STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.versusMUNIKADIRAPPA & ORS.

                         [2010] 12 S.C.R. 250


A                   STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
                                  v.
                       MUNIKADIRAPPA & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 7664-7675 of 2004 etc.)
                         OCTOBER 08, 2010
B
          [MARKANDEY KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

            Land laws and Agricultural Tenancy - Litigation for
    . deciding occupancy rights - During pendency of litigation the
      land in question acquired - Single Judge of High Court
      decided the occupancy rights in favour of tenant - In view of
      the acquisition also directed the compensation thereof to be
      appointed between the tenant and the erstwhile owner of the
      land - Division Bench of the High Court held that since the
      tenant was entitled to occupancy right, he was entitled to the
      whole compensation - On appeal, held: The courts below were
      right in deciding the question regarding the occupancy right
      - However, they fell into error in deciding the quantum of
      compensation - The order granting occupancy-right is
      affirmed, the question regarding compensation is left open to
      be decided in appropriate proceeding under Land Acquisition
      Act - Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

          The respondents made application, claiming
     occupancy rights for certain lnam Lands endowed to a
     temple (a Mazurai institution) Land Tribunal granted
     occupancy rights in favour of the respondents. The
     temple challenged the order before Land Reforms
     Appellate Authority. On abolition of the Authority the case
     was transferred to High Court and registered as Writ
     petition. During pendency of the petition, the lands in
     question were acquired by Development Authority Single
     Judge of the High Court held that the Tribunal had rightly
     granted occupancy rights on the respondents. Taking
     note of the fact that the lands were acquired, the court
                                  250         '
                                /




STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. MUNIKADIRAPPA 251
                 & ORS.
directed the compensation amount to be appointed               A
between he temple and the respondent-occupants in the
ratio of 60 : 40. Respondents filed writ appeals. Division
Bench of the High Court held that since the respondents
were in cultivating occupation of the land, they would be
entitled to claim full compensation payable for the land       B
acquired. Therefore, the instant appeals was filed.

    Disposing off the appeals, the Court

      HELD: 1. The only question that fell for consideration
before the High Court in the writ petition filed by the        C
respondents was whether the grant of occupancy rights
in. their favour by the Land Tribunal was justified. The
Single Judge of the High Court rightly answered the said
question in the affirmative. The fact that the land had
been acquired in the meantime could not have deterred          D
the Single Judge from dismissing the writ petition and
upholding the order granting occupancy rights
unconditionally. Instead of doing so, the Single Judge
took upon himself the duty of apportioning the
compensation between the writ petitioners-erstwhile            E
owners of the land and the respondents. That was wholly
unnecessary and dehors the provisions of the Land
Reforms Act. The question as to who was entitled to
claim how much compensation for parcels of land
acquired by the Government was a matter which had to           F
be agitated by the persons interested only in terms of the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Tribunal
or the High Court hearing a writ petition arising out of an
order passed by the Tribunal was not cohcerned with the
question of quantum of compensation or its
apportionment among different claimants, nor has any           G
provision in the Land Reforms Act been brought to the
notice of the Court, which required the Tribunal to
determine the said questions in case where lands that are
the subject matter of proceedings under the said Act get
                                                               H
    252     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010) 12 S.C.R.

A acquired for a public purpose. [Para 3] [254-F-H; 255-A-
    D]
         1.2 In the appeals filed by the respondents-occupants
    of the lands, the Division Bench was concerned only with
    the limited question whether the directions regarding
8
    apportionment of the compensation was justified. Instead
    of simply setting aside the said direction on the ground
    that the same was beyond the provisions of the Land
    Reforms Act the Division Bench held the respondents
    entitled to claim full compensation. The Division Bench
C   would have been justified in setting aside the direction
    given by the Single Judge regarding apportionment but
    it need not have fallen into the same error as was
    committed by the Single Judge, by directing payment of
    the full compensation to the respondents. That was a
D   matter to be determined by the Collector in appropriate
    proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and
    eventually by the competent Civil Court in a reference if
    the same became necessary. In as much as the Division
    Bench itself determined the extent of compensation
E   payable to the respondents it committed a mistake. [Para
    4] [255-F-H; 256-A-C]

       1.3 While grant of occupancy-tenancy rights in favour
  of the respondents qua the parcels of land in their
F respective possession as on the appointed date shall
  stand affirmed, the question as to who is entitled to what
  compensation for the acquisition of said lands in
  question is left open to be determined in appropriate
  proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 if not
G already determined. [Para 5] (256-D-E]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION : Civil Appeal Nos.
    7664-7675 of 2004.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 6.7.2001 of the High
H Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. 3470 of 2001, 3989,
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. MUNIKADIRAPPA 253
                 & ORS.
3999 of 2001 (LR).                                                  A

    Sanjay R. Hegde, Abhishek Malviya, Ramesh Kumar
Mishra for the Appellants.

    Rajesh Mahale for the Respondents.
                                                                    B
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. These appeals by special leave arise
out of an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bangalore whereby Writ Appeals No.3470 of 2001 and 3989-            C
3999 of 2001 filed by the respondents have been allowed and
the order passed by a learned Single Judge of that Court in
Writ Petition No.30500 of 1993 set aside to the extent the same
directed apportionment of the compensation payable for the
acquisition of the land in dispute. The controversy arises in the
                                                                    0
following ·backdrop:

      2. The respondents claimed to be in cultivating occupation
of certain lnam lands endowed to the temple of Kumaraswamy
situate at Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore City. They made
applications before the Land Tribunal under the Karnataka           E
Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy rights in their favour.
The Tribunal by an order dated 10th April, 1987 allowed the
said applications and granted occupancy rights to the
respondents for the respective parcels of land in their
occupation. The temple which happens to be a Muzurai                F
Institution challenged the said order before the Land Reforms
Appellate Authority in appeal. During the pendency of the said
appeal the Appellate Authority was abolished with the result that
the records of the appeal case pending before the Authority
were transferred to the High Court and registered as Writ           G
Petition No.30500 of 1993. While the said writ petition was still
pending the lands in question were acquired by the Bangalore
Development Authority for the formation to what is known as
Kumaraswamy layout. The writ petition eventually came up for
hearing before a Single Judge of the High Court who took the        H
    254      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A   view that the respondents were in occupation of different
    parcels of land even prior to 1970 and that applications filed
    by them for grant of occupancy-tenancy rights were within time.
    The High Court also came to the conclusion that the Land
    Tribunal was right in holding that the respondents were
B cultivating the land in question as tenants and in granting
    occupancy rights to them. In the ordinary course the Court could
    have simply dismissed the writ petition upholding the order
    passed by the Land Tribunal but instead of doing so it went a
    step further. Taking note of the fac' that the lands in question
c   stood acquired the learned Single Judge directed that
    compensation payable for the lands in question shall be
    apportioned between the Muzurai Institution who happened to
    be erstwhile owner of the land and the tenants-occupants in the
  . ratio of 60:40. It is noteworthy that the Muzurai Institution did
    not question the aforementioned order passed by the Single
0
    Judge. The respondents, however, assailed the said order in
    writ appeals which were allowed by the Division Bench of the
    High Court in terms of the order impugned in the present
    appeals. The Division Bench held that since the respondents
E · were found to be in cultivating occupation of the land on the
    appointed date on 1st March, 1974 they shall be deemed to
    be so even on the date of acquisition and that they shall be
    entitled to claim full compensation payable for the land acquired
    from them. The present appeals assail the said judgment as
    already noticed above.
F
         3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The only
  question that fell for consideration before the High Court in the
  writ petition filed by the respondents was whether the grant of
  occupancy rights in their favour by the Land Tribunal was
G justified. The Single Judge of the High Court answered the said
  question in the affirmative and in our opinion rightly so. The fact
  that the land had been acquired in the meantime could not have
  deterred the Single Judge from dismissing the writ petition and
  upholding the order granting occupancy rights unconditionally.
H Instead of doing so, the Single Judge took upon himself the
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. MUNIKADIRAPPA 255
           & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
duty of apportioning the compensation between the writ               A
petitioners-erstwhile owners of the land and the respondents.
That was, in our opinion, wholly unnecessary and dehors the
provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The question as to who
was ~ntitled to claim how much compensation for parcels of
land acquired by the Government was a matter which had to            B
be agitated by the persons interested only in terms of the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Tribunal or
the High Court hearing a writ petition arising out of an order
passed by the former was not concerned with the question of
quantum of compensation or its apportionment among different         c
claimants, nor has any provision in the Land Reforms Act been
brought to our notice, which required the Tribunal to determine
the said questions in case where lands that are the subject
matter of proceedings under the said Act get acquired for a
public purpose. The only question that fell for consideration
                                                                     D
before the High Court was whether the respondents were in
cultivating occupation of the land on the appointed date as
stipulated under the Act so as to be entitled to the grant of
occupancy rights. Once that question was answered the fact
that the land had been acquired and the cultivating tenant had
gone out of possession of such land did not affect his
                                                                     E
entitlement to be declared as a tenant occupant.

      4. As noticed earlier the finding that the respondents were
entitled to occupancy tenancy rights qua the lands in question
was not assailed by the Muzurai Institution. This implied that the   F
question regarding grant of such rights had gone beyond the
pale of any controversy. In the appeals filed by the respondents
occupants of the lands the Division Bench was concerned only
with the limited question whether the directions regarding
apportionment of the compensation was justified. Instead of          G
simply setting aside the said direction on the ground that the
same was beyond the provisions of the Land Reforms Act the
Division Bench held the respondents entitled to claim full
compensation. Now that may indeed be the position, in cases
where the land is under the Land Reforms Act vested in the           H
    256      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A State and then granted to the persons entitled to the occupancy
  rights over the same, but the question is whether any such
  declaration ought to have been granted in the proceedings
  under the Land Reforms Act. Our answer is in the negative. The
  Division Bench would have been justified in setting aside the
B direction given by the Single Judge regarding apportionment
  but it need not have fallen into the same error as was
  committed by the Single Judge, by directing payment of the full
  compensation to the respondents. That was a matter to be
  determined by the Collector in appropriate proceedings under
c the Land Acquisition Act and eventually by the competent Civil
  Court in a reference if the same became necessary. In as much
  as the Division Bench itself determined the extent of
  compensation payable to the respondents it committed a
  mistake.

D       5. In the result, we direct that while grant of occupancy-
  tenancy rights in favour of the respondents qua the parcels of
  land in their respective possession as on the appointed date
  shall stand affirmed, the question as to who is entitled to what
  compensation for the acquisition of said lands in question is
E left open to be determined in appropriate proceedings under
  the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 if not already determined. The
  appeals are accordingly disposed off, leaving the parties to
  bear their own costs.

    K.K.T.                                 Appeals disposed of.