PETITIONER: Y.R. VEERANNA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/05/1997 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIRAHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
THE 7TH DAY MAY, 1997
Present:
Hon`ble Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy
Hon`ble Mr. Justice S.Saghir Ahmad
Hon`ble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik
G.V.Chandrashekhar and P.P.Singh, Advs.for thePetitioner
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Itis anundisputed fact thatthe KarnatakaLand
Reforms(Amendment) Acthad come into force with effectfrom
March 1, 1974.The petitionerlaid claimed asan occupancy
tenant,in respect of13 acres and 24 gunthas of theland
situated in K.R. Nagar Taluk,Karnataka District. When he
filed application in Form- 7 for recognition of his rights
as an occupancy tenant, the Tribunal rejectedhis claim on
the ground that his sons werecultivating theland. It was
held that since the petitionerhad notbeen cultivating the
land, he couldnot file the application inForm-7and,
therefore, he was not entitledto be treated as a protected
tenant.That order came to be affirmedby the High Court in
LRRP No.2179/88 and in C.P. No.499/96on June10, 1996 and
January6, 1997. Thus, this special leave petition.
Inview of the fact that a tenant in cultivation is
entitled to lay the claim under Section 44 and 48-A of the
Karnataka LandReformsAct (for short, the `Act’), on his
own admittedlyshowingthat hehad notbeen cultivating the
land ,the petitioner’s right as occupancy tenant was
rightlyrejected. His status is that of the co-owner, Karta
of the joint family andas suchon behalf of his sons he had
filed it and the sons were cultivating the landon behalf of
the family; since this land was obtained ata partition
betweenthe petitionerand hisbrotherway back in 1957, it
is joint family property. In view of the fact that he is
not personallycultivating theland onhis ownshowing, the
findingrecorded by the Tribunal and the HighCourt is not
vitiated by any manifest error of law. However, due to
mistaken standthe application in Form-7 cameto be filed.
He washeld disentitled to theclaim as a protected tenant.
If thesons were really occupying the land as tenants prior
to theAmendment Act had comeinto force on March 1, 1974,
it maybe opento the sons to make an application in Form-7
and have the matter adjudicated. Thelimitation that has
been prescribed in the statute, in the peculiar facts, may
not be taken asa ground for rejection of theirclaims.
The special leavepetition are accordingly dismissed
with the above observations.