PLANTATION LAND CONTROVERSY OF PUTUR PENDING IN SUPREME COURT

CLICK HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT

It was contended on behalf of the State that the Tahsildar being the Secretary of the Land Tribunal should have sent the declaration filed under Section 66 of the Act by the three declarants, to the Deputy Commissioner to be dealt with under the provision of Section 79B of the Act, to consider the question by the registered partnership firm is valid or not; instead he proceeded to submit the report to the Land Tribunal which has no jurisdiction to decide the question about the lands purchased by the firm, the Tahsildar should not have been merely dependant upon the certificates of the Cardamom Board and Rubber Board to conclude that the lands in question are plantation lands, the Tahsildar has fraudulently prepared the inspection report according to which he visited the lands in question within a day and that he could not visit every nook and corner of the lands in question, that the Land Tribunal should also not have entertained the declaration filed under Section 66 of the Act as the lands have been purchased and held by the registered firm, that the Tribunal also says that the members of the Land Tribunal inspected the lands within one day, which is a make believe affair; that the statement made before the High Court in W.P. No. 42774/1982 that the excess lands have been surrendered, is also a fraud practiced on the Court inasmuch as the declarants have not actually surrendered the excess lands; that the learned Judge who decided W.P. No. 10920/1983 has opined that the Tahsildar being the Government official, there was no need to send notice to the State or other officials, that when the Tahsildar who is directly concerned with the case has practiced fraud, learned Judge should have issued notice to the Deputy Commissioner or Revenue Secretary; that the learned Judge while disposing of W.P. No. 10920/1983 has opined that the declarants claim the lands not as partners but in their personal capacity which is an error apparent on the face of the record as the declaration itself has been filed as the partners of firm; that fraud vitiates everything and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court in W.P. No. 10920/1983 are null and void as they are obtained by the declarants by practicing fraud. Therefore the review petition was filed.

Stand of the respondents on the other hand was that no fraud was committed by the respondents or by the Secretary of the Land Tribunal. Error of judgment cannot be equated to fraud and since there was a delay of 14 years in filing the review petition even after the Deputy Commissioner allegedly discovered the alleged fraud on 10.2.2003 the delay in filing the review petition which was in fact filed on 8.10.2004 has not been explained. It was their stand that non filing of the appeal by the State will not amount to fraud by the officials of the State.

The case at hand is a classic example where the circumstances are the same. More than 4000 acres of land are involved out of which, according to the State, nearly 3500 acres constitute forest land. Ultimately, the Court has to protect the public justice. The same cannot be rendered ineffective by skillful management of delay in the process of making challenge to the order which prima facie does not appear to be legally sustainable.

BURDEN OF PROOF IN AGRICULTURAL TENANCY MATTER

SUPREME COURT IN NARASAMMA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA (2009) Taking into consideration the findings of fact on the question of possession arrived at by the High Court as well as the Land Tribunal that the appellants were in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute and considering the admission made by the landlord/respondent in earlier recovery proceedings relating to arrears of rent that the appellants were tenants in respect of the land in dispute and considering the fact that on the relevant date of coming into force of the Act, viz., on 1st of March, 1974, the appellants were in possession of the land in dispute, it is conclusively established the appellants were tenants in respect of the land in dispute and the entries in the Record of Rights clearly show that the appellants were in continuous possession of the land in dispute and the nature of cultivation was gutha (rent) and further, in the absence of any material produced by the respondent to show that in fact the appellants were not tenants in respect of the land in dispute, the appellants had acquired occupancy right in respect of the land in dispute. ………….. The onus was on the respondent to show by producing material that the appellants had not acquired any status of occupancy right although they were found to be in continuous possession of the land in dispute. Since the respondent had failed to produce any material or document to prove that the appellants had not acquired any status in respect of the land in dispute and had failed to show that the entries in the Record of Rights were wrong, there is no ground to reject the claim of the appellants for conferring status of occupancy right holder in respect of the land in dispute. …………… The entries in the revenue record cannot create any title in respect of the land in dispute, but it certainly reflects as to who was in possession of the land in dispute on the date the name of that person had been entered in the revenue record. …………. The name of the appellants should be registered as an occupancy right holder in respect of the land in dispute. Accordingly, the application of the appellants for recording their names as occupancy right holders in respect of the land in dispute shall stand allowed.

INAM ABOLITION ACT IS ALSO FOR PROTECTION OF TENANTS

Sri Muniyellappa vs B.M. Krishnamurthy And Ors. AIR 1977 Kant 137, ILR 1977 KAR 700, 1977 (1) KarLJ 389 The Inams Abolition Act as stated earlier, was enacted for the purpose of abolition of Inam tenures and conversion of such tenures into Ryotwari tenure and in that Process, grant occupancy rights to the Inamdars and the three classes of tenants. The purpose of the Land Reforms Act, however, is different. It is a legislation enacted to effectuate radical agrarian reforms by imposing ceiling of land-holdings and termination of landlord and tenant relationship in respect of tenanted lands and further conferment of occupancy rights on tenants personally cultivating the lands. ……… In our opinion, the dispute between the parties is not one arising out of agrarian relations. The scope of the Act is limited to questions arising out of agrarian relations. A person, whose possession of agricultural lands does not rest on agrarian relations, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal under S. 45 of the Land Reforms Act. Since the appellant, on the basis of his own Pleadings before this Court, does not base his rights founded on agrarian relations.

As pointed out in Narayana v. Lakshmiah I.L.R. (1953) Mad. 1166 : (1953) 2 M.L.J. 167 grants of Devadayam inams fell into three well-recognised classes : (1) grants to the temple, (2) grants of service inams in the sense that the grants were to constitute emoluments of offices in the temple and (3) personal grants with an obligation to render specified services in the temple.

B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr 1969 AIR 453, 1969 SCR (3) 1 The impugned Act provides for the acquisition of rights of inamdars in inam estates and it is intended to abolish 'all intermediate holders and to establish direct relationship between the Government and occupants of land in Inam villages in respect of which notifications had been issued. The legislation was undertaken as a part of agrarian reform which the Mysore State Legislature proposed to bring about in the State. Therefore, the impugned Act is a law providing for the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or for the extinguishment or modification of such rights as contemplated by Art. 31A and hence, the impugned Act is protected from attack in any court on the ground that it contravenes Art. 31(2).

HISTORY OF PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL TENANTS IN KARNATAKA

Lakshminarayana Hariyachar vs Divisional Commissioner ILR 1986 KAR 532 Bench: Puttaswamy, J Mahendra J “The Tenancy Act enacted in 1952 to regulate the relationship of landlords and tenants of agricultural lands, impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural lands and incidental provisions came into force at any rate from 1-1-1954 in the entire old Mysore area. From this very brief survey, it is apparent that agricultural tenancies in old Mysore area even where they had their origin in contracts were regulated by the 1952 Act. The Act seriously interfered with the rights of landlords in collecting agreed rents, forfeiting tenancies, interfering with the cultivation of tenants and dispossessing them except under and in accordance with the provisions made therein. ……………. The Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952 was not a temporary measure. But, still the State with the avowed object of safeguarding possession of tenants and preventing their evictions before enacting comprehensive Land Reforms legislation first enacted the Mysore Tenancy (Amendment and Continuance of Tenancies) Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 16 of 1957) prohibited evictions and dispossession of tenants till the period specified in Section 4 of that Act, which was extended till 30-6-1966 by Acts 17 of 1959, 4 of 1961, 33 of 1961 and 12 of 1963 enacted from time to time. We will hereafter refer to these Acts as the 1957 Act Section 142(1A) of the LR Act introduced by Act No. 14 of 1965 protects those tenants protected by 1957 Act from eviction and dispossession except in accordance with that Act. Before the expiry of the period stipulated in the 1957 Act, the State enacted the LR Act as Act No. 10 of 1962. The LR Act came into force from 2-10-1965 (vide S.O. No. 3166 dated 13-9-1965). The LR Act, a uniform law was enacted to regulate agrarian relations, conferment of ownership on tenants, ceiling on land holdings and for other matters incidental to those objects………………….. Section 4 of the LR Act is a virtual reproduction of Section 4 of the 1952 Act Section 5 of the LR Act prohibits the creation of new tenancies from the appointed day except those that are permitted. Section 14 of the LR Act provides for resumption of lands by landlords in the specified circumstances. ………… Section 22 of the LR Act providing for two more grounds for eviction of tenants is a virtual reproduction of Section 15 of the 1952 Act. ……….. Section 14 of the original Act providing for resumptions by landlords for bona fide and other specified purposes was omitted from 1-3-1974.”

Smt. Bakulabai vs Shidaraya AIR 1973 Mys 134, (1973) 1 MysLJ, H.B. Datar, J. “In order to appreciate the respective contentions raised by the parties in this revision petition, it would be necessary to refer briefly to certain provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms Act. Section 14 (1) of the Act entitles the landlord to make an application for resumption of land from the tenants. On the application being filed, the court is required to direct an enquiry and "determine the land or lands" which the landlord will be entitled to resume, and shall issue a certificate to the landlord to the effect that the land or lands specified in such certificate have been reserved for resumption and thereupon the right to resume possession shall be exercisable only in respect of the lands specified in such certificate and shall not extend to any other land.”

Basavanneppa Sangappa vs Rajasaheb Mahammadahnif Saheb AIR 1964 Kant 43, AIR 1964 Mys 43 Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act 1961 which came into force on December 30, 1961. Section 3 of that Act prohibits the eviction of a tenant notwithstanding anything contained in any law, decree or order of a civil or revenue Court or of a Tribunal during the period that temporary Act remains in force. ………. If the law which the State Legislature has made within its own legislative field forbids the eviction of a tenant for however temporary a period, it would, I think, be futile for any landlord during that period to ask us to make an order for that eviction which is temporarily banned by legislation. To take an order for eviction in that situation would he to authorise something which a landlord is forbidden from doing so, and it is clear that our jurisdiction should not be exercised in that way. 

Supreme Court reported in case of State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Uppegouda and Ors. 1997( 3 )SCC 593 wherein it has been held that "The object of Tenancy Act is to protect the tenants to remain in possession and enjoy it subject to compliance of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Contracted tenancy comes to an end and statutory tenancy sets in operation and so he would be liable for ejectment only on proved grounds of statutory contravention, the entries of revenue records are self-serving. There was no order of a competent authority of eviction of tenant for contravention of the above-mentioned grounds. The proviso, though enables a landlord to obtain possession on surrender, it must be proved strictly, as several devices would be used to circumvent the beneficial provision and illiteracy and ignorance of the tenant would be taken advantage of. It is easy to have the entries made with the assistance of patwari who had exclusive custody of the records. There is no proof of eviction of the tenant. The stand taken by the landholder is not supported by legal setting".

P.G. Eshwarappa vs. M.Rudrappa & Ors. 1996( 6 )SCC 96 held that ejection of a tenant under a decree obtained prior to the coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 had come into force was illegal and that he was entitled to restitution of the possession illegally taken away from him. It was held that on the date when the Act had come into force and the tenant was found to be in possession of the land by operation of sub-section (1) of Section 22, with a non- obstante clause, the tenant shall not be evicted from the land held by him except on the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22.

ENTRIES IN REVENUE RECORD - AND ITS VALUE

Vishwa Vijai Bharti vs Fakhrul Hasan & Ors AIR 1976 SC 1485 It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry in to their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry is the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was Made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title. 

Wall Mohammad (Deceased) By L.Rs vs Ram Surat & Ors AIR 1989 SC 2296, If the entry is fictitious or is found to have been made surrepti- tiously then it can have no legal effect as it can be re- garded as no entry in law, but merely because the entry is made incorrectly that would not lead to the conclusion that it ceases to be an entry. It is possible that the said entry may be set aside in appropriate proceedings.

Laxmappa Kakappa Nelagund vs The Land Tribunal And Anr.  ILR 2003 KAR 4096, 2003 (2) KarLJ 647 JUSTICE  N. PATIL The entries in the relevant record of rights for the agricultural years 1970-71 to 1973-74, show the name of the petitioner in cultivator's column and mode of cultivation is one. The 'one' indicates that he is claiming as owner. Therefore, entries found earlier in the record of rights has got no relevance as held by this Court in the case cited above. In my considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for grant of occupancy rights as tenant in respect of the land in question.

JUSTICE  N. PATIL  Gangappa Yamanappa Chalawadi vs The State Of Karnataka  2008 (2) KarLJ 728  The said illegal entry found in the record of rights cannot be accepted for the reason that, mere entry in the record of rights will not entitle the petitioner to claim occupancy rights even though there is a presumption of correctness of entries appearing in the record of rights as per Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The said entry must be made on the basis of the order passed by the competent authority.

Mohan Balaku Patil & Ors. vs Krishnoji Bhaurao Hundre  AIR 1999 SC 1114, JT 1999 (1) SC 183, 1999 (1) SCALE 191  When in fact the Tribunal made local enquiry by spot inspection and had come to the conclusion that the appellants were in possession that factor should have weighed with the appellate authority, particularly in the face of the admission made by the respondent that the appellants had constructed the building on the land and were paying charges in respect of the electric pump set used for irrigating the land and ought to have held that the appellants were cultivating the land. In addition, the land in question was shown not to be cultivated by the respondent as the respondent was residing nowhere the land but at a far away place and that the land was not cultivated personally by the owner and the persons cultivating the land were not members of their family nor there was any evidence that the appellants were servants or hired labourers on wages and ought to have on that basis held the appellants as deemed tenant in respect of the land. The presumption arising under Section 133 of the Act in respect of the entries made in the record of rights stood displaced by the finding of fact recorded that the appellants were in actual possession of the land and were cultivating the same. In the face of such an admission made by the respondent it is difficult to accept the finding recorded by the appellate authority as affirmed by the High Court that in view of the entries made in the record of rights the appellants could not be stated to be in possession of the land on the relevant date nor was cultivating the same.