Skip to content


Waman Kallappa Kuttur Vs. Gundu Basalinga and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Tenancy
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1160 of 1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1972Kant240; AIR1972Mys240
ActsMysore Land Reforms Act, 1962 - Sections 2(A), 2(A)(12), 2(A)(17), 14, 14(1), 14(6), 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 41 and 43; Mysore Land Reforms Rules, 1965 - Rules 7 and 9
AppellantWaman Kallappa Kuttur
RespondentGundu Basalinga and ors.
Appellant AdvocateG.D. Shirgurkar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateB.V. Krishnaswamy Rao, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....to the scope of the enquiry under the said provision, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. - the district judge has stated that he has failed to establish that the income of ms family from other sources is less than the income from the lands sought to be resumed......and scope of rule 7 of the mysore land reforms rules, 1965. 3. the petitioner is the manager of a joint family owning lands s. nos. 111 and 104/1 of basarikatte village. belgaum taluk, which are in the possession of the tenants who are respondents before me. the petitioner filed a statement under section 14 of the act, before the tribunal for resumption of the said lands on the ground that he bona fide requires the same for cultivation by his family. the tribunal after enquiry held that the petitioner does not bona fide require the lands for cultivation and the income by the cultivation of the lands sought to be resumed is not the principal source of income for the maintenance of the family. incidentally, it also observed that the statement filed by the petitioner under section 14 of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment of the First Additional District Judge, Belgaum, confirming an order of the Land Tribunal. Belgaum. refusing to issue a certificate to the landlord for resumption of the lands under the Mysore Land Reforms Act (shortly called the 'Act').

2. Among the points raised in this revision petition, the substantial question is as to the meaning and scope of Rule 7 of the Mysore Land Reforms Rules, 1965.

3. The petitioner is the manager of a joint family owning lands S. Nos. 111 and 104/1 of Basarikatte village. Belgaum Taluk, which are in the possession of the tenants who are respondents before me. The petitioner filed a statement under Section 14 of the Act, before the Tribunal for resumption of the said lands on the ground that he bona fide requires the same for cultivation by his family. The Tribunal after enquiry held that the petitioner does not bona fide require the lands for cultivation and the income by the cultivation of the lands sought to be resumed is not the principal source of income for the maintenance of the family. Incidentally, it also observed that the statement filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Act is defective as the other members of the joint family who have admittedly some interest in the lands are not made parties to the proceedings. Consequently, it refused to issue a certificate to the petitioner. Those findings were affirmed by the District Judge on an appeal preferred by the petitioner. He further held that the petitioner though he is the manager of his joint family cannot represent the interests of the other members as under Rule 7, they are necessary parties to the application for resumption. As the other members of the family were not made par-tics to the proceedings, he held that the application for resumption was not maintainable.

4. The first question In this case is whether to a statement for resumption of lands by a joint family, all the members of the family who have an interest in the lands, should be made parties. The relevant provisions of the Act and the rules which have a bearing on the question may be noticed. Section 14 of the Act so far as it is relevant provides:--

'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 landlord may, if he bona fide requires land, other than land referred to in the first proviso to clause (29) of Sub-section (A) of Section 2.

(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 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'.

This section does not provide for an application to be filed for resumption of lands. Throughout it refers to only a statement to be filed, indicating the land or lands owned by the landlord and which he intends to resume and such other particulars as may be prescribed. Rule 7 of the Mysore Land Reforms Rules. 1965, provides:

'7. Application for resumption of land ..... (1) The Statement for resumption of land under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 shall be in form 1 and all persons who have interest in the land to be resumed shall be made parties to it.

Form 1 prescribed under the Rules reads thus:--

Form I (See Rules 7 and 9).

Statement to be filed under Section 14 or Rules 7 and 9.

1. Name & Address of the landlord.

2. Name & Address of the person furnishing the statement.

3. (a) If the statement is not furnished bv the landlord, is the person's written authorisation to furnish the statement enclosed.

(b) If the person specified in item (1) b subject to a disability specified in Section 14 (6), is the person specified in item (2)-

(i) his guardian (ii) his manager; or (iii) the person in charge of such person or of the property of such person.

4. If the statement relates to a family, is the person specified in item 2 in management of such family or of the property of such family.

5. If the statement relates to a family, whether a joint family or individual family with particulars of the members of the family with address.

As on the 18th November 1961.

As on the appointed date

1

2

(i) Head of the family.

(ii) wife/husband.

(iii) Minor sons

1.

2.

(iv) Unmarried

1.

daughters

2.

(v) Minor grandsons in themale line whose father and mother are dead.

1.

2

(vi) Unmarried granddaughters in the male linewhose father and mother are dead.

1.

2

(the other columns are omitted as unnecessary).'

5. The statements for resumption can be filed by the landlord against hid tenant. If the land is held by the family or joint family, then, the resumption could be claimed only by the family or the joint family as the case may be. Section 2 (A) (12) defines a family thus:--

' 'Family' in relation to a person, means such person, and if married, the wife or husband, as the case may be, and the dependent children and grand-children of such person'.

Section 2 (A) (17) defines joint family thus;--

' 'Joint family' means in the case of persons governed by Hindu law, an undivided Hindu family, and in the case of other persons, a group or unit the members of which are by custom joint in estate or residence'.

In the case of a family or Joint family, the person who is competent to represent the family can file a statement for resumption. This becomes clear if one looks at the various columns in Form I prescribed in Rule 7. Under Column 5, the particulars of all the members of the family are required to be given.

6. Mr. B. V, Krishnaswamy Rao, learned counsel for the respondents sought to support the order of the District Judge by placing reliance on R. 7. According to him. the meaning of the said Rule is plain and unambiguous and that the persons who have an interest in the lands must be made parties to the proceedings for resumption. His contention in other words is that the other members of the joint family who are admittedly having interests in the family lands are necessary parties to the statement for resumption.

7. Rule 7 no doubt prima facie lends support to the contention of learned counsel for the respondents. But, in my view, the said rule must not be read in isolation. It must be understood with reference to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. By the said sub-section, a complete procedure for the Tribunal to determine the land or lands which the landlord shall be entitled to resume, is prescribed. It provides that the Tribunal after the receipt of the statement for resumption, shall give an opportunity to be 'heard to the landlord and such of his tenants and other persons as may be affected, and after making such other enquiries as it deems necessary, shall issue a certificate to the landlord to the effect that the land or lands in such certificate has been reserved for resumption. The persons whose rights are likely to be affected are, therefore, necessary parties to the proceedings for resumption. The latter part of Rule 7 which state '..... all persons who have interest in the land to be resumed shall be made parties to it', must be held to mean that all persons whose interests are likely to be affected by the resumption, shall be made parties thereto. When a resumption is claimed by the Manager for and on behalf of his joint family. the rights of the other members of the family are not adversely affected. They are, therefore, not necessary parties to the proceedings. But, their particulars should be furnished Under column 5 in Form 1 prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules.

8. This takes me to the correctness of the finding recorded by the District Judge that the income from the lands sought to be resumed is not the-principal source of income for the maintenance of the petitioner's family. The evidence prima facie shows that the family does not possess any other land. Some members own one or two houses. It is not known what exactly is the income from whose properties. The petitioner is a goldsmith by profession. His case is that he does not get any income from his profession due to the imposition of a lot of restrictions. The District Judge has stated that he has failed to establish that the income of Ms family from other sources is less than the income from the lands sought to be resumed. The District Judge has found fault with the petitioner without considering the evidence on record. That is not the way the appellate court should dispose of the appeal.

9. In the result and for the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed. The appellate Judgment under revision is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Judge with a direction that he shall take the appeal on file and dispose of it in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order.

10. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //