Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. On the facts of these cases the following points arise for consideration;

(1) Whether the tenant whose application is belated, i.e., filed after 30 6-1979, is entitled to a declaration that he was a tenant of the land in question prior to 1-3-1974?

(2) Whether the Tribunal can grant such a declaration having regard to its limited jurisdiction under the Act on a belated application of the tenant?

(3) If the tenancy of the land immediately prior to 1-3-1974 is established, is not a tenant entitled to claim the benefit under Section 77 of the Act, as in the first case, even though he is not entitled to occupancy rights on the ground that his application in Form No. 7 was a belated application?

(iii) Distribution of the excess lands vested in the State Government to people belonging to weaker Sections of the society such as persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Tribes and landless agricultural labourers etc."

This Court held, on the facts of that case, that the persons who are entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 77 of the Act, have a lacus standi to challenge the orders of the Tribunal though they are not parties to it if the benefits sought to be conferred on them under Section 77 of the Act are sought to be defeated by violations of the provisions of the Act or mala fide exercise of the power. If that is the case, is not a tenant entitled to the benefit of Section 77, if he had filed his application but does not get occupancy rights because his application is belated by seeking a declaration that the land is a tenanted land and therefore should vest in the State Government under any of the provisions mentioned in Section 77 of the Act? According to some of the Learned Counsel who assisted this Court, once a tenant's application is rejected under Section 48A(8) he has no further rights even assuming that the lands had vested in the State Government either on the ground that they were tenanted lands or on the ground the tenant was out of possession immediately prior to 1-3-1974. Another View is that the Act does not empower the Tribunal to make a declaration that the land is tenanted land except in the course of an enquiry under Section 48A of the Act. Even assuming such a power is there in the Tribunal under Section 112(B)(b) of the Act, in the absence of any procedure for making such a declaration, the tenant cannot get the benefit of such declaration on the basis of a belated applica-tion. The Learned Counsel Smt. Mahishi on this point relied on Section 130 of the Act, i.e., the power of summary eviction conferred on the Tahsildar is subject to such enquiry as he deems fit and such a power is not conferred on the Tribunal to make a declaration under Section 112(B)(b) of the Act. Whereas Mr. S.R. Nayak, has invited my attention to Rule 39 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 (for short the Rules) which reads as:

"The case on mandamus are clear enough; and if mandamus will go to a tribunal for such a cause, then it must follow that certiorari will go also for when a mandamus is issued to the tribunal, it must hear and determine the case afresh and it cannot well do this if its previous order is still standing. The previous order must either be quashed on certiorari or ignored ; and it is better for it be quashed."

20. But the tenants whose applications are belated are not entitled to seek a declaration that they are tenants since they are not entitled to any other rights excepting occupancy rights. I have already held that the benefit of Section 77 of the Act is available to dispossessed tenants and other persons mentioned in Section 77(1) and not to tenants who are not registered as occupants. A dispossessed tenant as defined in Explanation (1) has no right to make an application in Form No. 7 and therefore his case does not come under Section 48A. But can he and other persons mentioned in Section 77(1) seek a declaration that the lands in question are tenanted lands or surplus lands and therefore vest in the State Government to be disposed of in the manner provided under Section 77? They may be persons interested in the lands but they have no right to such lands available for disposal under Section 77. What all Section 77 says is that the Deputy Commissioner or other officer authorised by State Government may grant such lands in the manner prescribed therein. That does not give a right to persons mentioned in Section 77 to claim such lands. There is nothing in the language of Section 77 which confers on dispossessed tenants or other persons mentioned therein to claim as a matter of right, the lands at the disposal of the State Government under Section 77. Sub-section 3 of Section 77 makes the position clear. It reads:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government may, if it considers that any land vesting in it is required for any public purpose, reserve such land for such purpose."

But State Government has a right to all tenanted lands prior to 1-3-1974 under Section 44 of the Act and to the surplus lands under Chapter IV of the Act. Therefore, it can seek a declaration that a person is a tenant or a surplus holder and a consequential declaration that a particular land is tenanted or surplus land. Such a declaration can be obtained from the Tribunal by invoking its rule making power. I am conscious of the fact that Section 112(B)(b) uses the word 'decide' and not declare. A declaratory decree can be made by a Civil Court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. But the Tribunals constituted under the Act are not governed by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act but by the duties conferred on it by the Act. In Jurisprudence the word 'duty' is understood as the Jural Correlative of Right. That right is the right of the State Government to the tenanted lands and surplus land under the Act that become available for disposal under the provisions mentioned in Section 77. Under that Section the lands become the absolute property of the State Govern-ment. The right of indefinite user is an essential quality of absolute property without which absolute property can have no existence. This right of user necessarily includes the right and power of excluding others from using the land. This right or power can be exercised by the State Government only by-conferring on the Tribunal a corresponding duty to make suitable declarations. By exercising that right the State Government carries out the purpose of the Act. Section 137 empowers it to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. Therefore, it is open to the State Government to seek suitable declaration from the Tribunal by making the necessary rule (under its rule making power) imposing a duty on the Tribunal to make declarations that the lands are tenanted lands or surplus lands.