NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS.versusPILLAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS.

1046                     [2022] REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT   14 S.C.R. 1046              [2022] 14 S.C.R.


 A          NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS.
                                         v.
               PILLAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS.
                       (Civil Appeal Nos. 7657-7658 of 2017)
 B                               MARCH 31, 2022
            [S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
              Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – ss.2(27), 2(33), 2(34),
       Proviso to s.48-A – Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 – r.19 –
       Held: Order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course – An
 C
       order of remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of
       remanding a proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal – An
       endeavour has to be made by the Appellate Court to dispose of the
       case on merits – Where both the sides have led oral and
       documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide the appeal
 D     on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or the
       Tribunal – In the instant case, the Division Bench remanded the
       matter without any justification – Further, in view of proviso to s.48-
       A, it was permissible for the tenant to make an application seeking
       correction of the extent of land in the order of the Land Tribunal –
       The proviso was inserted on 20.10.1995 and the memo seeking
 E
       correction of the order of the Land Tribunal was filed in the year,
       2002 – Therefore, Single Judge was not justified in quashing the
       Notice issued by the Land Tribunal on the ground of delay of about
       20 years – Most of the tenants are villagers from remote areas and
       most of them are illiterate persons and the Act is a beneficent
 F     legislation – This aspect has to be kept in mind while deciding cases
       under the Act – Whether the order requires correction or not has to
       be decided by the Land Tribunal, after hearing the parties – Order
       in Writ Appeal No.1950 of 2007 dated 30.12.2014 passed by the
       Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the order of
       the Single Judge in W.P.No.27230/2002 dated 25.07.2007 is restored
 G
       – Also, order in Writ Appeal No.1563 of 2007 dated 30.12.2014
       and the order of the Single Judge in W.P.No.23034/2002 dated
       25.07.2002 are set aside – Land Tribunal to hold an inquiry on the
       notice dated 24.05.2002 and pass appropriate orders thereon in
       accordance with law – Practice and Procedure.
 H
                                        1046
 NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. v. PILLAMMA                             1047
            SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

     Practice and Procedure – Order of remand – When cannot                 A
be passed – Discussed.
      Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Object of – Discussed.
      Interpretation of Statutes – Beneficial legislation – Held: It is
a well-settled canon of construction that in construing the provisions
of such enactments, the court should adopt a construction which             B
advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the Act rather than the
one which would defeat the same and render the protection illusory
– Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7657-
7658 of 2017.                                                               C

      From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2014 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal Nos. 1563 of 2007 (LR) and
1950 of 2007 (LR).
     A. N. Venugopal Gowda, Sr. Adv., Balaji Srinivasan, Mohammed           D
Shahrukh, Ramesh B., Advs. for the Appellants.
      Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., Ashok Bannidinni, Aviral Chandra, Sujeet
Kumar, Shubhranshu Dash, Anshuman Nayak, Shubhranshu Padhi,
Ashish Yadav, Rakshit Jain, Vishal Banshal, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            E
      S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
      1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated
30.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka
at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1563 of 2007 connected with Writ Appeal
No.1950 of 2007.                                                            F

       2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are
as follows:
       Smt. Pillamma w/o Late Mariyappa and her children (respondents
herein) filed Writ Petition No(s).27230/2002 and 23034/2002 before the      G
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore challenging the order dated
27.02.1989 passed by the Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authority
and the Order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 and also the Notice
dated 24.05.2002 issued by the Land Tribunal for correcting the extent
of land found in the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982. They
                                                                            H
1048            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 14 S.C.R.


 A     are the owners of the lands bearing Survey No(s).4/7, 4/2 and 1/11
       measuring 35 guntas, 25 guntas and 1 acre 14 guntas respectively of
       Srigandadakaval Village, Bangalore North Taluk. Smt. Pillamma died
       during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. Her
       children who were already on record continued the proceedings before
       the High Court. Their father, late Mariyappa s/o Channappa had purchased
 B
       the lands under a deed of sale dated 30.08.1954 from one Venkatappa.
              3. Appellants are the legal representatives of one Nadakerappa.
       Nadakerappa claiming to be the tenant of the said lands filed two
       applications in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights of the said lands
       along with two other lands i.e. Survey No(s).4/14 and 65. The Land
 C     Tribunal by its order dated 30.04.1982 granted occupancy rights in favour
       of Nadakerappa in respect of the lands bearing Survey No.4/7 to an
       extent of 35 guntas, Survey No.4/2 to an extent of 25 guntas and Survey
       No.1/11 to an extent of 25 guntas. Certificate of registration was issued
       in favour of Nadakerappa in respect of these lands on 08.09.1982 to the
 D     extent indicated above. Nadakerappa paid an amount of Rs.462/- towards
       premium for the grant of certificate of registration. The compensation in
       respect of the granted lands was ordered to be paid to the land owners
       on 27.11.1984 by Nadakerappa. It is to be noticed here that Mariyappa
       was not made party to the said applications filed by Nadakerappa. In the
       application dated 31.12.1974, the name of one Ramakrishnappa s/o
 E     Byrappa was shown as land owner and, in another application dated
       30.10.1974, the ownership column was left blank.
              4. Mariyappa filed Writ Petition No.12461/1984 before the High
       Court challenging the order of the Land Tribunal which came to be
       transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the same was
 F     numbered as LRA No.179/1986. The Appellate Authority by its order
       dated 27.02.1989, dismissed the appeal for default. Mariyappa died in
       the year 1993.
             5. Mariyappa, during his life time, had filed an application before
       the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, to rectify the revenue entry for
 G     the year 1989-90 and to show his name in respect of 29 guntas of land in
       Survey No.1/11. However, on 25.04.1992, the Tahsildar passed an order
       adverse to the interest of Mariyappa. Mariyappa filed an appeal before
       the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.196/1992-93 challenging the said
       order which was also dismissed on 26.10.1995. Since Mariyappa died in
 H     the year 1993, his legal representatives filed Revision Petition No.118/
 NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. v. PILLAMMA                               1049
    SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

2001 before the Special Deputy Commissioner challenging the order of          A
the Assistant Commissioner. The said Revision Petition was allowed by
the Special Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 19.04.2002.
Nadakerappa challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.20187/
2002 before the High Court which was allowed on 01.07.2002.
Consequently, the order of the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner, as
                                                                              B
also the Special Deputy Commissioner, were set aside. The order in
Writ Petition No.20187/2002 stood confirmed in Writ Appeal No.3971/
2002.
       6. In the meanwhile, Nadakerappa filed a suit bearing
O.S.No.7459/1991 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, seeking
injunction in respect of 1 acre 14 guntas of land in Survey No.1/11 of        C
Srigandadakaval Village. The Civil Court granted an order of temporary
injunction in the said suit. This order was challenged by the land owners
in MFA No.319/1993 before the High Court. The said appeal was
disposed of by the High Court on 08.07.1998 restraining the parties from
cutting and removing the trees standing thereon to an extent of 29 guntas.    D
Finally, O.S. No.7459/1991 was decreed by the Civil Court on 21.05.2003.
The land owners challenged this judgment by filing an appeal, RFA
No.1134/2003 before the High Court. After considering the matter in
detail, the High Court has dismissed the appeal on 10.01.2014.
       7. Nadakerappa had filed a memo in the year 2002 before the            E
Land Tribunal seeking correction of a clerical mistake found in the order
of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982. On receipt of the memo, the
Land Tribunal issued a notice to the land owners for an enquiry. The
land owners filed Writ Petition No.23034/2002 challenging the validity
and correctness of the said notice. They also filed Writ Petition No.27230/
2002 challenging the Appellate Authority’s order dated 27.02.1989             F
dismissing LRA No.179/1986 and also the order dated 30.04.1982 passed
by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of Nadakerappa.
      8. Learned Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated
25.07.2007 dismissed Writ Petition No.27230/2002 filed by the land
owners on the ground of delay and laches. The other writ petition, i.e.       G
W.P.No.23034/2002 filed by the land owners was allowed and the notice
dated 24.05.2002 was quashed by the High Court.
      9. Nadakerappa represented by his legal representatives
challenged the order passed in Writ Petition No.23034/2002 by filing
                                                                              H
1050            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 14 S.C.R.


 A     Writ Appeal No.1563/2007. The land owners challenged the other order
       passed in Writ Petition No.27230/2002 by filing Writ Appeal No.1950/
       2007. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed Writ Appeal
       No.1950/2007 and the order passed in Writ Petition No.27230/2002 was
       set aside. Consequently, the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982
       and the order passed by the Appellate Authority in LRA No.179/1986
 B
       were quashed and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for
       fresh disposal. In view of this order, the High Court held that Writ Appeal
       No.1563/2007 has become infructuous. As noticed above, these orders
       are under challenge in these appeals.
             10. Therefore, two questions arise for consideration in these
 C     appeals. The first question is whether the Division Bench was justified
       in reversing the order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No.23034/
       2002, setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 and
       remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal. The second question is
       whether the Learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the notice
 D     dated 24.05.2002.
              11. On the first question, Shri A.N. Venugopal Gowda, learned
       senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that there is a long
       and inordinate delay of 20 years in challenging the order of the Land
       Tribunal. He further submits that the appellants are in possession of the
 E     lands in question as protected tenants from the year 1955 and the
       respondents were well-aware of the proceedings as early as in the year
       1993. Mariyappa, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had
       not prosecuted the case against Nadakerappa. Accepting theses grounds,
       the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The Division
       Bench of the High Court has set aside the said order in a mechanical
 F     manner and has remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal without any
       justification. He has urged several other grounds in support of the order
       of the Learned Single Judge on this question.
               12. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Singh and Ms. Kiran Suri, learned
       Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, submit that Nadakerappa
 G     filed the application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights wherein
       the column earmarked for the name of the landlord was kept blank.
       Though there is no provision for filing a second Form No.7, he filed the
       same in which the name of the landlord was shown as “Rama
       Krishnappa”. It is further submitted that Nadakerappa obtained the order
 H     of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 by playing fraud upon the said
 NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. v. PILLAMMA                               1051
    SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

Tribunal. The respondents, having obtained the order by playing fraud,        A
cannot be allowed to keep the fruits of the said order. In view of the
above, finality of the litigation cannot be pressed into service. In this
connection, they have relied on several judgments of this Court. Secondly,
it is submitted that there is no documentary evidence before the Land
Tribunal to establish the relationship of tenant and landlord which is a
                                                                              B
pre-requisite under Section 2(33) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
       13. On the second question, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.N.
Venugopal Gowda, submits that having regard to the amendment to
Section 48-A of the Act wherein a proviso was added by Act No.31 of
1995, Nadakerappa filed a memo for correction of clerical error in the        C
order. The Land Tribunal rightly issued notice on this memo to the
respondents. Learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified in quashing
the said notice on the ground of delay. However, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondents, have sought to justify the order of the
learned Single Judge.                                                         D
       14. Before considering the above questions, it is necessary to
consider the contention of the learned counsel for the parties as to the
existence or otherwise of the relationship of landlord and tenant between
Mariyappa, the landlord and Nadakerappa who had filed the application
in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands in         E
question. Materials on record clearly establish that Venkatappa was the
original owner of these lands. He had executed a sale deed dated
28.08.1954 in favour of Mariyappa which was registered on 30.08.1954.
However, Venkatappa sold these properties again in favour of
Sharabaradhya by a deed of sale dated 07.07.1954 registered on
21.10.1954. As the sale deed executed in favour of Sharabaradhya was          F
subsequent to the sale deed executed in favour of Mariyappa,
Sharabaradhya could not get any right, title or interest over the said
properties. Sharabaradhya executed registered lease of deeds dated
29.04.1955 and 23.05.1956 in respect of the lands in question in favour
of Nadakerappa. It is relevant to note here that Sharabaradhya executed       G
the registered deed of relinquishment on 24.09.1964 in respect of these
properties in favour of Venkatappa. It is no doubt true that when these
lease deeds were executed in favour of Nadakerappa, Sharabaradhya
had no right, title or interest in respect of these properties. However,
after the execution of these lease deeds, the name of Nadakerappa was
                                                                              H
1052             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 14 S.C.R.


 A     entered in the RTC. It is also clear that after execution of the lease
       deeds, Nadakerappa was put in possession of the properties as a tenant.
       The contention of the learned counsel for the landlord is that there is no
       contract of tenancy between the landlord Mariyappa and Nadakerappa.
       However, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that
       Nadakerappa was a protected tenant as defined under sub-section (34)
 B
       of Section 2 of the Act.
              15. The expression ‘tenant’ is defined in sub-section (34) of Section
       2 of the Act. As per this provision, a tenant includes a person who is a
       protected tenant. The expression ‘tenancy’ is defined in sub-section (33)
 C     of Section 2, which means relationship of landlord and tenant. Sub-section
       (27) of Section 2 defines the expression ‘protected tenant’, which means
       a tenant of any land if he has held it continuously and cultivating it
       personally for a period of not less than twelve years prior to the appointed
       day. The appointed day here is 01.03.1974.

 D            16. Materials on record would clearly indicate that Nadakerappa
       was in possession and cultivating the lands from the date of the aforesaid
       lease deeds. In fact, this position has been admitted by the landlord which
       is evident from the documents produced by the appellant along with IA
       No.103954 of 2021. The appellant has produced the certified copy of an
       application in Form No.7 dated 27.12.1974 filed by Mariyappa seeking
 E     grant of occupancy rights of some other lands in Sajjepalya Village,
       Bangalore, North Taluk dated 27.12.1974. While filing application in Form
       No.7, the applicant is not only required to give the description of the land
       in respect of which he seeks registration of occupancy rights under
       Section 45 of the Act but is also required to give details of the lands held
 F     by him or his family for the purpose of considering ceiling on land holdings
       under Chapter-IV of the Act. The form of the application is statutorily
       prescribed under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974
       (for short ‘the Rules’). Form No.7 prescribed under Rule 19(1) is as
       under:

 G                                     “FORM 7
                                   [See Rule 19(1)]
          Application under Section 48-A(1) for registering as an occupant
                                 under Section 45
 H
NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. v. PILLAMMA                          1053
   SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

   To                                                                   A
    The Tribunal……………………………..Taluk
    Name of the applicant……………………………
   Age                        Profession       Place of residence
         I am the tenant/sub-tenant of the following land:              B




                                                                        C


       I have been cultivating the land as a tenant
   for……………years.
         I am interested in getting registered as an occupant of the
                                                                        D
   land on the terms and conditions laid down in the Karnataka Land
   Reforms Act, 1961.
         I, the family of which I am a member, hold the
   following lands in my name and in the names of my family
   members other than those described above as owner/tenant/
                                                                        E
   or in any other capacity:-




   1. Self                                                              F
   2. Wife
   3. Minor Children
   4. Unmarried daughters
   5.                                                                   G
   Any other particulars
   Place:…………………
   Date:………………….                               Signature of applicant
                                                                        H
1054             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 14 S.C.R.


 A                      The Tahsildar should check up the above information
              with reference to original records and keep ready for enquiry by
              the Tribunal.
                     Note: The information given above, if found to be incomplete
              or incorrect the petitioner is liable to conviction and levy of penalties
 B            as provided under Section 125 of the Act.”
               17. In the Form No.7 filed by Mariyappa, he has admitted that
       Survey Nos.11/1, 4/2 and 4/7 of Srigandadakaval Village owned by him;
       is in the possession of Nadakerappa as a tenant.
              18. Learned senior counsel appearing for the landowners submits
 C     that the document Form No.7 said to have been filed by Mariyappa, is a
       fabricated document and that the respondents have filed a complaint
       before the jurisdictional police station in this regard. It is also submitted
       that there is no statutory requirement for including the lands owned by
       the tenant in the said application.
 D            19. Form No.7 filed by the appellant is a certified copy. Having
       perused the said document, we have no hesitation to hold that it is not a
       fabricated document. Form No.7 requires the applicant to disclose the
       other lands held by him and the members of his family. When the landlord
       himself admits that Nadakerappa was a tenant as early as on 27.12.1974,
 E     there is no question of holding that no relationship of landlord and tenant
       existed between Mariyappa and Nadakerappa. Perusal of the materials
       on record, makes it clear that Nadakerappa was in possession and
       cultivating the said lands from the year 1955 and was qualified to be
       treated as a ‘protected tenant’.

 F            20. Now, let us consider the first question involved in these appeals.
       As noticed above, Mariyappa was the owner of the property by virtue
       of the Sale Deed dated 30.08.1954. However, Nadakerappa did not show
       his name in the application filed on 30.10.1974 in Form No.7 for grant of
       occupancy rights. In fact, he did not show anybody’s name as the land
       owner of the property and left the said column blank. However, in the
 G     concluding part of his application in Form No.7, he has mentioned that
       the said property is standing in the name of Mariyappa s/o Channappa.
       In the second application in Form No.7 filed by Nadakerappa dated
       31.12.1974 he has shown the name of one Ramakrishnappa s/o Byrappa.
       The land Tribunal granted occupancy rights by Order dated 30.04.1982
       in respect of Survey No(s).4/7, 4/2 and 1/11 to an extent of 35 guntas, 25
 H
 NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. v. PILLAMMA                                1055
   SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

guntas and 25 guntas respectively. Mariyappa challenged the said order         A
of the Land Tribunal by filing W.P. NO.12461/1984 before the High
Court of Karnataka. This Case was referred to the Appellate Authority
wherein it was re-numbered as LRA No.179/1986. The said LRA was
dismissed on 27.02.1989. No steps were taken up by Mariyappa to seek
setting aside of this order. Mariyappa passed away on 15.10.1993. The
                                                                               B
legal representatives of Mariyappa filed W.P. No.27230/2002 seeking
quashing of the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 and also
the order of the Appellate Authority dated 27.02.1989. This writ petition
was filed after a long delay of 13 years from the date of dismissal of
LRA No.179/1986. The only reason assigned for the delay was the
financial problems and ill-health. Learned Single Judge of the High Court      C
has dismissed this writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
       21. As mentioned above, it is clear that though LRA was dismissed
by the Appellate Authority on 27.02.1989, Mariyappa did not choose to
challenge the said order. Even otherwise, the respondents were aware
of the order of the Land Tribunal which is evident from different              D
proceedings initiated by them against the appellants. The dismissal of
LRA No.179/1986 was accepted by Mariyappa. In fact, in the year
1992, Mariyappa filed an application to rectify the entry for the year
1989-90 by entering his name in respect of 29 guntas of land in Survey
No.1/11. The Tahsildar dismissed the said application of Mariyappa on
25.04.1992. This order was challenged by Mariyappa by filing an appeal         E
before the Assistant Commissioner which was also dismissed on
26.10.1995. In the meantime, Mariyappa died. After a lapse of seven
years a review petition i.e. R.P.No.118/2001 was filed by the legal
representatives of Mariyappa before the Special Deputy Commissioner
which was allowed on 19.04.2002. Nadakerappa challenged this order             F
by filing W.P.No.20187/2002 before the High Court which was allowed
by the learned Single Judge on 01.07.2002. A writ appeal, W.A.No.3971/
2002, filed by the legal representatives of Mariyappa was dismissed on
02.08.2002. After the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Nadakerappa’s
name was entered in the RTC to the full extent of 1 acre 14 guntas of
land in Survey No.1/11. When attempts were made by the landlord to             G
dispossess him of the said land, he filed a civil suit bearing O.S. No.4171/
1991. The Trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the
Nadakerappa. This order was modified by the Order in MFA No.319/
1993. These proceedings would clearly show the grant of occupancy
rights in favour of Nadakerappa. Therefore, they cannot plead ignorance        H
1056             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 14 S.C.R.


 A     of grant of occupancy right on 30.04.1982. There is also no merit in the
       contention of the respondents-landlords that on account of ill health and
       financial problems, they could not approach the Court within a reasonable
       time. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed
       the writ petition on the ground of delay. The observations of the learned
       Single Judge in this regard are as under:
 B
             “After passing of the order of the Land Tribunal, proceedings
             have arisen both on civil side as well as on the revenue side. As
             aforementioned, the dispute arose between the parties with regard
             to change of katha in the year1989. Ultimately, the matter came
             up to the Division Bench in this Court in W.A. No.3971/2002,
 C           wherein it is held that the parties have to get their matter settled in
             an appropriate forum such as the Land Tribunal. As
             aforementioned, civil suit is also filed by the third respondent against
             the petitioners herein for injunction in O.S. No.7459/1991. Now
             the matter is pending in RFA No. 1134/2003 before this Court. In
 D           all these revenue as well as civil proceedings, the petitioners herein
             are parties. The appeal filed by the petitioners in LRA No.179/86
             before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was dismissed for
             default on 27.2.1989. W.P. 27230/2002 questioning the order of
             the Land Reforms Appellate Authority dated 27.2.1989 and the
             order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.4.1982 is filed before this
 E           Court in the year 2002 i.e., after the lapse of about 13 years from
             the date of dismissal of LRA No. 179/1986. The only reason
             assigned by the petitioners for filing the belated writ petition is
             that because of financial and ill health they could not move this
             Court. The said reason cannot be accepted inasmuch as the
 F           petitioners have been fighting litigation either in Revenue Courts
             or in Civil Court or before this Court……………...; The
             petitioners knew very well the order passed by the Land Tribunal
             and the appellate authority at least in the year 1989, when the
             revenue litigation arose. Moreover the petitioners in their written
             statement filed in O.S. No.7459/1991, have stated that the Tribunal
 G           has granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3 over
             25 guntas in Sy. No.1/11. Thus, W.P. No.27230/2002 is liable to
             be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. This Court odes
             not wish to unsettle the settled matter by entertaining the writ
             petition. Petitioners have accepted the order of the Land Tribunal
 H           and have acted on the said basis for 13 long years. Now it is not
 NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. v. PILLAMMA                                1057
    SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

      open for them to contend that they did not know the order of the         A
      Land Tribunal.”
       22. However, the contention of the respondents is that the name
of land owner was not shown in the application Form No.7 and that the
order from the Land Tribunal was obtained by suppression of material
facts.                                                                         B
       23. We have already noticed that in the first application though
the name of Nadakerappa was not shown in the landlord’s column, the
same was mentioned at its concluding portion. Therefore, it was
unnecessary for him to file the second application wherein the land owner
was shown as Ramakrishnappa. These applications were filed as early            C
as on 30.10.1974 and on 31.12.1974. The Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 is a beneficent legislation for granting occupancy rights to
cultivating tenants of agricultural lands. It is a well-settled canon of
construction that in construing the provisions of such enactments, the
court should adopt a construction which advances, fulfils and furthers
the object of the Act rather than the one which would defeat the same          D
and render the protection illusory. The object of the Act was mainly to
confer ownership on the tenants of the lands. Section 45 was introduced
by Act No.1 of 1974 w.e.f. 01.03.1974 providing for registration of
occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. Rules have been framed in
exercise of the power conferred under Section 137 of the Act to                E
effectuate the purpose of the Act. Rule 19 provides for the form of
application and notice. This rule clearly states that on receipt of an
application, the Tahsildar shall send extracts of the application to the
Tribunals concerned. So far as the lands in his Taluk are concerned, the
Tahsildar has to verify the particulars mentioned in the application with
reference to the revenue records including the record of rights wherever       F
they are prepared and also note the same on the application.
        24. It is common knowledge that most of the tenants during the
relevant point of time i.e. nineteen seventies were underprivileged and
illiterate villagers hailing from remote and far-flung areas. A large number
of tenants were lacking from the adequate and basic necessities of life        G
and were suffering from the acute poverty. Legislature has recognized
this aspect and has cast responsibility on the Tahsildar to verify the
particulars mentioned in the application with reference to the Revenue
Records and to note the same on the application. Therefore, it was the
duty of the Tahsildar to verify the Revenue Records and other documents        H
1058            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 14 S.C.R.


 A     and incorporate/record the name of the owner of the land in Form No.7.
       Having perused the materials on record, we are satisfied that the tenant
       in the instant case has not practiced any fraud in order to get the
       occupancy rights registered in his name.
              25. The Division Bench, without assigning any cogent reasons,
 B     has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and has remanded
       the matter to the Land Tribunal. It is settled law that the order of remand
       cannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of remand cannot also
       be passed for the mere purpose of remanding a proceeding to the lower
       court or the Tribunal. An endeavour has to be made by the Appellate
       Court to dispose of the case on merits. Where both the sides have led
 C     oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide the
       appeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or the
       Tribunal. We are of the view that, in the instant case, the Division Bench
       has remanded the matter without any justification.
               26. In view of our finding, as above, it is unnecessary to consider
 D     the other contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants on the
       first question.
             27. Coming to the second question, W.P.No.23034/2002 was filed
       challenging the notice issued by the Land Tribunal dated 24.05.2002 on
       the basis of a memo filed by the tenant for correction of the survey
 E     number. A proviso has been added to Section 48-A of ‘the Act’ by Act
       No.31 of 1995 which has come into force w.e.f. 20.10.1995 which reads
       as under:
             “Provided further that the Tribunal may on its own or on the
             application of any of the parties, for reasons to be recorded in
 F           writing correct the extent of land in any order passed by it after
             causing actual measurement and after giving an opportunity of
             being heard to the concerned parties.”
              28. In view of the above proviso, it was permissible for the tenant
       to make an application seeking correction of the extent of land in the
 G     order of the Land Tribunal. The proviso was inserted on 20.10.1995 and
       the memo seeking correction of the order of the Land Tribunal was filed
       in the year, 2002. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified
       in quashing the Notice issued by the Land Tribunal on the ground of
       delay of about 20 years. We have already noticed that most of the tenants
       are villagers from remote areas and most of them are illiterate persons
 H
 NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. v. PILLAMMA                                1059
    SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

and that the Act is a beneficent legislation. This aspect has to be kept in    A
mind while deciding cases under the Act. Whether the order requires
correction or not has to be decided by the Land Tribunal, after hearing
the parties. In fact, the learned Single Judge, while disposing of W.P.
No.20187 of 2002 on 01.07.2012 which arose out of the dispute relating
to entries in revenue records, had observed that whether Nadakerappa
                                                                               B
is entitled to the entire extent of 1 Acre 14 Guntas in Sy.No. 1/11, and
whether his application for correction is maintainable are matters to be
decided by the Tribunal. This order of the learned Single Judge has been
confirmed by the Division Bench. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of
the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the
Notice. The Division Bench has held that in view of setting aside the          C
Order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982, the Writ Appeal has become
infructuous. In our view, the matter requires adjudication by the Land
Tribunal on this question.
       29. In view of the above, we pass the following order:
       (I) The order in Writ Appeal No.1950 of 2007 dated 30.12.2014           D
       passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at
       Bengaluru is set aside and the order of the learned Single Judge in
       W.P.No.27230/2002 dated 25.07.2007 is restored.
       (II) The order in Writ Appeal NO.1563 of 2007 dated 30.12.2014
       is set aside and the order of the learned Single Judge in               E
       W.P.No.23034/2002 dated 25.07.2002 is also set aside. We direct
       the Land Tribunal to hold an inquiry on the notice dated 24.05.2002
       and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law as
       expeditiously as possible.
      30. These appeals are accordingly allowed. There shall be no             F
order as to costs.

Divya Pandey                                                Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)
                                                                               G




                                                                               H