Karnataka High Court
M.N. Shivappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 May, 1986
Equivalent citations: ILR1986KAR2472, 1986(2)KARLJ146
JUDGMENT Rama Jois, J.
1. In these Writ Appeals, the following question of law arises for consideration:
"Whether under Section 6A of the Karnataka (Religious & Charitable) Inams Abolition Act of 1935 ('the Act' for short), an Archak is entitled to occupancy rights even if he was not cultivating the lands belonging to a religious institution for a period of three years ?"
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :-
i) The Act provided for the abolition of Religious and Charitable Inams in the area of former State of Mysore. Section 3 of the Act provided that, with effect on and from the date of vesting, all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar in all communal lands, cultivated lands etc., shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State of Mysore, free from all encumbrances. Section 4 provided that, Kadim tenants cultivating the erstwhile inam lands, shall be entitled to be registered as occupants. Section 5 provided for registering the|permanent tenant of erstwhile inam lands as occupants of the lands under their cultivation. Section 6 of the Act provided that every tenant of the inamdar other than a kadim tenant or a permanent tenant shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be continued as a tenant under the Government in respect of the land of which he was a tenant under the inamdar immediately before the date of vesting. It however, added that the said provision would not apply to a person who was a Poojari or Archak or the holder of similar office and enjoying the benefits of any erstwhile inam land without paying rent.
ii) The Act was amended by the Mysore Inam Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973. By this Act, a special provision was made in favour of protected tenants to the effect that every protected tenant was also entitled to occupancy rights of the land of which he was cultivating. Protected tenant is defined as a person who has been cultivating the land for 12 years prior to the date of vesting. By this amendment, proviso to Section 6, which created the disability for Archak/Poojari to continue as tenants was removed. Section 6A was added. It reads :
"6A. Pujari, Archak, etc., to be registered as occupant on certain conditions--
(1) Where the inamdar is an institution of religious worship, a person--
(i) rendering religious service in or maintaining the institution as a pujari, archak or the holder of a similar office by whatever name called ; or
(ii) rendering any service in such institution and personally cultivating for a continuous period of not less than three years prior to the date of vesting by contributing his own physical labour or that of the members of his family and enjoying the benefits of any land comprised in the inam of such institution without paying rent as such in money or kind to that institution in respect of such land, shall with effect from and on the date of vesting and subject to the provisions of Section 27A be entitled to be registered as an occupant of such land."
3. 3 acres and 25 guntas of land in Survey No. 34 of Maragur Village, Channarayapatna Taluk, was an inam land belonging to a religious institution. The second respondent was an archak in the temple. The appellant was a tenant actually cultivating the entire extent of 3 acres and 25 guntas for more than 12 years. He had made an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams claiming occupancy rights for the said land on that ground the he was a protected tenant. Respondent No. 2 made an application claiming occupancy rights in respect of only 1 acre of land out of the aforesaid 3 acres and 25 guntas on the ground that he was an Archak in the temple.
iii) The application of the appellant and of the second respondent were considered by the Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Hassan District. By his order dated 16-3-1976 Exhibit 'O', he granted occupancy rights in respect of the entire extent of land of 3 acres and 25 guntas in favour of the appellant. He rejected the application of the second respondent for the reason that he was not cultivating the land personally for any period. This order was taken in appeal by the second respondent before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal concurred with the view of the Special Deputy Commissioner and dismissed his appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the second respondent preferred the Writ Petition.
(iv) In the Writ Petition, the contention of the second respondent was that, as admittedly, he was an Archak of the temple, he was entitled to be registered as occupant of 1 acre of land in respect of which, he sought occupancy rights even though he had not actually cultivated, as no such condition was imposed, under Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6A of the Act. The contention of the appellant before the Learned Single Judge was that, every temple servant including Archak could seek occupancy rights under Section 6A of the Act, if only, he had cultivated the land for a period of three years, immediately prior to the date of vesting. The Learned Single Judge took the view that the condition of eligibility, viz., cultivation of the land for a period of three years, was applicable only to temple servants other than Archak/Poojari referred to under Clause (2) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6A and not to the Archaks. In that view of the matter both the orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Special Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration of the application of both the appellant and the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has presented this appeal. The State has also filed an appeal taking exception to the interpretation given by the Learned Single Judge contending that the condition of cultivation for a period of three years for securing occupancy rights conferred under Section 6A of the Act, applies not only to the Archak/Pujari and holders of similar offices referred to under Clase (1) but also to other temple servants referred to in Clause (2). In view of the rival submissions on the interpretation of Section 6A of the Act the question of law, set out first arises for consideration.
4. We have set out the provision of Section 6A earlier. Clause (1) refers to persons serving in the temples in the capacity of Archak/Pujari and to persons holding similar offices which means persons engaged in connection with the worshipping of the deity in the temple. Clause (2) refers to persons serving in temples in any capacity other than Archaks/Pujaries and the like. The Section confers the eligibility for securing occupancy rights on both the classes of servants if they had actually cultivated the lands for a period of three years. A careful reading of the Section would make it clear that the Clause "personally cultivating for a continuous period of not less than three years prior to the date of vesting" in Cause(ii) of Section 6A applies not only to the categories of persons referred to in Clause (i) but also in Clause (ii). Any other construction would lead to incongruous results. To illustrate : If an Archak/Poojari referred to in Clause (i) is entitled to occupancy rights in respect of erstwhile Inam land belonging to a temple even though he was not cultivating the lands, the following questions would arise. If any other person was actually cultivating the land and further he happens to be either the Kadim tenant or Protected tenant or Permanent tenant what should happen to him? Should he be evicted and occupancy right should be given to the Archak and then what is the extent of land in respect of which he can claim occupancy rights? Can he chum occupancy rights in respect of all the extents of Inam lands belonging to the religious institution concerned? The other provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 4, 5 and 5A expressly provide that the persons cultivating the erstwhile religious Inam lands in those capacities are entitled to secure occupancy rights. Certainly Section 6A is not intended to deprive the occupancy rights in respect of the persons who have beers actually cultivating the lands as protected tenant or permanent tenant or kadim tenant and confer the occupancy rights on the Archak/Poojari, who had never cultivated the lands.
5. In the present case itself, for instance there are 3 acres and 25 guntas of Inam land belonging to the temple which is the subject-matter of this dispute. The appellant has been cultivating the land for over 12 years prior to the date of vesting which fact is not seriously disputed. The appellant, as protected tenant, claims under Section 5A of the Act, occupancy rights in respect of 3 acres and 25 guntas of land and the second respondent has claimed occupancy rights in respect of one acre. Which one acre? Why one acre only? These unanswerable questions arise if Section 6-A were to be interpreted as providing for conferring occupancy rights on Archaks though they had not cultivated the lands. Further, it may be seen that there is nothing in Section 6-A which deprives the right of the appellant to gel occupancy rights under Section 5-A of the Act. Therefore, the interpretation of Section 6-A as done by the learned Single Judge would come into conflict with the provision of Section 5-A and other provisions of the Act. Therefore, we respectfully disagree with the interpretation and hold that the Clause 'personally cultivating for a period of not less than three years' in Clause (ii) of Section 6-A applied to both the categories viz., Archak/Poojari and other temple servants.
6. The statement of objections and reasons annexed to the amendment, by which Section 6-A was introduced into the Act, also supports the interpretation as above. It reads :
"According to the Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws Amendment Act, 1973 came into force on 27th day of December 1973, the last day for filing the claim Petitions was 26th December, 1974. The implementation of the various provisions of the Act has, however, been very slow. The experience gained in implementation of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, had given hopes for implementing the Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws, the Mysore area other than Bellary District, in a speedier manner, by extending certain provisions of the former Act to the cases under Inam Abolition Laws. It is considered necessary that the period of filing the claim Petitions be extended for a further period of six months from the passing of the Amendment Act to amend the provisions of Inams Abolition Act so as to bar legal practitioners from appearing before the Enquiry Officers in the enquiries under the Act, to delete the provisions for appeals under the Act, to empower the Assistant Commissioners to conduct the enquiries under the Act to enable the Tahsildars to take possession of the lands where no applications are made or where the applications have been rejected and to bring such land for disposal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1969. Apart from this, enquiries under the Act are also made summary instead of being formal and the occupancy rights are proposed to be conferred on the poojaries, archaks, etc., only when they have been personally cultivating the land for a continuous period of three years prior to the date of vesting.'' (underlining ours) From the underlining part of the statement of objects and reasons it is clear that the intention of the Legislature was to give benefit of occupancy rights in favour of Archaks/ Poojaries etc., if only they have been cultivating the land for a continuous period of three years prior to the date of vesting. The language of Section 6-A gives effect to the intention of the Legislature in clearest terms.
7. In the result, we answer the question set out first as follows :
Under Section 6-A of the Act, an Archak or Poojari is entitled to occupancy rights if only he had cultivated the erstwhile Inam land belonging to religious institution for a period of three years immediately prior to the date of vesting in the manner provided in the Sections.
8. In view of our answer as above, it follows that as the second respondent was an Archak and was not admittedly cultivating the one acre of land in respect of which he had sought for occupancy rights, he was not entitled to occupancy rights. Therefore, the Special Deputy Commissioner was right in rejecting his application and the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner and there was no ground to interfere with the said orders in the Writ Petition.
In the result, we make the following :
ORDER
(i) Writ Appeals are allowed.
(ii) In reversal of the order made by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 529 of 1979, the Writ Petition is dismissed.