Subhakar v. Harideesh Kumar

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Judgment Date: 2007-03-13
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Subhakar and others

Respondents

Harideesh Kumar and others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S.N. Bhat
• N.P.S. Panwar
• D.P. Chaturvedi

Counsels for Respondents

• Basava Prabhu S. Patil
• B. Subrahmanya Prasad
• Narayan P. Kengasur
• M. Sudhakar Pai
• A.S. Bhasme

Case Synopsis & Summary

Subhakar and others challenged a Division Bench High Court decision in a Karnataka Land Reforms Act matter arising from Punja land in Dakshina Kannada. The appellants sought to declare Punja land as agricultural land and obtain occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, arguing that Section 2(18) defines land as agricultural land and includes uses subservient thereto, so Punja land could qualify if there is evidence of agricultural activity or potential. The Tribunal initially granted occupancy rights to the appellants’ father; subsequent orders and remand led to conflicting findings, with the High Court ultimately holding that the land is Punja land not cultivable and that only grass grows there, with any trees not altering its non-agricultural character. The appellants contended that the broad statutory definition permits agricultural use or potential even in Punja land, relying on agrarian relationships, leases, and other evidence. The respondents contended there was no cultivability or agrarian relationship; spot inspections showing coconut trees did not demonstrate agricultural use, and the land could not be treated as agricultural land. The Supreme Court held that the term “land” in Section 2(18) requires proof of capability or use for agricultural purposes or subservient thereto; in this case, the factual record did not establish agricultural use, and the appeals were dismissed with no costs, clarifying the approach to Punja lands.

Provisions of Law Cited

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Section 2(18)Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Section 48A

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that Punja lands in Dakshina Kannada are agricultural lands within the broad definition of ‘land’ in Section 2(18) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which includes land used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto. They contended that the land under consideration showed agrarian relationships, tenancy/lease conditions, and evidence suggesting cultivation or agricultural use; thus, Punja land should be treated as agricultural land for purposes of occupancy rights under the Act. They asserted that the High Court’s finding of non-cultivation should not override the statutory definition absent substantial evidence of non-agricultural use, and that the Tribunal’s and High Court’s conclusions were not supported by the record.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that Punja land is not agricultural land; the land is not cultivable, and there is no proven agrarian relationship. They argued that the spot inspection showing a few coconut trees does not establish agricultural use or potential. The Tribunal’s decision, though partially granted on humanitarian grounds, and the subsequent High Court view that Punja land remains non-agricultural, correctly reflected the evidence. They urged upholding the factual findings that Punja land cannot be treated as agricultural land under Section 2(18).

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ,,. . ## SUBHAKAR AND ORS. _v._ ## HARIDEESH KUMAR AND ORS. MARCH 13, 2007 [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] B _Land Reforms:_ _Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961-S.2(18)-'Punja' land-Land not fit for cultivation-Only grass growing on it naturally-Hence, prayer to_ C _declare same as agricultural land rightly rejected by High Court._ - _'t_ The land in question is 'Punja' land situated in the Dakshina Kannada District. The land is not fit for cultivation. Only grass is growing on it naturally. Prayer of Appellants for declaring such land as agricultural land was rejected by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court D HELD: A bare reading of s.2(18) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 shows that land means agricultural land that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes E subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house-site or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, it has to be established that the land was capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto. The Tribunal and the High Court have categorically noted the fact that the land being Punja land is not cultivable land and only grass is F grown naturally. If the appellants wanted to establish that it was being used for agricultural purposes, evidence should have been led in that regard. The Division Bench has categorically noted that no evidence in that regard was led. Mere reference to the spot inspection to show the existence of a few coconut trees does not establish that the land was capable of being used for G agricultural purpose. In view of the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal and the High Court there is no merit in the present appeals. [Paras 9 and IO] [932-E, F, H] H ClVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4992-4993 of 929 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 3 S.C.R. 930 A _2001._ From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.1999 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 4088/1998 and 4463/1998. S.N. Bhat, N.P.S. Panwar and D.P. Chaturvedi for the Appellants. B Basava Prabhu S. Patil, B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Narayan P. Kengasur, M. Sudhakar Pai and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents. . . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellants. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: D The appellants claim to be Chalgeni tenants and claim grant of occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). According to them late Sesu Poojary, the father of the appellants filed an application in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Karkala (for short the: 'Tribunal'). The claim was in respect of Survey No.162/1 measuring 2 acres 11 cents and Survey No.176/2 measuring 8 cents in Gandhinagar, Marpady E village Moodabedri, Karkala Taluk of Dakshina Kannada District. 3. Respondent Harideesh Kumar claimed to be the owner of the land on the basis of a gift-deed from his grandfather. Originally, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the appellants' father by an order dated 25.4.1981. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No.10910/84 before the Kamataka F High Court and the High Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Tribunal. After remand by order dated 18.12.1996 rendered by a majority Tribunal rejected the claim in respect of 1.81 acres of land and granted 0.30 acres on humanitarian grounds. The appellants as well as the respondent-Harideesh Kumar filed writ petitions challenging the order passed G by the Tribunal. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants and allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-Harideesh Kumar by a common order. Appellants filed two writ appeals. .. -~ - 4. Before the High Court the stand of the appellants was that Punja lands in the district are agricultural lands. According to the appellants, the H 931 SUBHAKAR _v._ HARIDEESH KUMAR [PASA YAT,J.] definition of "land" in terms of Section 2(18) of the Act is wide enough to include Punja land. Referring to some earlier decisions the Division Bench of the High Court came to hold that Punja land is not agricultural land and only grass is naturally grown in such land. Though the High Court referred to classification of different Punja lands, it held that whether Punja land is agricultural land is a question of fact. Finding has been recorded that this is not cultivable land and the grass is naturally grown on the land. Therefore, the stand of the appellants was not correct. It was observed as follows:- "In view of the above circumstances, we hold that in this case, the land in question is a Punja Land where only thatched grass is grown naturally. There may be some trees on the land. That does C not mean that a natural grass growing land is an agricultural land particularly, in the facts and circumstances of this case where a built house is surrounding the land. For all the above reasons, in the present case, having regard to the facts of the case, we make it clear that Punja land in Dakshina Kannada is not an agricultural land. We make it clear that where Punja land is brought under cultivation, it is D not a bar on the parties to adduce evidence that such land is brought under cultivation for agricultural purpose. No such evidence is there in this case." 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the application under Section 48A of the Act was in relation to two plots. As in Form 7 there E was no mention of Survey 176/2. The appellants have no grievance with regard to the findings recorded. But the Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that on spot inspection certain coconut trees were found on the land in question. Before the Tribunal, the Chairman allowed the claim while the other members rejected the same. Reference was made to the fact that the claimant F was a government servant and his son had admitted that the lease was obtained from somebody else. It was also admitted that there was tailoring establishment running on the land in question. However, on humanitarian grounds the Tribunal allowed retention of the house and 30 cents of land. Learned Single Judge found that no agricultural activity was possible and the land admittedly was Punja Land. It was further observed that no agrarian G relationship was established, and Punja land in the absence of any evidence, cannot be treated as agricultural land. That also was the finding by the Division Bench which further noted that no evidence was brought to show that the land was under cultivation. 6. These are assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants. H 932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS A [2007] 3 S.C.R. A 7. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-Harideesh Kumar submitted that land had been obtained on lease for a period 11 months starting from 1.1.1963 and 29.11.1963. The same also shows that the claimant's father was a tenant and monthly rent of Rs.2.25 was payable by him. It was further submitted that the son of Subhakar accepted somebody else to be the landlord. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that she was aunt B and was managing the affairs on behalf of the respondent. The said plea is without any basis. In fact, the rent receipt Ex.PS on which the appellants placed reliance did not indicate any serial number. It was also noted by the learned Single Judge that there was no basis for allowing retention of the house and 30 cents and the same has been rightly set aside. • c 8. Section 2(18) of the Act reads as follows: "Land" means agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house-site or land used exclusively for non agricultural purposes." D 9. A bare reading of the provision shows that land means agricultural land that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, E forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house-site or land used exclusively for non- agricultural purposes. Therefore, it has to be established that the land was capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto. The Tribunal and the High Court have categorically noted the fact that the land being Punja F land is not cultivable land and only grass is grown naturally. If the appellants wanted to establish that it was being used for agricultural purposes, evidence should have been led in that regard. The Division Bench has categorically noted that no evidence in that regard was Jed. Mere reference to the spot inspection to show the existence of a few coconut trees does not establish that the land was capable of being used for agricultural purpose. ...\. G I 0. In view of the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal and the High Court (both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench) there is no merit in the present appeals which are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ~ .. Appeals Dismissed. H B.B.B.