Appellate Authority
restored. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

H K.K.T. Appeals allowed.