JUDGMENT
Jagannatha Shetty, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Learned Single Judge, dated March 19th, 1984 in Writ Petition No. 21293/1982.
2. Smt. Muthu Hengsu is an Agricultural labourer. She resides in a house in Sy. No. 127/11. She applied under Section 38 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for ownership of that house along with an adjoining land measuring 8 cents. She has stated that she has been residing here as an agricultural labourer for the last 27 years. The landlord, however, said that she has been residing there for the past 15 years. He further contended that the house is located at the middle of the garden and if ownership is granted to Muthu Hengsu, it would inconvenience him.
3. There was a spot inspection by the Land Tribunal. It appears, at the spot inspection, the landlord agreed to give 5 cents of land in Sy. No. 236/1 instead of acceding to the claim of Muthu Hengsu in Sy. No 127/11. Accepting that offer, the Tribunal made the order as follows :
It will be seen therefrom, that the Tribunal while granting ownership of 5 cents of land in Sy. No. 236/1 has directed Muthu Hengsu to vacate the house in her occupation and to go to the newly allotted site in Sy. No. 236/1.
4. That order has been challenged by Muthu Hengsu in Writ Petition No. 21293 of 1982.
5. The Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal was not satisfactory since there was no proper enquiry as required under Rule 17 of the K.L.R. Rules. He allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the order of the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in strict compliance with Rule 17 of the K.L.R. Rules.
It is against this order, the landlord has preferred the Writ Appeal.
6. We are concerned in this case the right of an agricultural labourer with regard to his dwelling house and the obligation of his landlord if he wants to retain that house for his own use or for any other purpose. The question raised also touches upon the nature of the enquiry to be conducted and the order to be made thereon by the Tribunal.
7. Section 38 incorporates such rights and obligations. Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 38 provides :
“38. Dwelling houses of agricultural labourers, etc : (1)(a) If, in any village, an agricultural labourer is ordinarily residing in a dwelling house on a land not belonging to him, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other taw, but subject to Sub-section (2) and such dwelling house along with the site thereof and land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for its enjoyment, shall, on the date of publication of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978 in the Official Gazette, vest absolutely in the State Government, free from all encumbrances and the agricultural labourer shall be entitled to be registered as owner thereof.
Explanation…..”
Under Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 38, the dwelling house of an agricultural labourer along with the site thereof and land immediately appurtenant thereto which is necessary for its enjoyment, shall, on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978, vest absolutely in the State Government, free from all encumbrances. Upon this vesting the agricultural labourer shall be entitled to be registered as owner thereof. He may make an application to the Land Tribunal for ownership of house. Rules 9A, 10 and 12 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, provide procedure to be followed by the Tribunal, when such application is received. After such enquiry, the Tribunal must give a certificate of registration to the agricultural labourer as owner of the dwelling house with the land appurtenant thereto under Form 2C.
8. But the dwelling house of an agricultural labourer does not vest in every case. The vesting is subject to Sub-section (2) of Section 38, which is in the following terms :
“(2) If the owner bona fide requires the dwelling house for his own use or for any other purpose or considers that the dwelling house is so located as to cause inconvenience to him, he may require the agricultural labourer to shift to a site belonging to him, subject to the following conditions, namely :–
(i) the owner shall pay to the agricultural labourer the price of the dwelling house if the game was erected by the agricultural labourer ;
(ii) the new site shall be fit for erecting a dwelling house and shall be within a distance of one kilometre from the existing dwelling house;
(iii) the extent of the new site shall not be less than the extent of the dwelling house including the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for its enjoyment; and
(iv) the owner shall transfer ownership and possession of the new site to the agricultural labourer and shall pay to him the reasonable cost of shifting to the new site.”
It will be seen from Sub-section (2) that the owner may state that the dwelling house of the agricultural labourer is bona fide required by him for his own use or for any other purpose. He may also state that if the dwelling house is granted to the agricultural labourer, it would cause inconvenience to him in regard to the enjoyment of his own property. But he has to offer an alternate house site fit for erecting a dwelling house, and that alternate site should be within a distance of one kilometre from existing dwelling house. The Tribunal then is required to make an enquiry on the contention raised and the offer made by the owner.
If the Tribunal is satisfied about the contention of the owner as to the bona fide requirement of the dwelling house for his own use or for any other purpose, it shall ask the agricultural labourer to accept the offer of an alternate site and direct him to shift to the new site.
While making the said order, the Tribunal shall impose the following conditions in particular ;
The owner shall be directed to pay to the agricultural labourer the price of the dwelling house if the same had been erected by the agricultural labourer at his own cost. The Tribunal shall also direct the owner to transfer ownership and possession of the new site to the agricultural labourer. The Tribunal shall further direct the owner to pay to the agricultural labourer the “reasonable cost” of shifting to the new site.
There is no dispute as to the first and second conditions above referred to. The dispute, however, is only as to the third condition about the “reasonable cost” of shifting payable by the owner.
9. Mr. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for respondent-1-submitted that the “reasonable cost” of shifting to the new site should include also the cost of construction of a dwelling house in a new site and it cannot be just the cost of transportation of materials. The cost of transportation of materials may be nothing. The agricultural labourer will not have a lorry load of articles. He may not even have a cart load of articles. He may have just a head load of utensils. The transportation of such articles for a kilometre distance may not require any expenditure. The Legislature, therefore, intended that the reasonable cost of shifting payable by the owner must include the reasonable cost of erecting a new dwelling house. So ran the contention of Sri Upadhyaya.
Counsel for the appellant, however, contended that it is not the intention of the Legislature to provide for the agricultural labourer the cost of construction of a house in the new site given to him. If that was the intention, it would be unnecessary for the owner to pay to the agricultural labourer the price of the existing dwelling house, if the same was constructed at the cost of the agricultural labourer.
10. The point is a novel one and must, therefore, be determined by resort to principle and reality. The reality is to provide social security to the agricultural labourer by providing him a shelter over his head. He is entitled to the ownership of his dwelling house. That is the statutory right. He is asked to forego that and directed to go to a new site for living. Nobody can be asked to go and live in the open site. One must, therefore, consider the meaning of the term “reasonable cost” against the background of problems of society and facts of life. The word “reasonable” cannot have a uniform formula applicable to all cases. It must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If the agricultural labourer is not in a position to erect a dwelling house ; or if he has no means to do that, then necessarily the owner shall extend the necessary assistance to him. The reasonable cost of shifting, in cur opinion, must include such assistance like men, material or money for electing a new dwelling house in the new site offered. This assistance may also depend upon the price of the dwelling house which the owner has to pay to the agricultural labourer if it was constructed by the latter. It must also depend upon the means of the agricultural labourer to bear the cost of construction at a new site. It is, however, not possible to define or describe the quantum of such assistance. It is also not desirable to do that. The moral of it all is that the sense of justice must be in a position to locate the fair balance correctly so that the agricultural labourer may have a dwelling house in the new site.
With these observations, we affirm the order of remand and dismiss the appeal.