RAMAPPA Vs. YELLAPPA GUNDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition preferred by a landlord arises out of his application for resumption of land made under S.14(1) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961), hereinafter called 'the Act'. The petitioner hereinafter called 'the landlord is the owner of an agricultural land bearing S.No.52 measuring 29 acres and 19 guntas of Lingadhai village of Bijapur District. He filed the application tor resumption from the 1st respondent hereinafter called 'the tenant' who resisted the application on the ground, inter alia, that the landlord does not bona tide require the land tor cultivating personally because he carries on money lending and provision business and that the purpose of resumption is to sell the resumed land at a higher price. The land Tribunal, Badami, accepted the contention of the tenant that the landlord carries on money-lending and provision business and rejected the application for resumption on the ground that the landlord does not bona fide require the land for cultivating personally. On the appeal preferred by the landlord, the Appellate Authority, Bijapur (District Judge), reversed the finding of the Land Tribunal that the landlord carries on business; but it dismissed the appeal taking the view that the landlord does not bona fide require the land for cultivating personally as he is past 60 years of age and his children are minors and further, he had not made any attempt at resumption for the past about 30 years when he could have done so under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Authority, the landlord has preferred the above writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the landlord died and his legal representatives have come on. record. The question is, whether the order of the Appellate Authority "suffers from any error of law apparent on the record.

(2.) In the objections filed before the Land Tribunal, two circumstances were urged by the tenant in support of his contention that the landlord does not bona fide require the land, viz.,(1) that the landlord carries on money lending business and business in provisions and (2) that the motive of the resumption sought is to sell the land at a higher price. Although the Land Tribunal accepted the contention of the tenant that the landlord carries on the business of money lending etc., that finding was reversed by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority relied on certain circumstances not urged in the pleadings. Not only that, those circumstances are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of determining the question whether the application of the landlord for resumption has to be allowed or not. The fact that the landlord is past 60 years and has no major sons is irrelevant for deciding the question at issue. The expression 'to cultivate personally' has been defined in S.2(11) thus:

(3.) There is no bar to a landlord cultivating his land by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind. Cultivation by employment of hired labour is also 'personal cultivation' as defined under the Act. The fact that the landlord had not applied for possession under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is also wholly irrelevant. If that was a relevant consideration, the Act would not have provided for any resumption of land from tenants in the Bombay Area of the State.