NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10299 OF 2011
PILLAMMA (DEAD)   & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M. RAMAIAH REDDY (DEAD)
THROUGH LRs. & ANR.  ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15 th
September,   2008   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   at
Bangalore   affirming   the   finding   recorded   by   the   Land   Tribunal,
Anekal,   in   conferring   occupancy   rights   in   respect   of   the   land
bearing Sy. No. 184 to an extent of 10 acres 34 guntas and Survey
No.   17   to   an   extent   of   1   acre   12   guntas   of   Halasahalli   Village,
Anekal Taluk, in favour of the first respondent.
1

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that first
respondent had filed an application in Form No. 7 on 3 rd
 December,
1974 under Rule 19(1) of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules requesting
for   registration   of   occupancy   rights   in   his   favour   under   Section
45(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961(hereinafter referred
to as the “Act 1961”).
3. The case of the first respondent was that lands measuring Sy.
No.   184,   measuring   10   acres   and   34   guntas   and   Sy.   No.   17,
measuring   01   acre   12   guntas   both   situated   at   Halasahally,
Thippasandra   Village   were   vested   with   the   Government   as   on   1 st
March, 1974 in  terms of  Section  44 of  the Act,  1961 and  he  being
the   tenant   in   respect   of   the   aforesaid   lands   was   entitled   to   be
registered   as   an   occupant   of   these   lands   under   Section   45   of   the
Act 1961.
4. The   Tribunal,   in   the   first   instance,   by   an   Order   dated   18 th
November   1981,   rejected   the   application   filed   by   the   first
respondent   but   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   vide   its   Order   dated
12 th
 March, 1985 remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh
disposal   in   accordance   with   law   which   came   to   be   further
2

challenged in writ appeal and by Order dated 16 th
  March 1987, the
same   was   remitted   back   to   the   Land   Reforms   Appellate   Authority
with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law.
5. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority conducted the trial but
during   pendency   of   the   application,   the   Land   Reforms   Appellate
Authority   was   abolished   and   with   the   intervention   of   the   High
Court, the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal.
6. The   parties   filed   their   documents   in   support   of   their   claims
which   were   duly   exhibited   as   A­1   to   A­10(D).     In   support   of   the
claim, the first respondent examined his power of attorney holder R.
Ravindra as PW 1 and one Kamiah as PW 2 and the witnesses were
cross­examined   by   the   respective   parties   and   an   enquiry   was   held
by the Tribunal in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
Section 48­A(5) of the Act, 1961 read with Rule 17 of the Karnataka
Land   Reforms   Rules.     After   taking   into   consideration   the   material
on record and noticing the fact as claimed by the appellants before
the   Tribunal,   the   subject   property   was   sold   by   Venkataramaiah   to
the   appellants   by  a  registered  sale deed  dated  10 th
  July,  1970  and
they were stepped into the shoes of Venkataramaiah.
3

7. The defence of the appellants was that they had purchased the
lands   from   Venkataramaiah   under   registered   sale   deed   dated   10 th
July, 1970 and became owner of the subject land which was within
the   purview   of   Karnataka(Personal   &   Miscellaneous)   Inams
Abolition  Act, 1954(hereinafter   being   referred to  as the  “Act 1954”)
and Act, 1961 has no applicability in the instant matter.
8. The   further   contention   of   the   appellants   before   the   Tribunal
was that the first respondent is not a tenant but is a trespasser and
there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and the land was in
unlawful possession of the first respondent.
9. The appellants also emphasized that in the proceedings earlier
initiated,  the   first   respondent   failed  to   establish  his   tenancy   rights
under   the   Act   1954,   as   such,   he   was   not   entitled   to   claim   later
occupancy rights under the Act 1961.
10. Taking   into   consideration   the   rival   claims   of   the   parties,   the
Land   Tribunal   recorded   a   finding   that   on   1 st
  March   1974,   i.e.,   the
vesting   day,   the   subject   land   was   in   possession   of   the   first
respondent   and   his   father   and   that   was   the   admission   of   the
appellants   in   the   earlier   proceedings   initiated   under   the   Act,
4

1954(O.S. No. 210 of 1967) and later in subsequent suit filed by the
appellants in O.S. No. 1054 of 1974 on the file of the Addl. Second
Munsiff   at   Bangalore   and   was   persuaded   that   the   respondent’s
father   was   in   possession   as   on   1 st
  March,   1974   and   has   lawfully
cultivated   the   subject   land   in   question   and   became   a   deemed
tenant as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, 1961 and finally
disposed   of   the   application   after   assigning   detailed   and   cogent
reasons   under   its   Order   dated   16 th
  December   2002.     The   relevant
part of the order is as under:­
“The   application   filed   in   Form   No.   7   by   the   applicant   for
registration of the occupancy rights in respect of lands bearing Sy.
Nos. 17 and 184 to an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas and 10 acres 34
guntas   respectively   situated   at   Halasahalli   Thippasandra   Village,
Anekal   Taluk,   Bangalore   Urban   District   is   hereby   allowed   and   we
hereby unanimously grant occupancy rights in respect of the above
said   lands   in   the   name   of   Sri   H.   Ramaiah   Reddy   and   ordered
accordingly.”
11. The Order  of the Land Tribunal came to be challenged by the
present appellants by filing of a writ petition before the High Court
of   Karnataka   and   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court
revisited   the   facts   on   record   and   after   affording   opportunity   of
hearing to the parties and taking into consideration the material on
record, was of the view that no manifest error has been committed
5

by   the   Tribunal   in   its   Order   granting   occupancy   rights   to   the   first
respondent which may  call for interference by  judgment dated 28 th
May, 2008 that came to be further challenged by the appellants in
writ   appeal   before   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of
Karnataka.
12. The   bone   of   contention   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the
appellants   in   the   writ   appeal   was   that   the   first   respondent   has   no
right to file an application in Form  No. 7, more so, when he is not
able to justify his right to be the tenant under the Act, 1954 in the
earlier proceedings.
13. The   second   contention   was   that   the   first   respondent   earlier
claimed ownership rights over the subject land under the Act, 1954
which   he   failed   to   establish   and   later   it   is   not   open   to   the   first
respondent to contend that he is the tenant of the subject property
under the Act 1961.  
14. Both the contentions in the writ appeal before the High Court
were rejected after recording a finding that so far as denial of right
to   the   tenant   under   the   Act,   1954   is   concerned,   it,   in   no   manner,
obviates   the   rights   of   the   incumbent   to   claim   occupancy   rights
6

under   the   Act,   1961   and   so   far   as   the   second   contention   is
concerned,   it   was   observed   that   there   was   no   conflicting   stand   as
the occupancy rights under the Act, 1961 were to be looked into on
the date of vesting day, i.e., 1 st
  March, 1974 and not under the Act
1954.     As   such,   the   proceedings   earlier   initiated   under   the   Act
1954,  in  no  manner, has  any  relationship  so  far   as the  occupancy
rights   which   the   first   respondent   has   claimed   as   being   in
possession   as   on   1 st
  March,   1974   under   the   Act,   1961   and   taking
assistance of the judgment of this Court in  Muniyallappa  Vs.  B.M.
Krishnamurthy   and   Others 1
,   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   writ
appeal filed at the instance of the appellants.
15. We  have  heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and  with   their
assistance examined the record.
16. The   scope   and   ambit   of   the   two   Acts,   namely,   Act,   1954   and
Act,   1961   has   been   examined   by   this   Court   in
Muniyallappa (supra) in paragraph 5 as under:­
“5.   It may be stated that the purpose and scope of the two Acts are
distinct.   The   Inams   Abolition   Act   was   enacted   for   the   purpose   of
abolition   of   inam   tenures   and   conversion   of   such   tenures   into
1   1992 Supp.(3) SCC 26
7

ryotwari   tenure   and   in   that   process,   grant   of   occupancy   rights   to
the inamdars and the three classes of tenants specified in that Act.
The   purpose   of   the   Land   Reforms   Act,   however,   is   quite   different.
The main  purpose  was to abolish  the  relationship of landlord and
tenant in respect of tenanted lands and to confer occupancy rights
on tenants who are personally cultivating the lands. Therefore, the
rejection   of   the   claim   of   the   appellant   under   the   Inams   Abolition
Act   does   not   lead   to   the   inference   that   he   has   no   claim   for
occupancy right under the Land Reforms Act. The appellant claims
that   he   is   a   deemed   tenant   as   provided   under   Section   4   of   the
Land Reforms Act. The requirement of deemed tenant, as provided
under   Section   4   of   the   Tenancy   Act,   must   be   determined   by   the
Land Tribunal. The High Court having come to the conclusion that
the procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal was not in accordance
with the rules of natural justice ought to have remitted the matter
to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.”
17. Under   the   scheme   of   the   Act   1954,   all   lands   in   Inam   villages
vested   in   the   State   Government.     But   under   the   Act   1961,   not   all
agricultural   lands   vest   in   the   State;   only   lands   held   by   or   in
possession  of  tenants   immediately   prior   to  1 st
  March,   1974   vest   in
the   State   Government.       The   claim   of   the   tenant   or   tenants   for
registration   of   occupancy   rights   under   the   Act,   1961   has   to   be
decided with reference to the date of vesting under Section 44, viz.,
1 st
  March   1974.     Under   the   Act   1954,   the   rights   of   the   Inamdars
and tenants were decided with reference to the date of vesting, viz,
1 st
 February, 1959 under the said Act.
8

18. The   scope   and   purport   of   the   two   Acts   being   different,
termination   of   the   proceedings   under   the   Act,   1954   in   regard   to
grant   of   occupancy   rights   cannot   bar   an   enquiry   to   establish   the
claim   under   Section   45   of   the   Act,   1961   by   the   Land   Tribunal.
What   the   Tribunal,   under   the   Act,   has   to   inquire   into,   is   whether
the   lands   claimed   by   the   applicant   before   it,   have   vested   in   the
State   Government   under   Section   44   of   the   Act   1961.     For   that
purpose, it has to decide whether  the lands were held by  or in the
possession   of   any   tenant   immediately   prior   to   1 st
  March,   1974(the
date of vesting).
19. This   is   what   has   been   examined   by   the   Tribunal   in   extenso
and thereafter finding was recorded that the first respondent was in
possession   and   was   cultivating   the   subject   land   in   question
immediately   prior   to   1 st
  March,   1974   (the   vesting   date)   under
Section  44  of the  Act, 1961 and  accordingly  declared  to  confer   the
occupancy  rights to the first respondent under  its order  dated 16 th
December 2002. 
20. The   appellants   challenged   the   finding   of   the   Tribunal   before
the High Court in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
9

and further in writ appeal and after due deliberation and revisiting
the   records,   both   the   Courts   affirmed   the   Order   of   the   Land
Tribunal upholding occupancy rights to the first respondent.
21. After   we   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties,   find   no
manifest   error   been   committed   in   the   findings   recorded   by   the
Tribunal   in   conferring   the   occupancy   rights   in   favour   of   the   first
respondent and needs no further interference of this Court.
22. Consequently, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed.   No
costs.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
       ……………………….J.
       (AJAY RASTOGI)
       ……………………….J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 08, 2022.
10