K.T. VENKATAGIRIYAPPA, S/O. THIMMAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS (SMT. MAHALAXMAMMA, W/O. LATE K.T. VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AND OTHERS) Vs. VISHALAKSHMMA, W/O. LATE SRINIVASA IYETHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sagar, passed on 09.07.2009 has been assailed. A suit for Declaration and Possession came to be instituted on 25.11.1991 by Respondent No. 1 before this Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plaintiff'). The facts which are not controverted are that the Plaintiff is the daughter of the Petitioner's father (Defendant in the suit - hereinafter referred to as 'the Defendant'). The common case is that Defendant's father had taken the Plaintiff's mother as concubine, and that the Plaintiff was born out of this relationship. The Plaintiff asserts that a parcel of land measuring 43 guntas had been settled by the Defendant's father in favour of Plaintiff's mother. In the backdrop of this relationship between the Defendant's father and the Plaintiffs mother, the Plaintiff pleads in the amended plaint that the Defendant's father continued to till the land as her licensee. It may be briefly mentioned that originally, the pleadings in the plaint were that the Defendant's father was the tenant in the premises. These pleadings however came to be amended by bringing in the plea of the creation of a license or permission. The Defendant has pleaded that his father was a tenant and not a licensee but in respect of 21 guntas of suit item No. 2 (Sy. No. 244 measuring 21 guntas) and the remaining parcel of land is claimed as the legatee of the Defendant's grandfather. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has claimed tenancy rights over the entire 43 guntas and has not restricted his claim only to Item No. 2 of the plaint. One of the pleas that had been raised in the Written Statement is that because tenancy rights were claimed this issue had to be referred to the Land Tribunal by virtue of Sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reforms Act'). The Objects of this Act are to bring about a uniform law in the State of Karnataka relating to agrarian relations, conferment of ownership on tenants, ceiling of land holdings etc, as is gleaned from its preamble. In a nutshell, as on 01.03.1974, the lands in the State of Karnataka which had been given out on tenancy lay statutory fiction reverted to the State. The Reforms Act inter alia postulates the filling of Form No. 7 within six months as per Section 48A After the passage of some time, it was thought expedient by the Legislature to permit one further opportunity to make a claim for occupancy rights on the premise of being a tenant on 01.03.1974 by filing Form No. 7A under Section 77A of the Reforms Act. Section 48A provides that the enquiry with regard to this issue would have to be conducted by the Tribunal. However, so far as Form No. 7A is concerned, by virtue of Section 77A of the Reforms Act, the enquiry is to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner or any other Officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf. Section 132 bars the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to settle, decide or deal with any question which is to be decided under any provisions of the Reforms Act. Section 133 of the Reforms Act starts with a non -obstante clause and states that no Civil Court shall decide either the question whether the land in dispute is or is not an agricultural land or whether the person claiming to be in possession thereof is or is not the tenant thereon.

(2.) IN connection with the defence raised by the Defendant that his father was a tenant under the Plaintiffs mother in respect of Item No. 2 in the plaint, an Order came to be passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), and JMFC, Sagar in the said O.S. No. 400/1999 dated 09.02.2001 directing reference to the Land Tribunal for adjudication of this plea. Until the conclusion on the adjudication, the suit was ordered to be stayed. This position was assailed by the Plaintiff before this Court, but without success; CRP No. 1983/2001 was dismissed on 05.07.2002 concluding that no infirmity with the order of the Additional Civil Judge passed on 09.02.2001 existed. Matter attained finality since no further appeal to the dismissal of the Revision came to be filed.

(3.) THE Reforms Act underwent a widespread, metamorphism by Act 1/1974 with effect from 1.3.1974. It is apparent that the ethos of the legislation was to bestow tenancy or occupancy rights on the actual tillers of the land, in like fashion to the Abolition of Zamindari Act. Section 4 of the Reforms Act is one of the few provisions which has not been amended substantially and ordains that a person lawfully cultivating any land shall be deemed to be a tenant thereof with certain exceptions. With effect from 1.3.1974 the Proviso to Section 4 prescribes the filing of an application to decide this issue before the Tribunal in place of the Court. By virtue of Section 44 all tenanted lands as on 01.03.1974 vest in the State Government. Section 45 ordains that the tenant shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of the land. The owners of the Tenanted lands stand divested of all rights, and are eligible only for compensation under Section 47. Section 48 prescribes the constitution of Tribunals. The existence of tenanted status is therefore extremely far reaching and deleterious for the owners; it is equally significant for the tenants on whom occupancy rights would stand bestowed by operation of the statute. It may become beneficial for the State Government also in those rare cases where the lands are tenanted but the tenants do not claim occupancy rights, in which case ownership as well as possession would pass to it. In these circumstances it is the Tribunal which alone can decide this significant issue of the existence of tenancies. In Lalitabai Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR (1996) KAR 1285 and Shivamurthayya -Vs - State of Karnataka ILR 1997 Kar 3233 learned Single Judges have held that the Tahsildar does not possess jurisdiction to adjudicate this issue. In Pamela Lakshminarayana and Others Vs. Kamalamma and Others, ILR (2002) KAR 4614 Single Bench has opined that it is only pursuant to a finding by the Tribunal that a land is tenanted can it vest in the State. The entire conspectus of the law has been analyzed in Sakrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR (1985) KAR 1833 which is humbly commended for reading. One of the findings is that if no application under Section 48 A has been preferred the land passes absolutely to the State and occupants/tenants can be evicted.