MUPPANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS' father namely Sri. Mallappa Mundagabnur claiming to be the tenant filed an application U/s. 48 A of the Karnataka land Reforms Act in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights over the land bearing Sy. No. 57 measuring 27 acres 10 guntas situated at konnur Village. Respondent No. 3 is the landlord, since deceased is represented by his Legal Representatives. The records disclose that the land in question was leased by the earstwhile owner prior to 1951 itself. The entries in the records of rights for the year 1951-52 to 1960-61 stood in the name of the petitioners' father. As could be seen from the mutation entry No. 4330, the land in question vested in the State. Further, mutation entry No. 277 makes it clear that the petitioners father's name was entered in the revenue record as a protected tenant. Subsequently, in the year 1961, a receiver came to be appointed by the Civil Court in the Civil litigation, i. e. , O. S. 90/1941 which arose within the landlords' family. Thus the receiver took possession of the property in the year 1961 from the petitioners' father who was cultivating the property as tenant and continued in possession as a receiver till 1991. For some years during interregnum, the receiver leased or mortgaged the property in favour of the various persons including the petitioners' father every year. The name of the petitioner's father continued even after 1961 intermittently. It is also in dispute that the receiver was discharged in the year 1991 and he was directed by the Civil Court to hand over the possession of the property to the respective parties. The important mutation entry is mutation entry No. 839 which discloses that the receiver took possession of the property from the petitioners' father on 1. 3. 1961. As aforementioned, the entries in the revenue records stood in the name of the petitioners' father since 1951 itself. Mode of cultivation recorded in record of rights is No. '3'. Hence, it is clear that the petitioners' father was a tenant of the petition property much prior to 1961 i. e. , the year in which the receiver was appointed by the Civil Court. Added to that, the name of the father of petitioners' was entered in the revenue records as protected tenant by virtue of entry No. 277. As the petitioners' father was in possession of the property as a protected tenant, his leasehold rights would not extinguish by appointment of the receiver subsequently. At the most, the leasehold rights would be kept in abeyance or become dormant during the subsistence of the receiver. Leasehold rights automatically revive after the discharge of the receiver. Thus, the leasehold rights vested with the petitioners have not extinguished during the subsistence of the receivership. They were kept in abeyance. They automatically revived in the year 1991. The property never vested in the Civil court. Only the power of superintendence vested in the Court. When the said power was withdrawn, nature of possession was relegated to the earlier position. The third parties who came in possession of the property during the subsistence of receiver appointed by the Court, were legally obliged to surrender possession, on the withdrawal of the management by the Court. Accordingly, in this matter also the third parties who were in possession of the property on yearly basis handed over possession of the property to the receiver and consequently the receiver handed over the same to the tenant (petitioners' father) in the year 1991. The receiver is appointed to preserve the property for the benefit of successful litigant. It cannot be the intention at all of the legislature that an estate or land which is exposed to a litigation for whatever reason, if managed by the Court through a receiver should result in the title holder losing the title. At this stage, it is relevant to note the provisions of Sec. 108 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act which read thus:

(2.) THUS the provisions of the Land Reforms Act are fully applicable to the land in question. As the petitioner is undoubtedly a tenant, he is entitled to be registered as an occupant over the land in question. These facts are not considered properly by the Land Tribunal. Consequently, the same has resulted in mis-carriage of justice. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the petitioners' are entitled to be registered as occupants. Occupancy Certificate in Form No. 10 shall have to be issued in their favour.

(3.) HENCE, the following order is made: the impugned order is quashed. Form No. 7 filed by the petitioners is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to grant occupancy rights to the petitioners. The petition is allowed accordingly.