Justice G G Bhat in Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi Heggadthi And Anr. ILR 1975 KAR 739, 1974 (2) KarLJ 484 The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act) came into force on 2-10-1965. The object of the said Act, inter alia, is to terminate the relationship of landlord and tenant and to confer ownership rights on the tenants. Landlords are prohibited from evicting their tenants. Section 14 of the Act permitted resumption subject to the terms and conditions laid down therein. Section 14 has now been deleted by the Karnataka Amendment Act No. 1 of 1974. Section 25 provides for surrender of lands held by a tenant. The said section, before it was amended by Karnataka Amendment Act No. 1 of 1974 read thus: "25 Surrender of land by tenant:-- (1) No tenant shall surrender any land held by him as such, and no landlord shall enter upon the land surrendered by the tenant, without the previous permission in writing of the court. (2) Permission under Sub-section (1) shall be granted if, after making such inquiry as may be prescribed, the court is satisfied that the proposed surrender is bona fide and the land surrendered does not exceed the extent of land which landlord could have resumed from his tenant under Section 14; in other cases, the permission shall be refused....." By Section 25 a bar was imposed against surrender of any land held by a tenant without the previous permission in writing of the 'court'. The Court can grant permission after making enquiry if it is satisfied that the proposed surrender is bona fide and the land surrendered does not exceed the extent of land which the landlord could have resumed from his tenant under Section 14. The section further barred the landlords from entering upon the land surrendered by their tenants without the previous permission in writing obtained from the Court. Thus there is a prohibition against surrender of any land by a tenant and a further prohibition against the landlord from entering upon the land surrendered by the tenant, without the previous permission in writing of the Court.
Justice G G Bhat in Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi Heggadthi And Anr. ILR 1975 KAR 739, 1974 (2) KarLJ 484 When Govinda Naika and Badiya Naika were admittedly the tenants of the suit lands up to 1971 when the Act was in force and there has been no sur-render by them under Section 25 which alone can be taken cognisance of by the Courts, the Court below should have drawn the legal presumption that their possession has continued. In order to obtain the relief of injunction it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to produce documents showing that their possession continued even after 1971. The possession of the suit lands in the eye of law always remained with the tenants. The entry of defendant 1 on the suit lands is prohibited by Section 25(1) of the Act. That prohibition is an injunction against landlords not to enter upon the lands held by tenants without the previous permission in writing of the Court. Each entry by defendant 1 upon the suit lands constitutes an act of trespass and a clear invasion of the legal rights of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs have shown that they have a legal right and that legal right is invaded by the unlawful acts of the defendants, they are entitled to the relief of injunction at the hands of the Civil Court.
Justice D Chandrashekhar, Justice P Bopanna in Puttegowda v. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1980 Kant 102, ILR 1980 KAR 160, 1980 (1) KarLJ 281 wherein it was held that.- "Mere permission to surrender without delivery of possession by the tenant does not put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant. Delivery of possession by the tenant to the landlord and his acceptance of possession are essential to effect the surrender. Where it was not proved that the tenant had delivered possession of the land notwithstanding grant of permission to surrender, but was found to be in possession even after the grant of permission to surrender, held that he continued to be a tenant and was entitled to grant of occupancy right".
Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar, Vasantha Nanasaheb Pawar And Ors. vs Piraji Pandu Patil ILR 2006 KAR 2061, 2006 (3) KarLJ 172 In support of his case, the tenant has examined two independent neighbouring witnesses apart from examining himself. Both the said witnesses have deposed in categorical terms that 1st respondent herein is cultivating the property in question as tenant. Though they are cross-examined by the landlords, nothing worth is elicited in their cross-examination so as to discard their evidence, Thus, the evidence of the neighbouring witnesses fully supports the case of the tenant 1st respondent herein. ………………………………….. Merely because the revenue entries stand in the name of the petitioners would not mean that there is no relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties. The revenue entries do not take away the established case of the 1^st respondent The presumption arising out of the revenue records stand rebutted in view of consistent, cogent and clinching evidence relating to the 1st respondent's possession over the property in question as a tenant……………….. No neighbouring land holders are examined by the land lords on their behalf. The said admissions by BW-1 would amply make it clear that they are absentee land owners and that they have never cultivated the land In question.
Justice H Narayan, Hanumanthappa Gonappa Talwar vs The Special Deputy Commissioner 1998 (1) KarLJ 683 It is now settled by the ruling of these decisions that whether an application of the tenant filed in Form 7 is rejected or whether an order of the Tribunal holding that a particular applicant is not a tenant, it is the duty of the Tribunal to give a finding whether the particular land is a tenanted land or not as on the date of coming into force of the Act, that is the legally vesting and that determines the nature of the land.
Justice G G Bhat in Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi Heggadthi And Anr. ILR 1975 KAR 739, 1974 (2) KarLJ 484 When Govinda Naika and Badiya Naika were admittedly the tenants of the suit lands up to 1971 when the Act was in force and there has been no sur-render by them under Section 25 which alone can be taken cognisance of by the Courts, the Court below should have drawn the legal presumption that their possession has continued. In order to obtain the relief of injunction it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to produce documents showing that their possession continued even after 1971. The possession of the suit lands in the eye of law always remained with the tenants. The entry of defendant 1 on the suit lands is prohibited by Section 25(1) of the Act. That prohibition is an injunction against landlords not to enter upon the lands held by tenants without the previous permission in writing of the Court. Each entry by defendant 1 upon the suit lands constitutes an act of trespass and a clear invasion of the legal rights of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs have shown that they have a legal right and that legal right is invaded by the unlawful acts of the defendants, they are entitled to the relief of injunction at the hands of the Civil Court.
Justice D Chandrashekhar, Justice P Bopanna in Puttegowda v. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1980 Kant 102, ILR 1980 KAR 160, 1980 (1) KarLJ 281 wherein it was held that.- "Mere permission to surrender without delivery of possession by the tenant does not put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant. Delivery of possession by the tenant to the landlord and his acceptance of possession are essential to effect the surrender. Where it was not proved that the tenant had delivered possession of the land notwithstanding grant of permission to surrender, but was found to be in possession even after the grant of permission to surrender, held that he continued to be a tenant and was entitled to grant of occupancy right".
Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar, Vasantha Nanasaheb Pawar And Ors. vs Piraji Pandu Patil ILR 2006 KAR 2061, 2006 (3) KarLJ 172 In support of his case, the tenant has examined two independent neighbouring witnesses apart from examining himself. Both the said witnesses have deposed in categorical terms that 1st respondent herein is cultivating the property in question as tenant. Though they are cross-examined by the landlords, nothing worth is elicited in their cross-examination so as to discard their evidence, Thus, the evidence of the neighbouring witnesses fully supports the case of the tenant 1st respondent herein. ………………………………….. Merely because the revenue entries stand in the name of the petitioners would not mean that there is no relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties. The revenue entries do not take away the established case of the 1^st respondent The presumption arising out of the revenue records stand rebutted in view of consistent, cogent and clinching evidence relating to the 1st respondent's possession over the property in question as a tenant……………….. No neighbouring land holders are examined by the land lords on their behalf. The said admissions by BW-1 would amply make it clear that they are absentee land owners and that they have never cultivated the land In question.
Justice H Narayan, Hanumanthappa Gonappa Talwar vs The Special Deputy Commissioner 1998 (1) KarLJ 683 It is now settled by the ruling of these decisions that whether an application of the tenant filed in Form 7 is rejected or whether an order of the Tribunal holding that a particular applicant is not a tenant, it is the duty of the Tribunal to give a finding whether the particular land is a tenanted land or not as on the date of coming into force of the Act, that is the legally vesting and that determines the nature of the land.
No comments:
Post a Comment