1

   REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3621 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 28906 of 2013]

RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE     .. Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. .. Respondent(s)

O R D E R   

Despite service, none appears for respondent nos. 2 to 9.

Leave granted.

2. Both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division

Bench of the High Court have concluded against the appellant

mainly on the ground that the possession, as required under

Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961, as it

then existed, was not handed over in favour of the landlord.

3. Before proceeding further it is relevant to note the

provisions  of  Sections  14(1)  and  14(5)  of  Mysore  Land

Reforms Act, 1961 (now called as Karnataka Land Reforms Act,

1961) as they existed in the year 1961-1970, the relevant

years for the purpose of this case:-

“14. Resumption of land from tenants – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 22 and 43, but subject to the provisions  of  this  Section  and  of Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 41, a

2

landlord may, if he  bona fide requires land, other than land held by a permanent tenant, -   

(i) For cultivating personally, or

(ii) For any non-agricultural purpose,  file  with  the  Tribunal  a  statement indicating the land or lands owned by him and which he intends to resume and such other particulars as may be prescribed. On  such  statement  being  filed,  the Tribunal shall, as soon as may be, after giving an opportunity to be heard to the landlord  and  such  of  his  tenants  and other persons as may be affected, and, having  due  regard  to  contiguity, fertility and fair distribution of lands, and after making such other inquiries as the  Tribunal  deems  necessary,  determine the  land  or  lands  which  the  landlord shall be entitled to resume, and shall issue a certificate to the landlord to the  effect  that  the  land  or  lands specified  in  such  certificate  has  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.

Explanation – Subject to such rules as may  be  prescribed,  the  Tribunal  within the  jurisdiction  of  which  the  greater part of the land held by the landlord is situated shall be the Tribunal competent to  issue  a  certificate  under  this Section.

14(5)   Where a certificate is issued in respect of any land under sub-section (1)   

(a) In the case of tenancies existing on the  appointed  day,  the  landlord  shall make an application to the Tribunal for possession  of  such  lands  within  twelve months  from  the  date  of  issue  of  the certificate, but the tenants shall not be dispossessed before the 31st March of the

3

calendar  year  succeeding  the  calendar year  in  which  the  application  for possession is made;

(b) In  the  case  of  tenancies  created after  the  appointed  day,  the  landlord shall not be entitled to resume the land before the expiry of five years from the date  of  creation  of  the  tenancies concerned and the tenants shall not be dispossessed before the 31st March of the calendar  year  succeeding  the  calendar year  in  which  the  application  for possession is made.”

From the scheme of afore-mentioned provisions it is clear

that the landlord could have filed an application if he

needed the land for bona-fide use and occupation before the

Tribunal seeking resumption of the land from the tenants.

The order was to be passed by the Tribunal under Section

14(1) of the Act on such application being filed by the

landlord. A certificate would be issued by the Tribunal in

case  the  application  of  the  landlord  for  resumption  was

allowed. The landlord would take possession of the property

by  making  further  application  before  the  Tribunal  with

support  of  the  certificate  issued  as  mentioned  supra.

Pursuant thereto, the tenants would be dispossessed before

the 31st March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar

year in which the application for possession was made.  In

the matter on hand the compromise entered into as well as

the order accepting the compromise passed by the Tribunal

was a composite order made under Sections 14(1) and 14(5) of

4

the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961.  It is relevant to note

herein itself that the Tribunal during the relevant point of

time was to be constituted under Section 111 of the Mysore

Land Reforms Act, 1961.  Section 111 (as it then existed)

reads thus:

“111. Constitution of Tribunal – (1) The State  Government  may,  by  notification, constitute for the area specified therein a Land Tribunal consisting of a sole member who shall be a judicial officer of the rank of  a  Munsiff  who  shall  perform  all  the functions of the Tribunal under this Act.

(2) For any area for which a Tribunal has not  been  constituted,  the  Munsiff  having jurisdiction over such area or any other judicial officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall exercise all the powers and perform all the duties and functions of the Tribunal under this Act.

Explanation:-  For  the  purpose  of  this section, a Munsiff means (i) in the Bombay Area, a Civil Judge (Junior Division); and (ii)  in  the  Madras  Area,  a  District Munsiff.”

From the afore-mentioned provision it is clear that the Land

Tribunal was to be constituted of a sole member who shall be

a  judicial  officer.   In  the  matter  on  hand  also  the

compromise was entered into before the Munsiff/Tribunal and

the same was recorded as per law.

4. Non-compliance  of  the  procedural  aspect,  as

contemplated under Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms

Act, 1961 (as it stood originally), is properly explained by

5

the appellant by drawing the attention of the Court to the

compromise  deed  entered  into  between  the  parties  on

02.03.1970.  The compromise deed reads thus:-

“The  Respondent  has  no  objection  for resumption  of  4  acres  of  land  southern portion of petition land.

The  Respondent  has  already  given  the possession of the said resumed land to the petitioner.

The petitioner has no other land except the land in dispute which is less than the ceiling limit.”

From the aforementioned, it is clear that it was a composite

compromise entered into between the parties keeping in mind

Sections 14(1) and 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act,

1961  (as  it  then  stood)  and  submitted  before  the

Munsiff/Tribunal, Dharwad in RLC 109/70.  The existence of

such compromise between the parties is not disputed by the

respondents at any stage.  However, their only contention is

that the procedure as contemplated under Section 14(5) of

the  Mysore  Land  Reforms  Act  was  not  followed.   In  the

resumption proceedings RLC No. 543/1970 dated 31.10.1970,

RLC No. 109 of 1970 dated 02.03.1970, RLC No. 55 of 1970

dated 17.04.1971, a compromise petition was filed before the

Munsiff/Tribunal.  The Tribunal passed an order in terms of

the said compromise.  The parties also filed a memo in those

proceedings to the effect that the petitioner herein had

6

already been given possession of the resumed lands by the

respondents 2 to 9.  On the face of these documents, it

would be futile exercise on the part of the petitioner to

once again carry out the procedure as contemplated under

Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, that too only

in order to fulfil the formalities.    

5. Since  the  composite  compromise,  mentioned  supra,  is

acted upon by handing over the possession of 4 acres of

property in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the order

dated 2.3.1970 passed by the Munsiff/Tribunal, Dharwad in

RLC No. 109 of 1970, and as handing over of possession in

favour of the petitioner in respect of 4 acres of land is

undisputed, it can be concluded that the petitioner was in

possession of the property to the extent of 4 acres since

02.03.1970, legally. The view of the High Court, in our

opinion, is hyper technical and too sophisticated under the

facts of the case.

6. It  is  relevant  to  note  that  the  land  is  already

acquired by the State Government.  The 2nd Additional Senior

Civil  Judge,  Dharwad,  while  deciding  the  reference

application seeking enhancement of compensation in LAC case

no. 82 of 1994 has observed in its judgment dated 30.11.2015

that  the  beneficiaries  under  acquisition  and  the  State

Government have taken possession of 4 acres of land from the

landlord, i.e. the petitioner herein.

7

7. From the aforesaid undisputed facts, it is amply clear

that the petitioner was permitted to resume the land and

that the respondent nos. 2 to 9 have surrendered 4 acres of

land  in  favour  of  petitioner  herein  by  virtue  of  the

compromise deed entered into between the parties before the

competent authority as on 02.03.1970.

8. Hence,  the  impugned  judgments  are  liable  to  be  set

aside and the same are set aside.

9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.   

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

..........................J. (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)

..........................J. (Navin Sinha)

New Delhi, April 6, 2018