/2022 INSC 0247/
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7657­7658 OF 2017
NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED
BY LRS. & ORS. … APPELLANT(S) 
VERSUS
PILLAMMA SINCE DECEASED
BY LRS. & ORS.         … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
(1) These   appeals   are   directed   against   the   judgment   dated
30.12.2014   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of
Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1563 of 2007 connected
with Writ Appeal No.1950 of 2007.

2
(2) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are
as follows: 
Smt.   Pillamma   w/o   Late   Mariyappa   and   her   children
(respondents   herein)   filed   Writ   Petition   No(s).27230/2002   and
23034/2002   before   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   at   Bangalore
challenging   the   order   dated   27.02.1989   passed   by   the   Karnataka
Land   Reforms   Appellate   Authority   and   the   Order   of   the   Land
Tribunal   dated   30.04.1982   and   also   the   Notice   dated   24.05.2002
issued by the Land Tribunal for correcting the extent of land found
in   the  order  of  the  Land  Tribunal  dated  30.04.1982.     They  are  the
owners   of   the   lands   bearing   Survey   No(s).4/7,   4/2   and   1/11
measuring 35 guntas, 25 guntas and 1 acre 14 guntas respectively
of   Srigandadakaval   Village,   Bangalore   North   Taluk.   Smt.   Pillamma
died during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court.
Her children who were already on record continued the proceedings
before the High Court.  Their father, late Mariyappa s/o Channappa
had   purchased   the   lands   under   a   deed   of   sale   dated   30.08.1954
from one Venkatappa. 

3
(3) Appellants   are   the   legal   representatives   of   one   Nadakerappa.
Nadakerappa   claiming   to   be   the   tenant   of   the   said   lands   filed   two
applications in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights of the said
lands   along   with   two   other   lands   i.e.   Survey   No(s).4/14   and   65.
The   Land   Tribunal   by   its   order   dated   30.04.1982   granted
occupancy   rights   in   favour   of   Nadakerappa   in   respect   of   the   lands
bearing Survey No.4/7 to an extent of 35 guntas, Survey No.4/2 to
an   extent   of   25   guntas   and   Survey   No.1/11   to   an   extent   of   25
guntas.   Certificate   of   registration   was   issued   in   favour   of
Nadakerappa in respect of these lands on 08.09.1982 to the extent
indicated above.  Nadakerappa paid an amount of Rs.462/­ towards
premium   for   the   grant   of   certificate   of   registration.     The
compensation   in   respect   of   the   granted   lands   was   ordered   to   be
paid to the land owners on 27.11.1984 by Nadakerappa.  It is to be
noticed   here   that   Mariyappa   was   not   made   party   to   the   said
applications   filed   by   Nadakerappa.   In   the   application   dated
31.12.1974,   the   name   of   one   Ramakrishnappa   s/o   Byrappa   was
shown as land owner and, in another application dated 30.10.1974,
the ownership column was left blank. 

4
(4) Mariyappa   filed   Writ   Petition   No.12461/1984   before   the   High
Court challenging the order of the Land Tribunal which came to be
transferred  to   the   Land   Reforms  Appellate  Authority   and   the   same
was numbered as LRA No.179/1986. The Appellate Authority by its
order   dated   27.02.1989,   dismissed   the   appeal   for   default.
Mariyappa died in the year 1993.  
(5) Mariyappa, during his life time, had filed an application before
the   Tahsildar,   Bangalore   North   Taluk,   to   rectify   the   revenue   entry
for the year 1989­90 and to show his name in respect of 29 guntas
of   land   in  Survey   No.1/11.   However,  on   25.04.1992,  the   Tahsildar
passed   an   order   adverse   to   the   interest   of   Mariyappa.   Mariyappa
filed   an   appeal   before   the   Assistant   Commissioner   in   R.A.
No.196/1992­93   challenging   the   said   order   which   was   also
dismissed on 26.10.1995.   Since Mariyappa died in the year 1993,
his legal representatives filed Revision Petition No.118/2001 before
the   Special   Deputy   Commissioner   challenging   the   order   of   the
Assistant Commissioner.  The said Revision Petition was allowed by
the   Special   Deputy   Commissioner   by   an   order   dated   19.04.2002.
Nadakerappa   challenged   the   said   order   by   filing   Writ   Petition

5
No.20187/2002   before   the   High   Court   which   was   allowed   on
01.07.2002.  Consequently, the order of the Tahsildar, the Assistant
Commissioner,   as  also   the  Special   Deputy   Commissioner,  were   set
aside.     The   order   in   Writ   Petition   No.20187/2002   stood   confirmed
in Writ Appeal No.3971/2002.
(6) In   the   meanwhile,   Nadakerappa   filed   a   suit   bearing
O.S.No.7459/1991   before   the   City   Civil   Court,   Bangalore,   seeking
injunction in respect of 1 acre 14 guntas of land in Survey No.1/11
of   Srigandadakaval   Village.   The   Civil   Court   granted   an   order   of
temporary injunction in the said suit.  This order was challenged by
the   land  owners  in  MFA  No.319/1993  before  the  High  Court.     The
said   appeal   was   disposed   of   by   the   High   Court   on   08.07.1998
restraining the parties from cutting and removing the trees standing
thereon to an extent of 29 guntas.  Finally, O.S. No.7459/1991 was
decreed   by   the   Civil   Court   on   21.05.2003.   The   land   owners
challenged   this   judgment   by   filing   an   appeal,   RFA   No.1134/2003
before   the   High   Court.     After   considering   the   matter   in   detail,   the
High Court has dismissed the appeal on 10.01.2014.

6
(7)   Nadakerappa   had   filed   a   memo   in   the   year   2002   before   the
Land Tribunal seeking correction of a clerical mistake found in the
order   of   the   Land   Tribunal   dated   30.04.1982.     On   receipt   of   the
memo, the Land Tribunal issued a notice to the land owners for an
enquiry.   The   land   owners   filed   Writ   Petition   No.23034/2002
challenging   the   validity   and   correctness   of   the   said   notice.     They
also   filed   Writ   Petition   No.27230/2002   challenging   the   Appellate
Authority’s   order   dated   27.02.1989   dismissing   LRA   No.179/1986
and   also   the   order   dated   30.04.1982   passed   by   the   Land   Tribunal
granting occupancy rights in favour of Nadakerappa.  
(8) Learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court,   by   order   dated
25.07.2007   dismissed   Writ   Petition   No.27230/2002   filed   by   the
land   owners   on   the   ground   of   delay   and   laches.     The   other   writ
petition,   i.e.   W.P.No.23034/2002   filed   by   the   land   owners   was
allowed and the notice dated 24.05.2002 was quashed by the High
Court.
(9) Nadakerappa   represented   by   his   legal   representatives
challenged   the   order   passed   in   Writ   Petition   No.23034/2002   by
filing  Writ   Appeal  No.1563/2007.     The   land  owners  challenged  the

7
other   order   passed   in   Writ   Petition   No.27230/2002   by   filing   Writ
Appeal   No.1950/2007.     The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court
allowed   Writ   Appeal   No.1950/2007   and   the   order   passed   in   Writ
Petition No.27230/2002 was set aside.   Consequently, the order of
the   Land   Tribunal   dated   30.04.1982   and   the   order   passed   by   the
Appellate   Authority   in   LRA   No.179/1986   were   quashed   and   the
matter   was   remanded   to   the   Land   Tribunal   for   fresh   disposal.   In
view   of   this   order,   the   High   Court   held   that   Writ   Appeal
No.1563/2007   has   become   infructuous.   As   noticed   above,   these
orders are under challenge in these appeals.
(10) Therefore,   two   questions   arise   for   consideration   in   these
appeals.   The   first   question   is   whether   the   Division   Bench   was
justified in reversing the order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.23034/2002, setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated
30.04.1982   and   remanding   the   matter   to   the   Land   Tribunal.   The
second question is whether  the Learned Single Judge was justified
in quashing the notice dated 24.05.2002. 
(11) On   the   first   question,   Shri   A.N.   Venugopal   Gowda,   learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that there is a

8
long and inordinate delay of 20 years in challenging the order of the
Land   Tribunal.   He   further   submits   that   the   appellants   are   in
possession   of   the   lands   in   question   as   protected   tenants   from   the
year 1955 and the respondents were well­aware of the proceedings
as   early   as   in   the   year   1993.     Mariyappa,   the   predecessor­in­
interest   of   the   respondents   had   not   prosecuted   the   case   against
Nadakerappa.   Accepting   theses   grounds,   the   learned   Single   Judge
has   dismissed   the   writ   petition.     The   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court has set aside the said order in a mechanical manner and has
remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal without any justification.
He   has   urged   several   other   grounds   in   support   of   the   order   of   the
Learned Single Judge on this question.  
(12) On   the   other   hand,   Mr.   Vikas   Singh   and   Ms.   Kiran   Suri,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, submit that
Nadakerappa   filed   the   application   in   Form   No.7   for   grant   of
occupancy   rights   wherein   the   column   earmarked   for   the   name   of
the landlord was kept blank.  Though there is no provision for filing
a   second   Form   No.7,   he   filed   the   same   in   which   the   name   of   the
landlord was shown as “Rama Krishnappa”.  It is further submitted

9
that   Nadakerappa   obtained   the   order   of   the   Land   Tribunal   dated
30.04.1982   by   playing   fraud   upon   the   said   Tribunal.     The
respondents, having obtained the order by playing fraud, cannot be
allowed   to   keep   the   fruits   of   the   said   order.     In   view   of   the   above,
finality   of   the   litigation   cannot   be   pressed   into   service.   In   this
connection,   they   have   relied   on   several   judgments   of   this   Court.
Secondly,   it   is   submitted   that   there   is   no   documentary   evidence
before the Land Tribunal to establish the relationship of tenant and
landlord   which   is   a   pre­requisite   under   Section   2(33)   of   the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
(13) On   the   second   question,   learned   Senior   Counsel,   Mr.   A.N.
Venugopal Gowda, submits that having regard to the amendment to
Section 48­A of the Act wherein a proviso was added by Act No.31 of
1995,   Nadakerappa   filed   a   memo   for   correction   of   clerical   error   in
the order.  The Land Tribunal rightly issued notice on this memo to
the respondents.  Learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified
in   quashing   the   said   notice   on   the   ground   of   delay.   However,
learned senior counsel appearing  for  the respondents, have sought
to justify the order of the learned Single Judge. 

10
(14) Before   considering   the   above   questions,   it   is   necessary   to
consider the contention of the learned counsel for the parties as to
the existence or otherwise of the relationship of landlord and tenant
between   Mariyappa,   the   landlord   and   Nadakerappa   who   had   filed
the   application   in   Form   No.7   for   grant   of   occupancy   rights   in
respect   of   the   lands   in   question.     Materials   on   record   clearly
establish   that   Venkatappa   was   the   original   owner   of   these   lands.
He   had   executed   a   sale   deed   dated   28.08.1954   in   favour   of
Mariyappa   which   was   registered   on   30.08.1954.   However,
Venkatappa sold these properties again in favour of  Sharabaradhya
by   a   deed   of   sale   dated   07.07.1954   registered   on   21.10.1954.     As
the sale deed executed in favour of Sharabaradhya was subsequent
to   the   sale   deed   executed   in   favour   of   Mariyappa,   Sharabaradhya
could   not   get   any   right,   title   or   interest   over   the   said   properties.
Sharabaradhya executed registered lease of deeds dated 29.04.1955
and   23.05.1956   in   respect   of   the   lands   in   question   in   favour   of
Nadakerappa.   It   is   relevant   to   note   here   that   Sharabaradhya
executed   the   registered   deed   of   relinquishment   on   24.09.1964   in
respect of these properties in favour of Venkatappa.   It is no doubt

11
true   that   when   these   lease   deeds   were   executed   in   favour   of
Nadakerappa,   Sharabaradhya   had   no   right,   title   or   interest   in
respect   of   these   properties.   However,   after   the   execution   of   these
lease deeds, the name of Nadakerappa was entered in the RTC.  It is
also clear that after execution of the lease deeds, Nadakerappa was
put   in   possession   of   the   properties   as   a   tenant.   The   contention   of
the   learned  counsel   for   the   landlord  is   that   there  is  no   contract  of
tenancy   between   the   landlord   Mariyappa   and   Nadakerappa.
However,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   has   contended   that
Nadakerappa   was  a   protected  tenant   as  defined  under  sub­section
(34) of Section 2 of the Act.
(15) The   expression   ‘tenant’   is   defined   in   sub­section   (34)   of
Section   2   of   the   Act.     As   per   this   provision,   a   tenant   includes   a
person   who   is   a   protected   tenant.     The   expression   ‘tenancy’   is
defined   in   sub­section   (33)   of   Section   2,   which   means   relationship
of   landlord   and   tenant.   Sub­section   (27)   of   Section   2   defines   the
expression   ‘protected   tenant’,   which   means   a   tenant   of  any  land   if
he has held it continuously and cultivating it personally for a period

12
of   not   less   than   twelve   years   prior   to   the   appointed   day.   The
appointed day here is 01.03.1974.
(16) Materials   on   record   would   clearly   indicate   that   Nadakerappa
was   in   possession   and   cultivating   the   lands   from   the   date   of   the
aforesaid   lease   deeds.   In   fact,   this   position   has   been   admitted   by
the landlord which is evident from the documents produced by the
appellant   along   with   IA   No.103954   of   2021.   The   appellant   has
produced   the   certified   copy   of   an   application   in   Form   No.7   dated
27.12.1974 filed by Mariyappa seeking grant of occupancy rights of
some   other   lands   in   Sajjepalya   Village,   Bangalore,   North   Taluk
dated   27.12.1974.     While   filing   application   in   Form   No.7,   the
applicant is not only required to give the description of the land in
respect   of   which   he   seeks   registration   of   occupancy   rights   under
Section 45 of the Act but is also required to give details of the lands
held  by  him   or  his  family  for  the  purpose of  considering   ceiling   on
land   holdings   under   Chapter­IV   of   the   Act.   The   form   of   the
application is statutorily prescribed under Rule 19 of the Karnataka
Land   Reforms   Rules,   1974   (for   short   ‘the   Rules’).   Form   No.7
prescribed under Rule 19(1) is as under:

13
“FORM 7
[See Rule 19(1)]
Application under Section 48­A(1) for registering as an occupant under
Section 45
To
The Tribunal……………………………..Taluk
Name of the applicant……………………………
Age Profession Place of 
residence
I am the tenant/sub­tenant of the following land:
Name of 
landlord/landlord
s and his/their 
addresses Taluk Village Sy.
No. Plot
or
Hissa
No. Area
A.G. Assessment
Rs.P. Period for
which
applicant
has been
cultivating
the land as
tenant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I have been cultivating the land as a tenant for……………years.
I am interested in getting registered as an occupant of the land on
the terms and conditions laid down in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961.
I, the family of which I am a member, hold the following lands
in   my   name   and   in   the   names   of   my   family   members   other   than
those described above as owner/tenant/or in any other capacity:­
Taluk Village Sy. No. Plot or
Hissa No. Area Assessment
Capacity
in which
held
1. Self
2. Wife
3. Minor Children
4. Unmarried daughters
5.
Any other particulars
Place:…………………

14
Date:…………………. Signature of applicant
The   Tahsildar   should   check   up   the   above   information   with
reference to original records and keep ready for enquiry by the Tribunal.
Note:   The   information   given   above,   if   found   to   be   incomplete   or
incorrect   the   petitioner   is   liable   to   conviction   and   levy   of   penalties   as
provided under Section 125 of the Act.”
(17) In   the   Form   No.7   filed   by   Mariyappa,   he   has   admitted   that
Survey Nos.11/1, 4/2 and 4/7 of Srigandadakaval Village owned by
him; is in the possession of Nadakerappa as a tenant.
(18) Learned senior counsel appearing for the landowners submits
that the document Form No.7 said to have been filed by Mariyappa,
is   a   fabricated   document   and   that   the   respondents   have   filed   a
complaint before the jurisdictional police station in this regard. It is
also submitted that there is no statutory requirement for including
the lands owned by the tenant in the said application.
(19) Form   No.7   filed   by   the   appellant   is   a   certified   copy.   Having
perused the said document, we have no hesitation to hold that it is
not   a   fabricated   document.     Form   No.7   requires   the   applicant   to
disclose the other lands held by him and the members of his family.
When   the   landlord   himself   admits   that   Nadakerappa   was   a   tenant
as   early   as  on   27.12.1974,  there  is  no   question   of   holding   that   no

15
relationship of landlord and tenant existed between Mariyappa and
Nadakerappa.   Perusal   of   the   materials   on   record,   makes   it   clear
that Nadakerappa was in possession and cultivating the said lands
from   the  year   1955  and  was  qualified  to  be  treated as  a  ‘protected
tenant’.             
(20) Now,   let   us   consider   the   first   question   involved   in   these
appeals.     As   noticed   above,   Mariyappa   was   the   owner   of   the
property   by   virtue   of   the   Sale   Deed   dated   30.08.1954.     However,
Nadakerappa   did   not   show   his   name   in   the   application   filed   on
30.10.1974 in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights.   In fact, he
did not show anybody’s name as the land owner of the property and
left the said column blank.   However, in the concluding part of his
application in Form No.7, he has mentioned that the said property
is   standing   in   the   name   of   Mariyappa   s/o   Channappa.     In   the
second   application   in   Form   No.7   filed   by   Nadakerappa   dated
31.12.1974   he   has   shown   the   name   of   one   Ramakrishnappa   s/o
Byrappa.     The   land   Tribunal   granted   occupancy   rights   by   Order
dated   30.04.1982   in   respect   of   Survey   No(s).4/7,   4/2   and   1/11   to
an   extent   of   35   guntas,   25   guntas   and   25   guntas   respectively.

16
Mariyappa challenged the said order  of the Land Tribunal by  filing
W.P.   NO.12461/1984   before   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka.     This
Case   was   referred   to   the   Appellate   Authority   wherein   it   was   re­
numbered   as   LRA   No.179/1986.     The   said   LRA   was   dismissed   on
27.02.1989.   No steps were taken up by  Mariyappa to seek setting
aside   of   this   order.     Mariyappa   passed   away   on   15.10.1993.     The
legal   representatives   of   Mariyappa   filed   W.P.   No.27230/2002
seeking   quashing   of   the   order   of   the   Land   Tribunal   dated
30.04.1982   and   also   the   order   of   the   Appellate   Authority   dated
27.02.1989.     This   writ   petition   was   filed   after   a   long   delay   of   13
years   from   the   date   of   dismissal   of   LRA   No.179/1986.     The   only
reason   assigned   for   the   delay   was   the   financial   problems   and   ill­
health.  Learned Single Judge of the High Court has dismissed this
writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
(21) A s mentioned above, it is clear that though LRA was dismissed
by   the   Appellate   Authority   on   27.02.1989,   Mariyappa   did   not
choose to challenge the said order. Even otherwise, the respondents
were aware of the order of the Land Tribunal which is evident from
different proceedings initiated by them against the appellants.   The

17
dismissal of LRA No.179/1986 was accepted by Mariyappa.  In fact,
in the year 1992, Mariyappa filed an application to rectify the entry
for  the year  1989­90 by entering his name in respect of 29 guntas
of   land   in   Survey   No.1/11.     The   Tahsildar   dismissed   the   said
application of Mariyappa on 25.04.1992.  This order was challenged
by Mariyappa by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner
which   was   also   dismissed   on   26.10.1995.     In   the   meantime,
Mariyappa   died.     After   a   lapse   of   seven   years   a   review   petition   i.e.
R.P.No.118/2001   was   filed   by   the   legal   representatives   of
Mariyappa   before   the   Special   Deputy   Commissioner   which   was
allowed on 19.04.2002.  Nadakerappa challenged this order by filing
W.P.No.20187/2002   before   the   High   Court   which   was   allowed   by
the   learned   Single   Judge   on   01.07.2002.     A   writ   appeal,
W.A.No.3971/2002,   filed   by   the   legal   representatives   of   Mariyappa
was dismissed on 02.08.2002.   After the order passed by the Land
Tribunal,   Nadakerappa’s   name   was   entered   in   the   RTC   to   the   full
extent   of   1   acre   14   guntas   of   land   in   Survey   No.1/11.     When
attempts   were   made   by   the   landlord   to   dispossess   him   of   the   said
land,   he   filed   a   civil   suit   bearing   O.S.   No.4171/1991.     The   Trial

18
Court   granted   temporary   injunction   in   favour   of   the   Nadakerappa.
This order was modified by the Order in MFA No.319/1993.   These
proceedings   would   clearly   show   the   grant   of   occupancy   rights   in
favour   of   Nadakerappa.   Therefore,   they   cannot   plead   ignorance   of
grant of occupancy  right on 30.04.1982.   There is also no merit in
the   contention   of   the   respondents­landlords   that   on   account   of   ill
health   and   financial   problems,   they   could   not   approach   the   Court
within a reasonable time. We are of the view that the learned Single
Judge   has   rightly   dismissed   the   writ   petition   on   the   ground   of
delay.   The   observations   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   this   regard
are as under:
“After   passing   of   the   order   of   the   Land   Tribunal,
proceedings have arisen both on civil side as well as on
the   revenue   side.   As   aforementioned,   the   dispute   arose
between   the   parties   with   regard   to   change   of   katha   in
the   year1989.     Ultimately,   the   matter   came   up   to   the
Division   Bench   in   this   Court   in   W.A.   No.3971/2002,
wherein   it   is   held   that   the   parties   have   to   get   their
matter settled in an appropriate forum such as the Land
Tribunal.     As   aforementioned,   civil   suit   is   also   filed   by
the   third   respondent   against   the   petitioners   herein   for
injunction   in   O.S.   No.7459/1991.     Now   the   matter   is
pending  in RFA No. 1134/2003 before this Court. In all
these   revenue   as   well   as   civil   proceedings,   the
petitioners   herein   are   parties.   The   appeal   filed   by   the
petitioners   in   LRA   No.179/86   before   the   Land   Reforms

19
Appellate   Authority   was   dismissed   for   default   on
27.2.1989.   W.P.   27230/2002   questioning   the   order   of
the   Land   Reforms   Appellate   Authority   dated   27.2.1989
and   the   order   of   the   Land   Tribunal   dated   30.4.1982   is
filed   before   this   Court   in   the   year   2002   i.e.,   after   the
lapse of about 13 years from the date of dismissal of LRA
No.   179/1986.     The   only   reason   assigned   by   the
petitioners   for   filing   the   belated   writ   petition   is   that
because   of   financial   and   ill   health   they   could   not   move
this   Court.     The   said   reason   cannot   be   accepted
inasmuch as the petitioners have been fighting litigation
either in Revenue Courts or in Civil Court or before this
Court……………...;   The   petitioners   knew   very   well   the
order   passed   by   the   Land   Tribunal   and   the   appellate
authority   at   least   in   the   year   1989,   when   the   revenue
litigation arose.  Moreover the petitioners in their written
statement   filed   in   O.S.   No.7459/1991,   have   stated   that
the   Tribunal   has   granted   occupancy   rights   in   favour   of
respondent   No.3   over   25   guntas  in   Sy.  No.1/11.    Thus,
W.P.   No.27230/2002   is   liable   to   be   dismissed   on   the
ground of delay and laches.  This Court odes not wish to
unsettle   the   settled   matter   by   entertaining   the   writ
petition.  Petitioners have accepted the order of the Land
Tribunal   and   have   acted   on   the   said   basis   for   13   long
years.  Now  it  is  not  open   for  them  to   contend  that  they
did not know the order of the Land Tribunal.”
          
(22) However, the contention of the respondents is that the name of
land   owner   was   not   shown   in   the   application   Form   No.7   and   that
the   order   from   the   Land   Tribunal   was   obtained   by   suppression   of
material facts. 

20
(23) We   have   already   noticed   that   in   the   first   application   though
the name of Nadakerappa was not shown in the landlord’s column,
the   same   was   mentioned   at   its   concluding   portion.     Therefore,   it
was unnecessary for him to file the second application wherein the
land   owner   was   shown   as   Ramakrishnappa.     These   applications
were   filed   as   early   as   on   30.10.1974   and   on   31.12.1974.       The
Karnataka   Land   Reforms   Act,   1961   is   a   beneficent   legislation   for
granting   occupancy   rights   to   cultivating   tenants   of   agricultural
lands.   It is a well­settled canon of construction that in construing
the   provisions   of   such   enactments,   the   court   should   adopt   a
construction   which   advances,   fulfils   and   furthers   the   object   of   the
Act   rather   than   the   one   which   would   defeat   the   same   and   render
the  protection  illusory.   The  object  of  the Act  was mainly  to  confer
ownership on the tenants of the lands.   Section 45 was introduced
by   Act   No.1   of   1974   w.e.f.   01.03.1974   providing   for   registration   of
occupancy rights in favour of the tenant.     Rules have been framed
in   exercise   of   the   power   conferred   under   Section   137   of   the   Act   to
effectuate the purpose of the Act.   Rule 19 provides for the form of
application and notice. This rule clearly states that on receipt of an

21
application,   the   Tahsildar   shall   send   extracts   of   the   application   to
the   Tribunals   concerned.     So   far   as   the   lands   in   his   Taluk   are
concerned, the Tahsildar has to verify the particulars mentioned in
the application with reference to the revenue records including  the
record of rights wherever they are prepared and also note the same
on the application. 
(24) It   is   common   knowledge   that   most   of   the   tenants   during   the
relevant   point   of   time   i.e.   nineteen   seventies   were   underprivileged
and   illiterate   villagers   hailing   from   remote   and   far­flung   areas.     A
large number of tenants were lacking from the adequate and basic
necessities   of   life   and   were   suffering   from   the   acute   poverty.
Legislature   has   recognized   this   aspect   and   has   cast   responsibility
on   the   Tahsildar   to   verify   the   particulars   mentioned   in   the
application   with   reference   to   the   Revenue   Records   and   to   note   the
same on the application.  Therefore, it was the duty of the Tahsildar
to   verify   the   Revenue   Records   and   other   documents   and
incorporate/record the name of the owner of the land in Form No.7.
Having   perused   the   materials   on   record,   we   are   satisfied   that   the

22
tenant   in   the   instant   case   has   not   practiced   any   fraud   in   order   to
get the occupancy rights registered in his name. 
(25) The   Division   Bench,   without   assigning   any   cogent   reasons,
has   set   aside   the   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   and   has
remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal. It is settled law that the
order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of
remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of remanding a
proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal. An endeavour has to
be   made   by   the   Appellate   Court   to   dispose   of   the   case   on   merits.
Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the
Appellate   Court   has   to   decide   the   appeal   on   merits   instead   of
remanding   the   case   to   the   lower   court   or   the   Tribunal.     We   are   of
the view that, in the instant case, the Division Bench has remanded
the matter without any justification.  
(26) In view of our finding, as above, it is unnecessary to consider
the   other   contentions   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   on
the first question.

23
(27)   Coming to the second question, W.P.No.23034/2002 was filed
challenging   the   notice   issued   by   the   Land   Tribunal   dated
24.05.2002 on the basis of a memo filed by the tenant for correction
of the survey number.  A proviso has been added to Section 48­A of
‘the   Act’   by   Act   No.31   of   1995   which   has   come   into   force   w.e.f.
20.10.1995 which reads as under:  
“Provided  further   that  the  Tribunal   may   on  its  own
or   on   the   application   of   any   of   the   parties,   for
reasons to be recorded in writing correct the extent
of   land   in   any   order   passed   by   it   after   causing
actual measurement and after giving an opportunity
of being heard to the concerned parties.”
(28) In view of the above proviso, it was permissible for the tenant
to   make   an   application   seeking   correction   of   the   extent   of   land   in
the   order   of   the   Land   Tribunal.   The   proviso   was   inserted   on
20.10.1995   and   the   memo   seeking   correction   of   the   order   of   the
Land Tribunal was filed in the year, 2002. The learned Single Judge
was,   therefore,   not   justified   in   quashing   the   Notice   issued   by   the
Land   Tribunal   on   the   ground   of   delay   of   about   20   years.   We   have
already   noticed   that   most   of   the   tenants   are   villagers   from   remote
areas and most of them are illiterate persons and that the Act is a
beneficent   legislation.   This   aspect   has   to   be   kept   in   mind   while

24
deciding cases under the Act. Whether the order requires correction
or   not   has   to   be   decided   by   the   Land   Tribunal,   after   hearing   the
parties.   In   fact,   the   learned   Single   Judge,   while   disposing   of   W.P.
No.20187   of   2002   on   01.07.2012   which   arose   out   of   the   dispute
relating   to   entries   in   revenue   records,   had   observed   that   whether
Nadakerappa is entitled to the entire extent of 1 Acre 14 Guntas in
Sy.No.   1/11,   and   whether   his   application   for   correction   is
maintainable are matters to be decided by the Tribunal. This order
of   the   learned   Single   Judge   has   been   confirmed   by   the   Division
Bench.   For   the   aforesaid   reasons,   we   are   of   the   view   that   the
learned Single Judge  was not justified in  quashing  the  Notice. The
Division   Bench   has   held   that   in   view   of   setting   aside   the   Order   of
the   Land   Tribunal   dated   30.04.1982,   the   Writ   Appeal   has   become
infructuous.   In   our   view,   the   matter   requires   adjudication   by   the
Land Tribunal on this question. 
(29) In view of the above, we pass the following order:
(I) The   order   in   Writ   Appeal   No.1950   of   2007   dated
30.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka   at   Bengaluru   is   set   aside   and   the   order   of   the

25
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27230/2002 dated 25.07.2007
is restored.
(II) The   order   in   Writ   Appeal   NO.1563   of   2007   dated
30.12.2014   is   set   aside   and   the   order   of   the   learned   Single
Judge   in   W.P.No.23034/2002   dated   25.07.2002   is   also   set
aside.   We   direct   the   Land   Tribunal   to   hold   an   inquiry   on   the
notice  dated 24.05.2002  and  pass appropriate  orders  thereon
in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
(30) These   appeals   are   accordingly   allowed.     There   shall   be   no
order as to costs.
…….……………………………J.
    (S. ABDUL NAZEER)
…….……………………………J.
    (KRISHNA MURARI)
New Delhi;
March 31, 2022.