STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. KRISHNAJI SRINIVAS KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) These appeals arise from the order of the division bench dated 18/01/1990 of the Karnataka High court in Writ Petition Nos. 11215-11223 of 1985 and batch. The respondents own different extents of agricultural lands situated at Jambaga and other villages in Bijapur District of Karnataka State which were in erstwhile part of Bombay province. They leased out their lands to M/s Sugarcane Products and Industries Ltd. , a registered company, by a registered lease dated 1/04/1942 for a period of 30 years which steed expired on 31/03/1973 but remained in possession as tenant. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Act 10 of 1962 (for short 'the Act') was amended by Amendment Act 1 of 1974 (for short the 'amendment Act'). The latter came into effect from 1/03/1974. Section 79-B of the Act prohibits holding of agricultural land by certain persons. Ss. (l) (b) declares that with effect from the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act, it shall not be lawful for a companyto hold any land. Ss. (2 thereof mandates every such company to furnish to the Tehsildar having jurisdiction over the land, a declaration containing the particulars of such lands and such other prescribed particulars, Under Ss. (3 thereto the Tehsildar after inquiry made in the prescribed manner should send the statement to the Deputy Commissioner who declares, by notification that, "such land shall vest in the State government free from all encumbrances". Ss. (4 gives right to the owner of the land payment of compensation prescribed in Section 72. The lessee-company submitted a declaration, though purported to be under Section 66, but on the facts it must be one under Section 79-B (2. The Tehsildar after conducting the inquiry and giving opportunity to the respondents submitted the declaration to the Deputy Commissioner who published in the prescribed manner. Thus 600 acres of demised lands stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The respondents challenged the action in the writ petitions contending that as on 1/03/1974 the company was not holding the demised land as a tenant. The company, therefore, was incompetent to file any declaration under Section 66 and it cannot be treated to be under Section 79-B. Its possession is not lawful and that, therefore, the land does not stand vested in the State. The company was not a holder under Section 79-B. The landowners are holders of the lands. The High court in the impugned order rightly held that the impugned order was without authority of law, being outside the purview of Section 79-B (3 of the Act and the ownership of the respondents, however, was not declared.

(3.) It is contended for the State that under Section 79-B (1, a person in possession cultivating the land personally shall alone be entitled to hold the land. The company having been declared to be disentitled to hold the lands on or from 1/03/1974 and being enjoined under Ss. (2 to furnish a declaration to the Tehsildar having jurisdiction over the land or greater part thereof, it is the "holder" for the purpose of Section 79-B of the Act. It is made clear by Ss. (1 of Section 79-B. Shri Javali, learned senior counsel for the respondents, placing reliance on Section 2 (11 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, contended that the possession of the company was unlawful as the lease had expired by efflux of time. Five hundred acres were taken possession by the lessors, landowners and 600 acres though remained in possession of the company, the Act did not divest their title. Only the title of the land under personal cultivation of the tenant having existed jural relationship of landlord and tenant alone stood divested as envisaged under Section 44. On expiry of the lease in the year 1972-73 the possession of the tenant was not juridical, but only as tenant holding over but in unlawful possession. The lessors did not accept the rent from the tenant. Therefore, the company has neither right to file any declaration under Section 66, nor under Section 77-B (2 nor is it filed within 90 days' limitation prescribed thereunder. Section 79-B (2 postulates "holder of the land" while Section 44 speaks of "land in personal cultivation of the tenant". They bring out the distinction that the holder must be one in lawful possession and personally cultivating the land under Section 2 (11 of theact. Since the tenant was not cultivating the land, nor had juridical a possession, the declaration under Section 79-B (3 is illegal and the interpretation given by the High court is correct. In support thereof he placed reliance on Section 2 (21, "the landowner", Section 2 (31 "holder", S. 5, 19, 20, 44, 58, 62, 66 and 77.