{"id":56020,"date":"1998-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998"},"modified":"2015-03-29T01:03:50","modified_gmt":"2015-03-28T19:33:50","slug":"r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998","title":{"rendered":"R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: M J Rao.<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Majmudar, M. Jagannadha Rao<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nR. RUDRAIAH & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t04\/02\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nM. JAGANNADHA RAO. J.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted in both SLPs.\n<\/p>\n
     In each  of these\tappeals, the  appellants are  Sri B.
\nRudraiah and  his son  Sri B.Veeranna. The party respondents
\nare Sri\t Lakshmi Narasappa  (3rd respondent).  Smt. Kittamma
\n(wife of Late Narasimha Murthy) 4th respondent) and Sri S.N.
\nPrahlada Rao,  (son of Late Narasiah (Jr.) (5th respondent).
\nThese two  appeals aeon\t directed against  the order sin CRP
\nNo. 625\t of 1988 and CRP No. 2829 of 1988 dated 18.7.1989 of
\nthe karnataka  High Court  allowing the said revisions which
\nwere Karnataka\tHigh Court allowing the said revisions which
\nwere filed  by Lakshmi\tNarasappa (3rd\trespondent) and S.N.
\nPrahlada  Ram.\t (5th  respondent)  respectively.  In  those
\nrevisions the  appellants were\trespondents.  The  revisions
\nfiled in the High Court under Section 121-A of the Karnataka
\nLand Reforms  Act, 1961\t were  allowed,\t setting  aside\t the
\norders dated 7.11.1987 passed by the appellate authority and
\nby the\tLand Tribunal  on  27.4.1987  registering  occupancy
\nrights in  favour of  the first appellant i.e. B.Rudraiah in
\nrespect of  3 acres 34 juntas and 1 acre 24 juntas in Survey
\nNo. 55\tand 62\trespectively of\t Saneguruvanahalli  village,
\nBangalore North\t Taluk. Aggrieved  by the orders of the High
\nCourt dated  18.7.1989,\t these\ttwo  appeals  are  filed  by
\nRudraiah, the  aggrieved party.\t His  son  B.  Veeranna\t has
\njoined as the second appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The main ground on which the High Court has allowed the
\nrevisions of  respondents 3  and 5  and dismissed the Form 7
\napplications of\t the 1st  appellant b.\tRudraiah is that the
\nsaid application  for grant  of occupancy right was filed on
\n7.3.1984 beyond the period prescribed by Section 48-A of the
\nKarnataka Land\tReforms act,  1961 (hereinafter\t called\t the
\nLand Reforms  Act, 1961). The said provision in Section 48-A
\nwas introduced\tby Karnataka Act 1 of 1979 (with effect from
\n1.3.1974) fixing  time limit  for filing  applications under
\nSection\t 45  for  registration\tas  “occupants”\t before\t the
\nTribunal. These\t words introduced  by the  amending Act 1 of
\n1979 fixing time limit read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “before  the expert of a period of
\n     six months\t from the  date\t of  the
\n     commencement of  Section 1\t of  the
\n     Karnataka Land  reforms (amendment)
\n     Act, 1978”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In view  of the  amendment made by Act 1\/1979, the High
\nCourt held  that the  time stood  extended only for 6 months
\nfrom 1.1.1979  i.e. upto  30.6.1979 and this  date being not
\nin dispute,  the application  filed by\tthe 1st appellant on
\n7.3.1984 before the Land Tribunal was time barred.\n<\/p>\n
     The  appellant   No.1  seeks  to  have  the  period  of
\nlimitation extended  beyond  30.6.1979\tby  linking  up\t the
\ncommencement of\t limitation under  Section 48-A\t of the\t KLR
\nAct, 1961  with certain\t orders passed\tin proceedings under
\nthe  Karnataka\t Village   offices   Abolition\t Act,\t1961
\n(hereinafter called  the Village  offices  (Abolition)\tAct,
\n1961) against  Kittamma, (wife\tof  Narasimha  Murthy)\t(4th
\nrespondent)  and   in  favour\tof  Lakshmi  Narasappa\t(3rd
\nrespondent) and\t S.N.Prahlada  Rao  (5th  respondent).\tthey
\nbeing her  husband’s  brother  and  deceased  brother’s\t son
\nrespectively.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  therefore refer\tto the facts relating to the
\nconnection of  the proceedings\tbefore us,  under  the\tLand
\nReforms Act,  1961 with\t the proceedings under the Karnataka
\nVillage Officers Abolition Act, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts\tleading to the dispute inter Se between S.K.
\nLakshmi Narasappa  (3rd respondent),  S.N. Prahlada Rao (5th
\nrespondent) on\tthe one hand and Kittamma on the others, are
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
     Narasaih  (Jr),  Narasimha\t Moorthi  and  S.K.  Lakshmi
\nNarasappa (3rd respondent) are the sons of Narasiah (Sr) who
\nwas the\t Baravardar of\tthe Shamboghi  Office of the village
\nSaheguruvanahalli. The\tlands in  question  were  emoluments
\nattached to  the said  village office.\tTh  rights  thereto,
\naccording the  respondents 3  and 5 devolved on the death of
\nNarasiah  (Sr)\tupon  his  aforesaid  three  sons.  Of\tthem
\nNarasimha Moorthi  (who\t allegedly  sold  this\tproperty  on
\n11.3.1970 to  Rudraiah, 1st appellant) died in 1971, leaving
\nbeing him, his wife Kittamma (4th respondent in these Case).
\nLater on,  Narasiah (Jr)  died in  1975\t leaving  being\t him
\nPrahlada Rao  (5th respondent).\t The village  offices  stood
\nabolished under\t the Village  offices Abolition\t Act,  1961,
\nw.e.f. 1.2.1963 and under the provision of Section 5 of that
\nAct, the  erstwhile holders  of\t the  village  office  could
\nobtain re-grant of the lands after the village offices stood
\nabolished under\t Section 4(1)  of the said Act and after the
\nemoluments stood  “resumed” by\tforce of Section 4(3) of the
\nsaid Act.  It is  the case  of the  1st appellant  that even
\nbefore 1961,  he was  the cultivating  tenant of the land in
\nquestion and  continued to  be in  possession. Prior  to his
\ndeath in  1971,\t Narasimha  Moorthi,  one  of  the  sons  of
\nNarasiah (Sr)  applied before  the Asstt. Commissioner under
\nsection 5  of the  KVO Act,  1961 for re-grant of the entire
\nlands exclusively  in his  favour. This was contested by his
\nbrother S.K. Lakshmi Narasappa (3rd respondent) and narasiah
\n(Jr.). It  appears that\t the Asstt.  Commissioner by  orders
\ndated 22.6.1970\t decided the   lands should be re-granted in
\nfavour of  all three brothers, i.e. sons of the last holders
\nand he\tdid not\t accept the report of the Tahsildar that re-
\ngrant should  be in  favour of Narasimha Moorthi (husband of
\nKittamma) alone for the entire land. narasimha Moorthi filed
\nan appeal MA No.21 of 1971  before the District Judge and as
\nhe died,  his wife Kittamma came on record as appellant. The
\nmatter was  remanded on 20.2.1973 and after remand, an order
\nwas  passed  on\t 19.4.82  by  the  Tahsildar  again  against
\nKittamma. During  the pendently\t of the appeal, Narasiah Jr,
\ndied in 1975 and Prahlada Rao, his son came on record in his
\nplace. Against\tthe fresh  order dated\t19.4.1982,  Kittamma
\nfiled appeal  MA 20  of 1982 questioning the aforesaid order
\nof the Tahsildar, before the appellate authority, impleading
\nLakshmi Narasappa  her husband’s brother) and Prahlada- Rao,
\n(her husband’s\tnephew), as respondents. In that appeal, the
\n1st appellant  Rudraiah filed  IA  No. 3 for being impleaded
\nas purchaser  of the  entire property from narasimha Moorthi
\nand the\t said  application  for\t implement  was\t allowed  on
\n30.1.84 by  the\t Addl.\tCity  Civil  Judge,  thew  appellate
\nauthority. Thereafter,\tthe appeal of Kittamma was dismissed
\non 17.12.1984  and the\trevision of Kittamma CRP 300 OF 1985
\nwas  also   dismissed  by   the\t High  Court  on  22.1.1985.
\nKittamma’s SLP\t(c) 9387 of 1985 was dismissed by this Court
\non 9.1.1987. It appears that appellant also filed CRP 654 of
\n1985 and  it was  rejected on  30.7.1989.  (There  are\talso
\nanother SLP  (C) 14391\/1981  by 1st appellant’s son Veeranna
\n(second appellant)  and others\tagainst an  order in another
\nCRP 624\/1985 which was dismissed by this Court on 9.5.1991).
\nIt is  to be  noticed that  Veeranna, 2nd  appellant son  of
\nRudraiah (1st  appellant) claims to have purchased the share
\nof Narasimha  Moorthi from Kittamma. This is why Kittamma is
\nnow supporting\tthe case  of the  appellants. The above is a
\nrsum of\t the facts  in the  proceedings under section 5 of
\nthe Village Officers (Abolition) Act, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  now refer  to the  rival contentions  of\t the
\nparties in the appeals before us.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is   contended\t by  the  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants Sri. R.S. Hegde that the provision in section 48-
\nA   prescribing limitation has to be considered liberally in
\nfavour of  tenants and\tthe period  is to be extended. It is
\nalso  contended\t  alternatively\t that\tunless\tthe   claims
\nregarding re-grant  of the  emoluments of the village office
\nunder Sections\t5 of  the Village  Officers (Abolition) Act,
\n1961 were finally decided by the concerned authorities under
\nthat Act,  the period of limitation fixed under Section 48-A
\nof the\tLand Reforms Act, 1961 did not start, inasmuch as it
\nis not\tpossible to specify who the landlord is. He contends
\nthat the application under Section 45 in Form 7 requires the
\nname of\t landlords to  be specified  and that  if it  is not
\nknown who  the landlords  are until the case under section 5
\nof the Village Officer’s emoluments is finally decided, time
\ndoes not  start till  that question  is finally decided. yet
\nanother contention is that affect 1.2.1963, when the village
\noffices stood  abolished and when under Section 4(3) of that
\nAct the emoluments of the village office stood automatically
\nresumed, the  lands stood  vested in  the  Government  under
\nSection 4  of that  Act\t and  therefore\t became\t ‘government
\nlands’. Consequently,  under Section 107 of the Land Reforms
\nAct, 1961  these lands\twere not  covered by  the said\tLand
\nReforms Act.  if they  were not\t so covered,  then the\ttime
\nlimit in  Section 48-A\tof that\t Act, relating\tto filing of
\napplications by\t tenants for  occupancy did  not also apply.
\nContention is  that the said provisions under Section 45 and
\nSection 48-A operated – by virtue of Section 126 of the Land
\nReforms Act,  1961 –  only  from  the  dates  on  which\t the
\nquestion of  re –  grant to  favour of the erstwhile village
\nofficers was  finally decided.\tHence it  is argued that the
\nprovision relating  to the period of limitation mentioned in
\nSection 48-A  of the  Land Reforms Act, 1961 namely 6 months
\nfrom the commencement of Section 1 of Karnataka Land Reforms
\nAmendment  Act.\t  1978\t(Act1\/1979)  –\tdid  not  come\tinto
\noperation till 22.1.1985 when Kittamma’s CRP 300 of 1985 was
\ndismissed or  when appellants  CRP 653 of 1985 was dismissed
\non 20.7.1989.  yet another  contention is  that amendment to
\nsection 126  by Land  Reforms Act  introduced by act 1\/79 is
\nnot classificatory.\n<\/p>\n
     The above\tcontentions of\tthe appellants are supported
\nby learned  senior counsel  Sri P.  Krishna Murthy Appearing
\nfor Kittamma, 4th respondent. learned counsel relies also on
\nrule 4 of the Karnataka Village office Abolition rules, 1961
\ndealing with  the time and manner of payment of `occupancy –
\nprice’\tunder  Section\t5  and\t6  of  the  Village  Offices
\n(Abolition) Act,  1961 by  the erstwhile  village office  Es
\nupon re – grant of lands in their favour after the abolition
\nof the village offices. he contends that until the erstwhile
\nvillage offices\t are declared  entitled to  re –  grant upon
\npayment of  occupancy price and until they had actually paid
\nthe same,  the time  fixed under  Section 48-A\tof the\tLand
\nReforms Act, 1961 does not start to run.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  other hand,  Sri  N.S.  Hegde,  learned  senior
\ncounsel for  the respondents  3 and  5\t(i.e.  S.K.  Lakshmi
\nNarasappa and  S.N. Prahlada Rao) contends that Section 48-A
\nof the\tLand Reforms Act, 1961 which refers to the period of
\nlimitation for\tfiling application  under section  45 of the
\nLand Reforms  Act, 1961\t is unambiguous\t and operates by its
\nown force  and no resort can be made to Section 5 of Village
\nOffices (Abolition) Act, 1961 which deals with re – grant of
\nemoluments attached  to village\t office Es.  It is contended
\nthat there  can be  no linkage\tbetween the  two Acts. it is
\nargued that  time in the present case had expired clearly on
\n30.6.1979, as  fixed by\t statute and  there was therefore no
\nambiguity in  the language  f that provision. Alternatively,
\nit is  argued  that  these  lands,  upon  abolition  village
\noffices, are  not `government  lands’. Hence  Section 107 of
\nthe Land  reforms Act,\t1961 does  not apply.  On the  other
\nhand, Section  126 of  that Act\t came into  play immediately
\nafter  1.3.1974\t  when\tsection\t 48-A  was  introduced\twith
\nretrospective effect  by Act 1\/79 w.e.f. 1.3.1974. After the
\nAmendment in  1979, time  stood extended  for section 126 by
\nAct 1  of 1979\twas only  classificatory and only removal of
\ndoubts. Further, the respondent 3 and 5 did not. In the re –
\ngrant proceedings  under section  5 of\tthe Village  Offices
\n(Abolition)  Act,   1961  disputes  the\t right\tof  Kittamma
\nregarding re  – grant  of the share of her husband Narasimha
\nMurthy and  it was  only Kittamma  who disputed the right of
\nher husband’s  brothers to  get two  shares.  Once  the\t Dy.
\nCommissioner had  passed orders\t on 22.6.1970  to re – grant
\nunder section 5 of the Village Offices Abolition Act of 1961
\nin favour  of respondent  3 and\t 5 as  also respondent\t4 or
\nagain after  remand, the  Tahsildar passed  fresh orders  on
\n19.4.1982, the\tintention of  the government  to re  – grant
\nbecame\tclear.\t Even  assuming\t  that\tthe   lands   became
\n`government  lands’   after  the   village   officers\twere
\nabolished, the provisions of Section 126 of the Land reforms
\nAct, 1961  came into  operation, at  any rate from 19.4.1982
\nwhen the second order of re – grant was passed after remand.
\nIt is  argued that  there was  therefore no justification on
\nthe part  of the 1st appellant to file the application under
\nsection 45  (read with\tsection 48-A) on 7.3.1984, was filed
\nonly on\t 7.3.1984 and was hopelessly time barred by 5 years.
\nAlternatively, viewed  from 19.4.1982,\tit was\tbarred by  2
\nyears.\n<\/p>\n
     On\t these\t contentions,  the  following  points  arise
\nconsideration :\n<\/p>\n
     (1) Are  the provisions of Sections
\n     45, 48-A  of the  Land Reforms Act.
\n     1961 dealing  with\t the  period  of
\n     limitation for  filing  application
\n     for  grant\t  of   occupancy   right
\n     (namely  6\t  months  from\tdate  of
\n     Commencement of  Section 1\t of Ac t
\n     1\/1979 i.e.  30.6.1979)  clear  and
\n     unambiguous  and\tnot  capable  of
\n     extension on  the ground that there
\n     is ambiguity  or on the around that
\n     they lead to grave injustice?
\n     (2)  Can\tthe  appellant\trely  on
\n     Section 5\tand  8\tof  the\t Village
\n     Officer (Abolition)  Act, 1961  and
\n     Rule 4  Karnataka\tVillage\t Offices
\n     Abolition\tRules,\t1961  read  with
\n     Section 107  and 126  of  the  Land
\n     Reforms Act,  1961 and Form 7 under
\n     that Act,\tto contend  that  unless
\n     the rights of recontend that unless
\n     the  rights   of  regrant\t to  the
\n     erstwhile\tvillage\t officers  under
\n     Section   5    of\t  the\t Village
\n     Offices(Abolition)\t Act,\t1961  is
\n     finally  decided,\t the  limitation
\n     under  Section  46-A  of  the  land
\n     Reforms   Act,    1961   does   not
\n     commence?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Point 1:\n<\/p>\n
     The point\tis whether  the language  in Section 48-A of
\nthe Land  Reforms Act. 1961 fixing a period of limitation is
\nclear and  unambiguous. If  the period\tis 6 months from the
\ndate of\t commencement of  section 1 of the KLR Amendment Act
\nof 1978\t (Act 1\/1979),\tand if\tthe date  of commencement of
\nthat section  is not in dispute and the six month period for
\nfiling application   is\t to count from 1.1.79 and it expired
\non 30.6.1979,  can it  be said\tthat the language of section
\n48-A is\t ambiguous and\tis to be liberally construed? Can it
\nbe said\t that if  30.6.79 is  the last\tday  for  filing  of
\napplications by\t tenant then section 48-A must be treated as
\nharsh and  unjust  to  tenants\tand  should  be\t interpreted
\ndifferently?\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  first examine the relevant provisions of Land
\nReforms Act,  1961.  The  said\tAct  came  into\t force\tfrom
\n2.10.1965. Chapter  1 thereof  deals  with  `definitions’  .
\nChapter II deals with general provisions regarding tenancies
\nlike, who are tenants or deemed tenant, rent, termination of
\ntenancies, eviction  of tenants, tenants’ right to purchase,
\nprocedure for taking possession or recovery rent etc. We are
\nhere concerned with Chapter III which deals with `conferment
\nof  ownership\tof  tenants’   in  possession  and  who\t are
\npersonally cultivating lands as on 1.3.1974. In fact that is
\nthe date  when new Sections 44. 45 were substituted by Act 1
\nof 1974\t W.e.f. 1.3.1974.  Section 44(1) says that all lands
\nheld by or in possession of tenants immediately prior to the
\ndate of commencement of the Amendment Act (except lands held
\nby reasons  permitted under  Section 5) shall, w.e.f. on and
\nfrom the  said date (i.e. 1.3.1974) stand transferred to and
\nvest in the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
     Then come\tSections 45  and 48-A  (as  amended  by\t Act
\n1\/1979) and they read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “45.Tenants  to be  registered  as
\n     occupants\tof   land   on\t certain
\n     conditions,  (1)\tSubject\t to  the
\n     provision\t of    the    succeeding
\n     sections  of  this\t Chapter,  every
\n     person who\t was a permanent tenant,
\n     protected tenant or other tenant or
\n     where a tenant has lawfully sublet,
\n     such subtenant shall with effect on
\n     and from  the date\t of  vesting  be
\n     entitled to  be  registered  as  an
\n     occupant in respect of the lands of
\n     which he  was a  permanent\t tenant,
\n     protected tenant or other tenant or
\n     sub-tenant\t before\t  the  date   of
\n     vesting  and   which  he  has  been
\n     cultivating personally.
\n     48-A.  Enquiry   by  the  Tribunal,
\n     etc.- (1)\tEvery person entitled to
\n     be registered  as an occupant under
\n     section 45\t may made an application
\n     to the  Tribunal  in  this\t behalf.
\n     Every such\t application shall, save
\n     as provided  in this  Act, be  made
\n     before the\t expiry of  a period  of
\n     six months\t from the  date\t of  the
\n     commencement of  section 1\t of  the
\n     Karnataka Land  Reforms (Amendment)
\n     Act. 1978”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In order to understood the intention of the legislature
\nin bringing  forward the  above Amendment, we shall refer to
\nsection 48-A  as it  stood before the Karnataka Land Reforms
\n(Amendment) Act,  1978 (Act  1\/1979).  We  shall  show\tthat
\nearlier it  is\tfact  contained\t a  specific  provision\t for
\ncondonation of delay in filing the application under Section
\n45, but\t the same  was deleted\tby the\t1978 Amendment.\t The
\nunamended Section 48-A read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “Every person entitled to be
\n     registered as an occupant under
\n     Section 45 may make an application
\n     to the tribunal in this behalf.
\n     Every such applications shall, save
\n     as provided in this Act, be made on
\n     or before the 31st day of December
\n     1974.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided that the tribunal may, for
\n     sufficient cause  shown,  admit  an
\n     application well  beyond that  date
\n     but on or before 30th June, 1977″.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Comparing this  with the  amended section\t48-A set out
\nabove, it will be noticed that the above proviso was deleted
\nby the\tAmending  Act  1\/1979  with  effect  from  1.3.1979.
\nTherefore to  obviate hardship, 6 months time was given from
\ndate of\t commencement of  Section 1  of the  Amending Act, 6
\nmonths from 1.1.1979, i.e. upto 30.6.1979.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  obvious that by deleting the provisions relating
\nto the\tpower to condone the delay for sufficient cause, the
\nlegislature  had  clearly  intended  sufficient\t cause,\t the
\nLegislature had\t clearly intended  to do away with the\tsaid
\npower of condonation of the Tribunal. It was in fact so held
\nby a  learned Single  Judge of\tthe Karnataka  High Court in
\nVirupaxappa Vs.\t Land Tribunal [1980 (2) Karnataka L.J.428].
\nThis view,  in our  opinion, is\t quite correct. If therefore
\nthe Legislature\t wanted to  make a  deliberate departure and
\nintroduced  an\t amendment  to\t take  away   the  power  of
\ncondonation  of\t  delay,  it  is  difficult  to\t accept\t the
\ncontention that\t Section 48-A  is capable  of more  than one
\ninterpretation\t–  one\tleading\t to  injustice\tand  another
\npermitting avoidance  of such  injustice to tenants and that
\nthe Court  should opt  for a liberal interpretation. Another
\nreason for  rejecting the  appellant’s contention is that we
\nhave also  to give importance to the words `save as provided
\nin the\tAct’, occurring in section 48-A. It is no where else
\nprovided in the Land Reforms Act, 1961 that the period fixed
\nfor tenant  to file  an application  under section  45\tgets
\nextended, None has been brought to our notice.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  true there\tis a  principle of interpretation of
\nstatutes that  the plain  or grammatical  construction which
\nleads to  injustice or\tabsurdity  is  to  be  avoided\t(See
\nVenkatarama Iyer, J in Tirath Singh vs. Bachiter Singh\t(AIR<\/a>
\n1955 SC\t 830 at 855). But that principle can be applied only
\nif “the\t language admits  of an\t interpretation which  would
\navoid it”.  Sham Rai  Vs. Dt. Magistrate (AIR 1952 SC 624 AT\n<\/p>\n
327). In  our view  Section 48-A,  as amended,\thas fixed  a
\nspecific date  for the\tmaking of an application by a simple
\nrule of\t arithmetic, and  there is  therefore no  scope\t for
\nimplying any  `ambiguity’ at  all. Further  “the fixation of
\nperiods\t of   limitation  must\talways\tbe  to\tsome  extent
\narbitrary and  may frequently  result in  hardship.  But  in
\nconstruing such provisions, equitable considerations are out
\nof place, and the strict grammatical meaning of the words is
\nthe only safe guide”. (Sir Dinshaw Mulla in Nagendranath Dev
\nvs. Suresh Chandra Dev [ILR 60 Cal 1 (PC)].\n<\/p>\n
     For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the application
\nfiled by  the 1st  appellant under  Section 45\ton 7.3.1984,
\nlong after  30.6.1979 is  barred  by  section  48A  of\tLand
\nReforms Act, 1961 and the High Court was right in dismissing
\nthe said  application while  exercising\t revisional  powers.
\nPoint 1 is said against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Point 2:\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  now  deal  with\tthe  alternative  contention
\nadvanced for  the appellant  and on  behalf of Kittamma (4th
\nrespondent) that until proceedings under the Village offices
\n(Abolition) Act,  1961 as  to re-grant\tbecame final  in the
\nCRPs disposed on  22.1.1985 or 20.7.1989, the limitation for
\nfiling application under Section 45 did not start:\n<\/p>\n
     It is true that Form 7 framed for purposes of filing an
\napplication by\tthe  tenant  under  Section  45\t [read\twith
\nSection 48-A  and Rule 19(1)] of the Land Reforms Act, 1961,
\nrequires  in   the   first   column   that   the   name\t  of
\nLandlord\/landlords’ and\t their address\tto be given. But, on
\nthe facts  of this case, if after 1.1.1979 when fresh period
\nof limitation  was given  upto 30.6.1979 – the 1st appellant
\ndid want  to file an application, he could have mentioned in
\nthe above  column that\tthe landlord,  according to  him was
\nNarasimha Moorthi  (on hid  death, Kittamma).  He could have
\nalso stated  by was  of a Note that there was dispute raised
\nby Laxmi Narasappa and Prahlada Rao that they had two shares
\nout of\tthe land  and that the said question  was pending in
\nproceedings under Section 5 of the Village Offices Abolition
\nAct, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
     Further, even  if it  was not  possible to\t add such  a
\nNote, there  is a  clear provision in Section 48-A read with
\nRule 19(1)  for a  public notice  in Form 8 addressed to all
\nother persons  entitled to  be registered as occupants under
\nSection 45  and to all Landlords of such lands and all other
\npersons interested  in such  lands. Unfortunately,  the\t 1st
\nappellant did  not avail  of  such  a  procedure  which\t was
\nclearly available and permissible. We may also state that in
\nan application\tunder Section  45 as present din Form 7, the
\ntenant\twho   claims  occupancy\t  rights  mouser  prove\t his
\npossession as  tenant before  1.3.1974. Even if the names of
\nlandlords are  not known,  the provision  for public  notice
\nprotects the  rights to\t natural  justice  of  landlords  or
\npersons interested  in the  lands, whose names are not known
\nto the\ttenant applicant  and not  shown in Form 7. There is
\ntherefore  no\tsuch  difficulty  as  imagined\tby  the\t 1st
\nappellant in  the matter of filing an application under Form
\n7 before 30.6.1979.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  next take  up the  main point  that after the
\nvillage offices\t stood abolished  under Section\t 4(1) of the
\nVillage Offices\t Abolition Act,\t 1961 and  the emoluments of
\nthe office  holders stood  `resumed’ under Section 4(3), the
\nlands became `government lands’ and hence Section 107 of the
\nLand Reforms Act, 1961 excluded such `government lands’ from
\nthe purview  of that  Act (including  Section 45) and it was
\nonly when the question\tof re-grant of those lands under the
\nVillage Offices Abolition Act, 1961 was finally decided that
\nthe lands  ceased to  be `government  lands’ and  it  became
\npossible  to   know  who  the  landlord\t was,  that  Form  7
\napplication could be filed.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  true that  under Section  4(1)  of\tthe  Village
\nOffices Abolition  Act, 1961  it is stated that “all village
\noffices shall  be and are hereby abolished” and Section 4(3)
\nsays that  land attached  to the  office “be  and is  hereby
\nresumed”. It is true that Section 5 provides for re-grant if
\nland so\t resumed to  the holder\t of the village office. Here
\nwhat is important to notice is the language employed in sub-
\nclause (3)  of Section\t4 which\t deals\twith  resumption  as
\ncompared to  the language  employed later in section 5(3) of
\nthe same Act. It reads:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Section  4(3):   Subject\tto   the
\n     provisions of  Section 5. Section 6
\n     and Section  7. all land granted or
\n     continued in  respect of or annexed
\n     to a  village office  by the  State
\n     shall  be\t an  is\t hereby\t resumed
\n     and…”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In other  words, the  resumption is not absolute but subject
\nto the\tprovision relating  to re-grant\t to erstwhile office
\nholders as  in Section\t5 and  other types  of\tre-grant  in
\nSection 6  and 7.  Section 5(1)\t deals with  re-grant to the
\noffice holders\tand procedure  to be followed by them to pay
\nthe occupancy-price  and  upon such payment on or before the
\ndate stated in the provision, the holder “shall be deemed to
\nbe an  occupant or  holder of  a  rioter  patty”  and  under
\nSection 4(2),  if he does not pay the occupancy price within
\nthe  prescribed\t period,  he  shall  be\t summarily  evicted.
\nTherefore,  on\tambulation  and\t resumption,  the  erstwhile
\noffice holder  continues in  occupation of  the\t land  which
\npreviously was\tattached to  his office\t and with a right to
\nhave his  claim for  re-grant considered. If he does not pay
\nthe occupancy price then he can be evicted. Of course, if he
\nis not re-granted the land, he has any way to vacate.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 5\t(3) which  prohibits transfer  of  land\t re-
\ngranted under  Section 5(1)  (and now  as per  amending\t Act
\n13\/78 within  a period\tof 15  years after  the date  of the
\ncommencement of\t Act 13\/78)  says in  Section 5(4) that such
\ntransfers shall be null and void and be.\n<\/p>\n
     “forfeited to and vest in the State
\n     Government\t   free\t    from     all
\n     encumbrance”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On a comparison of language employed by the legislature
\nin Section  4(3) of  the Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961
\nwhich only  speaks of  resumption subject  to re-grant under
\nSections 5,6,  and 7  with the\tlanguage employed in Section
\n5(3) which  speaks of  `vesting in the State Government free
\nof all\tencumbrances”. It  is clear  that by mere resumption
\nunder Section  4(3) subject  to Sections  5,6, and 7, it was
\nnot intended  by the  legislature to  equate  constitutional
\nresumption  with   absolute  vesting  of  the  land  in\t the
\nGovernment free from all encumbrances so as to be treated as
\n`government land’.  In\tfact,  because\tof  the\t restriction
\nimposed by  Section  4(3)  that\t resumption  is\t subject  to
\nSections 5,6,  and 7,  the land\t resumed under\tSection 4(3)
\ncannot be  allotted  for  general  or  public  purposes\t but
\nremains strictly  earmarked for re-grant and is liable to be
\nre-granted under  sections 5,6,\t and 7.\t On the\t other hand,
\nland coming under Section 5(3) where it vests in government,
\nfree from  all encumbrance, is clearly `government land’ and
\nis at  the disposal  of government  for all public purposes.
\nTherefore, on resumption under the section 4(3) the land has
\nnot become `government land’.\n<\/p>\n
     Next we  shall refer to Section 107 of the Land Reforms
\nAct, 1961  which is  the main  plank of\t the 1st appellant’s
\nargument.\n<\/p>\n
     “Section 107:  Act not  to apply to
\n     certain  lands:   Subject\tto   the
\n     provision of  Section 110,\t nothing
\n     in\t this  act,  except  Section  8,
\n     shall apply to lands-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (i)\t  belonging to Government\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (ii)  …………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) belonging to or held on lease
\n\t  by or from a local
\n\t  authority….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) given as gallantry award…\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (vii) used\t for cultivation  by the
\n\t  Coffee Board…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (viii)  held   by\tany  Corporation
\n\t  contract    by    the\t   State
\n\t  Government  or   the\t Central
\n\t  Government or both…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 107  says that  the Land  Reforms Act  does not
\napply to  `government lands’. This is however subject to the
\nprovision of  section 110. Under section 110, Government may
\n`by notification’  direct that\tany land covered by sections
\n107 and\t 108 shall not be exempt from such of the provisions
\nof this\t Act from  which they  have been  exempted under the
\nsaid section.\n<\/p>\n
     Reading the  section, it  appears that  there are\tgood
\nreasons of  policy as  to why,\tunder  section\t107  of\t the
\nKarnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, government land is exempt.
\nFirstly the  section takes  notice of  the  fact  that\twhen
\nceiling on  land held  by various  bodies is  to be imposed,
\nsuch a\tceiling cannot be imposed on land held by Government
\nor certain  other enumerated  bodies. Government  `right  to
\nhold land’  can not  be limited, inasmuch as government does
\nrequire lakhs  of acres for use for public purposes. Further
\nthere is  no purpose  in taking\t over excess land from State
\nGovernment and\tagain revesting\t the said  land in the State
\nGovernment. Again  the policy  of the legislature appears to
\nbe, so\tfar as Chapter III of the Act and amendments thereto
\nare concerned, that tenants from Government are not entitled
\nto claim  occupancy under section 435 of the Act against the
\nGovernment, even if they were in possession before 1.3.1974.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  first assume  that the  contention of the 1st
\nappellant that\tupon `resumption’  under Section 4(3) of the
\nVillage Offices\t Abolition Act,\t 1961 the  land held  by the
\nerstwhile office  holder had  become  `government  land’  is
\ncorrect. The  position then  will be that if, as a matter of
\npolicy the  provisions of  section 107\tof the\tLand Reforms
\nAct, came  into force, were not to be applied to such lands,
\nthen Section 45 and 48-A substituted by Act 1 of 1974 w.e.f.
\n1.3.1974 or  as they  now stand,  would not also apply, ever
\nafter 1.1.79  or 30.6.79. Therefore such tenants cannot seek
\noccupancy or  ownership rights\tin lands held by government,
\neven after  1.1.79. No application under section 45 would be
\nmaintainable and the very application of the appellant would
\nhave to\t be dismissed  on that ground, whether filed in 1974
\nor 1979\t or later. This contention of the appellants appears
\nto have\t been advanced\twithout noticing  that it    clearly
\nself-destructive.\n<\/p>\n
     Further, even if the land had become `government land’,
\non  resumption,\t  there\t is   no  procedure  for  change  of
\nownership; from\t government land  to the erstwhile-holder of
\nvillage office\toutside section\t 4(3)  so  as  to  permit  a
\ncontention that the land ceased to be government land. There
\ncan be\ta cessation  of the  land as  government land  under
\nsection 107  only  if  government  proceeds  to\t exclude  by
\nnotification under section 110 such land from the purview of
\nsection 107.  It is  no body’s case that after a decision as
\nto who\tis entitled  to re-grant  under\t section  5  of\t the
\nVillage offices\t (Abolition) Act,  1961.  government  is  to
\nissue a notification under section 110 excluding the land so
\nre-granted from\t the purview of `government land’. Hence the
\nentire\ttheory\tbased  on  section  107\t propounded  by\t the
\nappellant does\tnot fit\t into the scheme of the Land Reforms
\nAbolition Act, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for  the\tappellant  relied  upon\t the
\ndecision of  a learned\tSingle Judge  of the  Karnataka High
\nCourt  in   Eswarappa  vs.  State  of  Karnataka  (1979\t (2)
\nKarn.L.J.182) as  an authority\tto say\tthat  the  appellant
\ncould file  an application  under Section  45  of  the\tLand
\nReforms Act,  1961 only after the determination of rights of
\nthe erstwhile  village\toffice\tholders’  of  re-grant\twere
\nfinally decided under the latter Act.\n<\/p>\n
     We do  not think  that the aforesaid decision helps the
\nappellants. What is important to notice is that in that case
\nthe application\t under Section\t45 in  Form 7  was filed  in
\ntime. This is clear from the case Nos. of the cases filed in
\nthe Tribunal  as given in the Judgment. They appear to be of
\n1974 (before  1978 Amendment)  and were\t disposed of  by the
\nLand Tribunal  of 27.12.1976, long before the 1978 amendment
\ngave further  time upto\t 30.6.79. In  fact, no\tquestion  of
\nlimitation of  an application  filed under  Section 45 after
\n30.6.79 arose in that case nor was decided. The applications
\nof the\ttenants were contested by the opposite party stating
\nthat the  lands in question were Patel Umbli lands, and that
\nthe lands  were not  yet re-granted  to the opposite parties
\nunder the  Village Offices Abolition Act. 1961 and hence the
\nTribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide the application
\nfiled under  section 45\t of the\t Land Reforms Act, 1961. The
\napplicants-tenants, on\tthe other  hand, contended  that the
\nlands  were   not  attached  to\t village  offices  but\twere
\nDevadayam Inam\tlands, and  that the  services\tattached  to
\ntemples and  the inam  lands attached  to the  said services
\nwere both  abolished w.e.f.  1.1.1970. The Tribunal accepted
\nthe plea  of the opposite party and dismissed the Section 45
\napplications. The  tenants filed a writ petition in the High
\nCourt and  it was  held that if the inam lands were attached
\nto services  rendered to religious institutions as contended
\nfor by\tthe tenants,  they would  stand abolished  under the
\nstatute of  1955. On  the other\t hand, if  they\t were  inams
\nattached to  village offices,  they would stand abolished by
\nAct of 1961 w.e.f. 1.2.1963. The Land Reforms Act, 1961 came
\ninto force  from 2.10.1965  and right to Occupancy had to be
\njudged under section 45 on the basis of possession as tenant
\nimmediately before  1.3.1974 under  Act 1\/1974 as amended by
\nAct 1\/1979.  On the  above basis,  it was  held by  the High
\nCourt\tthat is\t view of  the contention of the tenants, the
\nrights of  service   holders under  the 1955  Act had  to be
\nconsider first\tbecause if  the lands  were  attached  to  a
\nreligious  service   as\t inam,\t then  the  Village  Offices
\n(Abolition) Act\t would not apply and no question of re-grant
\nunder that  Act could  arise. In case, it was held under the
\n1955 Act  that the  lands  were\t not  inams  attached  to  a
\nreligious service,  then the  question of  their  resumption
\nunder  Village\tOffices\t Abolition  Act\t would\thave  to  be
\ndecided. It  was   further held\t that it was only thereafter
\nthat claims  under section  45 of the Land Reforms Act, 1961
\ncould be “considered” and
\n     “therefore the  Tribunal will  have
\n     to keep  these applications pending
\n     instead of disposing them of.”\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, all\tthat was  decided in  that case\t was that in
\ncases where  Section 45\t applications under the Land Reforms
\nAct, 1961  had been  filed in  time, and there was a dispute
\nwhether they were inam lands attached to a service connected
\nwith a\ttemple or were emoluments attached 45 should be kept
\npending and  adjourned till  these auctions  as to which Act
\napplied, was decided. it is therefore clear that no question
\nof limitation  in filing  application under  section 45\t and
\nparticularly one  relating to the Amendment of Act 1\/79 came
\nup for\tconsideration, in  the above  case.  In\t fact,\twhen
\nTribunal  in   that  case  passed  orders  on  27.12.76\t the
\nprovision for  condonation of  delay in section 49A was very
\nmuch in\t existence. That power was taken away only under Act
\n1\/79. Hence the above judgment is clearly not relevant.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  then refer to Section 126 of the Land Reforms
\nAbolition Act,\t1961 upon  which both sides relied. It deals
\nwith “Application  of Act  to Inams”.  It  starts  with\t the
\nwords. “For  the removal  of  doubts”  and  states  that  is
\n“hereby” declared  that the provisions of the Act, in so far
\nas they\t confer any  rights and\t impose\t any  obligation  on
\ntenants\t and  landlords,  shall\t be  applicable\t to  tenants
\nholding lands  in inams\t and other  aliened village or lands
\nincluding tenants  referred to\tin Section  8 of the Village
\nOffices Abolition  Act, 1961,  but subject  to the provision
\nthe said  Act and  to landlords and inamdars holding in such
\nvillages or lands.\n<\/p>\n
     The underlined  words were\t introduced by Act 1 of 1979
\nw.e.f. 1.1.1979.  It is\t the contention of the 1st appellant
\nthat it\t was only  w.e.f. 1.1.1979 that the Act gave certain
\nrights to  tenants of  land held by village offices and that
\nthe amendment  of 1979 was not retrospective in the sense of
\nbeing classificatory.  It will\tbe noticed  that  after\t the
\nAmendment by  Act 1\/1979 in Section 126, the added words are
\npreceded by  the words\t“including”. The  words `removal  of
\ndoubts’ therefore  govern  the\tinams  abolished  under\t the
\nVillage Offices\t (Abolition) Act, 1961 also. in other words,
\nthe Amendment  of 1979 is classificatory or declaratory that
\nthe Land  Reforms Act,\t1961 was  always applicable to lands
\nattached to  village offices  after abolitions\tof the\tsaid
\noffices under  the Village  Offices (Abolition)\t Act.  1961.
\nThis contention\t of the\t appellant therefore  fails. Even if
\nthe amendment  is prospective, the application under section
\n45 is  to be  filed on\tor before 30.6.1979 and that was not
\ndone.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned senior  counsel for  Kittamma (4th\t respondent)
\nSri Krishnamoorthi  contended that  till the occupancy-price
\nis paid by the erstwhile office holder under Section 5(1) of
\nthe Village  offices Abolition\tAct read  with Rule 4 of the
\nRules made  under the  Village Offices\tAbolition  Act,\t the
\nrights as  to re-grant\tdo not get crystallised and hence it
\nis not\tpossible to fill up Form 7 for filing an application
\nunder Section 45 of the Land Reforms Act, 1961. It is argued
\nthat till  re-grant, the  land is `government land’. We have
\nalready considered this contention and rejected the same.\n<\/p>\n
     For all  the above\t reasons, the appeals are dismissed.
\nThere shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998 Author: M J Rao. Bench: S.B. Majmudar, M. Jagannadha Rao PETITIONER: R. RUDRAIAH & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/02\/1998 BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nR. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-28T19:33:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-28T19:33:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998\"},\"wordCount\":5820,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998\",\"name\":\"R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-28T19:33:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-28T19:33:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998","datePublished":"1998-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-28T19:33:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998"},"wordCount":5820,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998","name":"R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-28T19:33:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rudraiah-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-4-february-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56020","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56020\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}