H S SRINIVASA RAGHAVACHAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in the several appeals is primarily that of the vires of S. 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended by the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1 of 1974. In order to appreciate the submissions made to us, it will be useful to set out the relevant provisions of the Act before it was amended by Act 1 of 1974. Section 2(6) as it stood before the amendment defined "basic holding" as meaning land which was equal to two standard acres. "Ceiling area" was defined as meaning land which was equal to eighteen standard acres. "Court" was defined to mean the Court of Munsif within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the land was situate. "Family holding" was defined as meaning land equal to six standard acres. "Small holder" was defined to mean a land owner owning land not exceeding two basic holdings whose total net annual income including the income from such land did not exceed one thousand two hundred rupees. "Standard acre" was defined to mean one acre of the first class of land or an extent equivalent thereto consisting of any one or more classes of land specified in Part A of Schedule I determined in accordance with the formula in Part B of the said Schedule. Chapter II (Ss. 4 to 43) contained 'General provisions relating to Tenancies' and Chapter III (Ss. 44 to 62) dealt with 'Conferment of ownership on tenants'. Section 5 prohibited the creation or continuation of any tenancy in respect of any land after the appointed day and barred the leasing of land for any period whatsoever. It was, however, provided that (a) any small holder might create or continue a tenancy or lease the land owned by him and (b) any land owner who was a minor, a widow, an unmarried woman, a person incapable of cultivating land by reason of any physical or mental disability or a soldier in service in the Armed Forces of the Union or a seaman, might create or continue the tenancy or lease the land owned by him or her. It was further provided that tenancies of resumable lands could be continued until the dispossession of the tenants under S. 14 and of non-resumable land until the date of vesting under S. 44. Section 14 provided for resumption of lands from tenants. Sub-secs. (1), (4) and (6) of S. 14 may be usefully extracted here. Sub-secs. (2), (3) and (5) do not appear to be necessary for the purposes of the present case. Sub-ss. (1), (4) and (6) were as follows :-

(2.) The broad scheme of the provisions mentioned or set out above was that there was not only to be a ceiling on the holding of land, the system of leasing of land was to be abolished and cultivating tenants were to be invested with rights of ownership. However, certain limited classes of cases were recognised where leases were permitted on the one hand and on the other tenants were deprived of the right to remain in possession of the land. It was provided that leases were permissible in cases when the landlord was under some disability as specified in S. 5. It was also provided that a landowner could seek, subject to the prescribed limits, resumption of land from tenants, if he bona fide required the land for cultivating personally or for any non-agricultural purpose. The right to resume land for personal cultivation was no doubt subject to several severe conditions, one of the most important of which was that the income by the cultivation of the land which he was entitled to resume should be the principal source of income for the maintenance of the landowner. In other words, the Act while fixing a ceiling on the holding of land and generally conferring ownership rights on tenants, did not altogether ignore the interests of the smaller landlords and did in fact after some measure of protection to those who desired to personally cultivate the tenanted land.

(3.) The Act was substantially amended in 1974. 'Basic holding' and 'family holding' ceased to be defined. "Ceiling area" was defined to mean the extent of land which the person or family was entitled to hold under S. 63. Section 5 was amended and the provisos were omitted. It was however provided by sub-sec. (2) that the prohibition against creation of tenancies or leases would not apply to tenancies created by a soldier or a seaman. The savings in respect of a minor widow or a minor woman under the original S. 5 was taken away. Section 14 was omitted. Section 16 was also omitted. Section 44 was amended. The new sub-sec. (1) of S. 44 is as follows :-