Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 465 (KAR)

SUMITRABAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2003-06-16

body2003
SRINIVASA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE revision petition calls in question the order dated 30. 6. 1989 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bagalkot in LRA (TR) 584/87 rejecting the appeal and confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Mudhol in KLR T 673/76 dated 6. 7. 1976 refusing to confer occupancy rights on her on the ground that she is owner of lands exceeding the ceiling area. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri R. L Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Govt Pleader Mr. Kempanna. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal refused to confer occupancy rights on her on the ground that she is not entitled for conferment of occupancy rights under Sec 45 (2) (i) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the Act for short) Aggrieved she preferred appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority relying on Sec 45 of the Act confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. The order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal is impugned herein. ( 4 ) SEC 45 stipulates the conditions for registration of occupancy rights on tenants. It reads. 45. Tenants to be registered as occupants of land on certain conditions (1) (2) If a tenant or other person referred to in sub-section (1), (i) holds land partly as owner and partly as tenant but the area of the land held by him as owner is equal to or exceeds a ceiling area he shall not be entitled to be registered as an occupant of the land held by him as a tenant before the date of vesting. (ii) (iii) (3) The land held by a person before the date of vesting and in respect of which he is not entitled to be registered as an occupant of which he is not entitled to be registered as an occupant under this section shall be disposed of in the manner provided in Section 77 after evicting such person the petitioner does not dispute the fact that she owns lands in excess of the ceiling limit. She is not entitled for registration of occupancy rights under Sec 45 (i) in respect of the lands held by her as tenant, if she owns lands in excess of the ceiling limit. She is not entitled for registration of occupancy rights under Sec 45 (i) in respect of the lands held by her as tenant, if she owns lands in excess of the ceiling limit. The lands so held by her before the date of vesting and in respect of which she is not entitled to be registered as the occupancy are to be disposed of in terms of Sec 77 of the Act. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that under Sec 46 she is entitled to choose the area and the location of the land of which she wishes to become the registered occupant is without substance because that remedy is only open to a tenant who holds lands as tenant in excess of the ceiling limit and not to a owner who owns lands in excess of ceiling limit Sec 46 no doubt provides the tenant the right to choose the area and the location of the land of which he or she may desire to become the registered occupant when the land held by the tenant exceeds the ceiling limits so as to being the total lands held by the tenant within the outer ceiling limit. Extraction of the provision would make it more feasible for understanding the scope of its applicability. The provision reads. When tenant entitled to choose land If any tenant entitled to be registered as an occupant under sub-section (1) of Section 45, held land from one or more than one landlord such tenant shall, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government, be entitled to choose the area and the location of the land of which he wishes to become the registered occupant. Provided that the area so chosen shall not as far as may be practicable, be other than the area included in a survey number or a sub-division, or a recognised share of a survey number (underlining is mine) the textual reference made in the provision is exclusively to lands held by the tenant from one or more than one landlord in his capacity as tenant and not in his capacity as owner. When it comes to exercising the right of choice in the matter of conferment of occupancy rights, the choice is given only to a tenant and not to a owner holding lands in excess of the ceiling limit. When it comes to exercising the right of choice in the matter of conferment of occupancy rights, the choice is given only to a tenant and not to a owner holding lands in excess of the ceiling limit. The question of exercising the choice does not arise when the disentitlement to be registered as an occupant of the land is suffered by a tenant because he is the owner of lands in excess of the ceiling limit. Obviously a person who owns lands in excess of the ceiling limit cannot be provided the luxury of choice under Sec 46 as it would entail surrendering of lands owned by her if she chooses to have the lands tenanted by her instead of her own lands. The provision essentially is one dealing purely with a situation where a tenant holds lands in excess of ceiling limit in his capacity as tenant and not as landlord Sec 46 cannot be understood as to extend to persons who being owners of lands in excess of the ceiling limit are still seeking conferment of occupancy rights of lands held by them as tenants. It is exclusively meant for persons who are tenants of lands in excess of the ceiling limit without being owners of lands in excess of ceiling limit. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in refusing to order registration of occupancy rights in her favour though it held that she is the tenant as on the material date. ( 5 ) THE impugned order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority does not call for any interference. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. --- *** --- .