LOKAYYA POOJARY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE Division Benches of this Court in (1) Hosabayya Nagappa Naik and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2002 (3) Kar. L.J. 53; (2) S.C. Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, Secretary to Government and Others, (2005 (4) KCCR 2299): ILR 2005 Kar 3637; and (3) Sri Aboobakkar Vs. The Authorised Officer under Section 77A of the KLR Act (H.Q. Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, D.K.) Puttur and Anr., 2007 (2) KCCR 817 have held that the Government records should reflect the factum of vesting of the land in the State, to attract the provisions of Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by Act 1997. The correctness of the interpretation placed on Section 77A by the aforesaid three Division Benches is doubted by the learned single Judge. The learned Single Judge has expressed the view that this aspect requires reconsideration by a Larger Bench of this Court. Accordingly, this reference is made to the Full Bench by the learned Chief Justice.

(2.) IT is not necessary to advert to the facts of any of these eases, as we are concerned with only the question of law. It is clear from the order of reference that the learned single Judge did not agree with the observation in Hosabayya's case, that the aspect of vesting of the land in the State Government should find place in some official record and that in the absence of any such record, the factum of vesting becomes a disputed fact and an enquiry in to the same is not within the scope of Section 77A of the Act. In other words, the Division Bench has held that the Government records should reflect the position that the land has been already vested in the State Government so as to enable the authority to grant land in favour of the tenant. It is in this context, the learned single judge has felt that the aforesaid judgments require reconsideration by the Larger Bench in view of the settled legal position that vesting of the land either under Section 44 or for the purpose of Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, is automatic. If the land is tenanted land as on 1.3.1974 there need not be any specific order to that effect nor there need be any Government records to show vesting of the property in the State. Vesting of the tenanted land as on 1.3.1974 in the State Government is by operation of law. The same is dear from looking to the scheme of the Land Reforms Act. The plain language employed in Section 44 of the Act also makes it clear that the vesting of the tenanted land as on 1.3.1974 with the State Government is automatic and by operation of law. There need not be any official Government record evidencing vesting of the land in the State. This, the learned single judge opines has been the understanding of this Court right from the year 1974 till very recently i.e., till the pronouncement of the judgments in the aforesaid matters by the Division Benches. The tenanted properties vest the title with the Government and consequently, the right, title and interest of the owners over the properties shall cease to exist with effect from 1.3.1974. in support of the above observations the learned single Judge has referred to various judgments of this Court. It is in this background, we are called upon to decide the correctness or otherwise of the observations made by the Division Benches of this Court in the aforesaid Hosabayya Nagappa Naik's case, which is followed in the other two judgments.

(3.) IT is the words "Obviously it should find a place in some official records, as vesting of the land is in favour of the State Government" is understood to mean that there should be an order in writing of vesting of the land or in the records of the Government there should be an entry to the effect that this land is a vested land. We are afraid, we will be reading too much into the said sentence, as the language employed therein is very plain. What the learned judges in the aforesaid observation meant was, in a proceeding under Section 77-A no enquiry regarding vesting of the land is contemplated. The condition precedent for application of Section 77-A is, the land in respect of which application is made is a vested land. If that is not in dispute, then the enquiry contemplated under Section 77-A is to find out firstly, whether the applicant was, immediately before the first day of March, 1974 in actual possession and cultivation of the said land; secondly, whether the said land does not exceed one unit; thirdly, whether the said person was entitled to be registered as an occupant of such land under Section 45 or 49; fourthly, whether such a person has failed to apply for registration of occupancy rights in respect of such land under subsection (1) of Section 48A within the period specified therein and lastly, whether the said person has continued to be in actual possession and cultivation of such land on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997. In this context it has been held that unless the applicant placed before the authority such evidence in the form of some official record to show that the land in question was a vested land he cannot succeed as, an enquiry as contemplated under Section 48- A is not permissible. It is in this background, in order to put at rest there exists any doubt, it would be appropriate to interpret the said Section keeping in mind the object with which this amendment was brought to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the procedure which is prescribed for "grant of land" in certain cases as the head note of the Section makes it explicitly clear.