Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) communal lands, waste lands, gomal lands, forest lands; tank beds, mines, quarries, rivers, streams, tanks and irrigation works;
(ii) lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under Sections 4 or 5; or is entitled to be continued as a tenant under Section 6; and
(iii) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by any person other than the Inamdar."

According to Section 4 every Kadim tenant of the erstwhile inam land was entitled to occupancy rights. Section 2(8) which defined 'Kadim tenants' stated that it means a tenant as defined in Section 84 of the Land Revenue Code. According to Section 84 of the Land Revenue Code a Kadim tenant is a person who is a tenant of Inam land (alienated land) paying to the Inamdar (superior holder) land revenue at the established rates of Land Revenue. Section 2( 12) defined 'Permanent tenants' as those tenants of erstwhile Inam land, the duration of whose tenancy was co-extensive with the tenure of Inamdar. These two categories of tenants were entitled to secure occupancy rights under Sections 4 and 5 respectively. If there were any other class of tenants, other than Kadim tenants or permanent tenants they were entitled to continue as tenants of the Government in view of Section 6 of the Act. If only in respect of any erstwhile Inam lands, there were neither kadim tenants nor permanent tenants, nor any other tenants, the Inamdar was entitled to be registered as occupant under Section 8 except of course regarding certain categories of land, which were expressly excluded under Section 8 of the Act.

It is the legality of the above order, which is challenged in this Writ Petition.

8. Smt. Pramila, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of her contention that the order of the Land Tribunal was totally illegal also relied on the same Judgment of the Division Bench on which the Land Tribunal relied to allow the applications filed by respondents. Elaborating her contention, the learned Counsel submitted as follows:- In the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act not only the claim of the respondents for occupancy rights in respect of the very lands in Sy. No. 79 of Neelasandra village on the ground that they were permanent tenants was rejected but also their alternative claim that they were deemed tenants as defined under Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act and therefore they were at least entitled to continue as tenants of the Government under Section 6 of the Inams Abolition Act was also rejected. It was only on the finding by the Special Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal that the respondents were neither permanent tenants nor any other type of tenants falling under Sections 4, 5 or 6 of the Inams Abolition Act the claim of the petitioner-temple for grant of occupancy rights under Section 8 of the Inams Abolition Act was granted. These orders were upheld by this Court. Apart from this, a clear finding recorded in the earlier proceedings was to the effect that the respondents were in unlawful possession of the land. In view of the said finding the respondents could not claim to be tenants under Section 2(34) read with Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act. According to the Division Bench Judgment in Muniyallappa's case it was not open for the Land Tribunal to set at naught the findings recorded in the proceedings arising under the Inams Abolition Act. In the applications filed in Form No.7 and in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal it is not the case of the respondents that after the confirmation of occupancy rights of the land in question on the petitioner-temple they became tenants of the land under the petitioner once again and therefore the order of the Land Tribunal suffers from patent error of law and is liable to be set aside.

In view of this decision of the Division Bench of this Court, it was not open to the respondents to have claimed in their application before the Land Tribunal that they were tenants as defined under Section 2(34) of the Act read with Section 4 of the Act on the ground that they were deemed tenants. Both Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act on which respondents now rely and Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act which was similarly worded provided, that every person who was lawfully cultivating the agricultural land except as a member of the owner's family or as a servant, or as a mortgagee in possession shall be deemed to be a tenant. Under both the provisions only a person lawfully cultivating lands has to be regarded as a tenant. The alternative claim made by the respondents in the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act was on that basis and the said claim was rejected by this Court on the ground that the respondents were in unlawful possession of the lands. In view of the finding as above recorded in the proceeding under the Inams Abolition Act, the respondents cannot be heard to contend that they were tenants of any kind or deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act as the possession of their vendors as well as that of the respondents of the lands in question were found to be unlawful. The length of unlawful possession, whatever it is, does not convert, their possession lawful, so as to treat them as deemed tenants, but only shows to what length they are prepared to go notwithstanding the finality of the verdict of this Court, confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petitions. The Tribunal referred to the length of possession but overlooked the finding recorded in the proceedings under the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act that the respondents were not even deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act which was word to word similar to Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act and the finding that their possession was unlawful. Therefore the order of the Tribunal suffers from a patent error of law in holding that the respondents were deemed tenants and were entitled to be registered as occupant of the land on question.

(2) In the present case, in respect of the lands in respect of which occupancy right has been claimed and granted in favour of the respondents by the Land Tribunal, occupancy right had been granted in favour of the temple under Section 8 of the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act. This had also been upheld by this Court in the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos. 1515 to 1516, 1675, 1697, 2989, 1729 and 1732 of 1967 dated 4-5-1970. In that order the claims of the respondents that they were permanent tenants of the lands and their alternative claim that they were deemed tenants as defined under Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act 1954 and therefore entitled to continue as tenants under the Government, as other tenants under Section 6 of the Act were rejected. Further their possession was held to be unlawful. The respondents had not claimed before the Land Tribunal that they had become tenants of the petitioner on and after the date of vesting of the lands in the Government under the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act and/or after the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the temple. On the other hand their plea was the same which had been rejected by this Court. The lands therefore were not tenanted lands and the respondents were not tenants as on 1-3-1974; the appointed day under the Land Reforms Act; and therefore the Tribunal could not have granted the occupancy right for the lands in question in favour of the respondents.