- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO 8995 OF 2008 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. NAGAPPA S/O. IRAPPA MASUTHI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, R/O: AT NARENDRA, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SHRI. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. IRAPPA MASUTHI, AGE: 46 YERAS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARENDRA, DHARWAD. &PETITIONERS (BY SHRI MALLIKARJUN SWAMY B. HIREMATH, AND SMT. GAYATRI S. R., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTEMENT, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DHARWAD, AT DIST: DHARWAD. 3. MUGAPPA S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA WALIKAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARENDRA, DIST: DHARWAD. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. SHIVAPRASAD PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NO.KLR:7A:NARENDRA:SR:10/99-00 DATED 08.09.2002 VIDE ANNEXURE 3 H AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.107/2003 DATED 23.04.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE FORM NO.7A FILED BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALLOW THE SAME BY GRANTING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS TO THE PETITIONERS AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 08.09.2002 passed by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure-H, and order dated 23.04.2008, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, (8KAT9 for short) produced as per Annexure-N. 2. Heard Sri Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Smt.P.R.Bentur, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners9 father by name Irappa Masuthi, was the tenant who was in possession and cultivation of the land since 1967. Accordingly, the Record of Rights referred to the name of Irappa Masuthi, as the tenant in possession and cultivation of the land. But he - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 had not filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy right. After death of Irappa Masuthi, petitioners being his sons, have filed Form No.7-A on 12.03.1999, produced as per Annexure-B claiming the property. The said application came to be rejected by the Land Tribunal by passing the impugned order vide Annexure-H. When the said order was challenged before the KAT, it has confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal by dismissing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. It is contended that the Land Tribunal and KAT have committed an error in passing the impugned orders ignoring the fact that the petitioners have filed From No.7A under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (8KLR Act9 for short), seeking grant of land. The only ground urged by the Land Tribunal as well as KAT are that, the petitioners are owning other properties totally measuring 9.02 acres, and in view of the second proviso to Section 77-A of the KLR Act, the petitioners are not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 entitled for grant of land, as such grant would result in acquiring excess land beyond the ceiling limit provided under the law. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, even though it is stated that petitioners are owning Block No.122/2 of Narendra village measuring 3.36 acres, the Record of Rights produced as per Annexure-L, discloses that the petitioners are owning only 1.36 acres, and the remaining two acres of land is owned by one Ishwar Yallappa Limbannavar. Under such circumstances, the Land Tribunal and KAT committed an error in holding that the petitioners are owning 9.02 acres of land other than the land in question. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the second proviso to Section 77-A of KLR Act prescribes a cap on granting the land, as such grant shall not exceed two hectors of 8D9 class land or its equivalent thereto, together with the land already held by such person. When there are two claimants i.e., - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 petitioners, this two hectors is to be considered as two hectors each. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Lokayya Poojary and another vs. State of Karnataka and Others1, to contend that, while interpreting the statutes, two rules must be remembered. Firstly, since KLR Act is an agrarian Act and it is a social legislation beneficial to the poor tenants, and secondly, a liberal interpretation is to be made in favour of the tenant, and not in favour of the Government or the land level. 7. Learned counsel contended that, if such an interpretation is made to hold that the maximum limits prescribed under the second proviso to Section 77(2) of KLR Act is two hectors of 8D9 class land to each of the persons and if two acres of land in Block No.122/2 is excluded as it stands in the name of a third party i.e., Ishwar Yallappa Limbannavar, even if the land claimed by the petitioners is granted, that will be well within the limits 1 ILR 2012 KAR 4345 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 as provided under second proviso to Section 77-A of the KLR Act. The Land Tribunal and the KAT have not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that since the land in question was a tenanted land and the name of the tenant was entered in the revenue records, there was automatic vesting of the land as provided under Section 44 of the KLR Act as on 01.03.1974. Moreover, there is a specific order regarding vesting of the land with the Government, and the name of the Government was entered in the revenue record. Under such circumstances, respondent No.3 being the owner cannot claim any right over the property. In spite of that, the Land Tribunal and the KAT passed the orders to delete the name of the Government, and restore the name of owner, which is not only erroneous but it is illegal. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 9. Per contra, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 3 State submits that, both the Land Tribunal and KAT have assigned valid reasons while passing the impugned orders. The applicants have not submitted a separate application. But they have submitted a joint application and therefore their claim is to be considered as one. Second proviso to Section 77-A of KLR Act cannot be interpreted to mean that, maximum limit mentioned therein is to be multiplied by number of applicants. No such intention of the legislature could be seen by reading of Section 77(2) of KLR Act and the second proviso of the same. 10. However, learned AGA could not substantiate the order of the Land Tribunal and KAT directing deletion of the name of the Government, and restoring the name of owners, as he fairly concedes that there was vesting of the land on the appointed date, in view of Section 44 of KLR Act, and therefore, even if the applications filed by the petitioners is to be rejected, the land will remain with the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 Government, and that it will not be restored to the owners. Accordingly, he prays for passing appropriate orders. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposing the writ petition submitted that, the petitioners have filed joint application and they are to be considered as one person as they are claiming right under their father. There was no partition in the family at the time of filing the application or even when the impugned order was passed by the Land Tribunal. But after passing of the order by the Land Tribunal, deliberately they managed to get the mutation entry, to state that there was a partition amongst the brothers, and further they deliberately relinquished two acres of land in Block No.122/2 in favour of one of their family members i.e., Ishwar Yallappa Limbannavar. Thereby they wanted to mislead the Court. Such tactics adopted by the petitioners cannot be encouraged by the Court of law. The contention taken by the petitioners that there was a partition amongst them is - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 only an eye wash to claim the entire property, even though they are not entitled to it. The Land Tribunal and the KAT have assigned reasons for passing the impugned orders, and under such circumstances, petitioners are not entitled to claim any reliefs. Accordingly prays for dismissal of writ petition. 12. A perusal of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Lokayya Poojary (supra), the Court held in paragraph 6, as under: 6. In the case of SANT RAM vs. RAJINDER LAL, regarding the rules to be remembered while interpreting statutes, at paragraph 7, it is held as under: "7. Two rules must be remembered while interpreting deeds and statutes. The first one is (2): <In drafting it is not enough to gain a degree of precision which a person reading in good faith can understand, but it is necessary to attain if possible to a degree of precision which person reading in bad faith cannot misunderstand." The second one is - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 more important for the Third World Countries. Statutory construction, so long as law is at the service of life, cannot be divorced from the social setting. That is why, welfare Legislation like the one with which we are now concerned, must be interpreted in a Third World perspective. We are not on the Fifth Avenue or West End of London. We are in a hilly region of an Indian town with indigents struggling to live and huddling for want of accommodation. The law itself is intended to protect tenants from unreasonable eviction and is, therefore, loaded a little in favour of that class of beneficiaries. When interpreting the text of such provisions and this holds good in reading the meaning of documents regulating the relations between the weaker the stronger contracting parties-we must remember what in an earlier decision of this Court, has been observed(3): "Where doubts arise the Gandhian talisman becomes a tool of interpretation 'Whenever you are in - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 doubt&&... apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him." If we remember these two rules, the conclusion is easy that there is no exclusiveness of purpose that can be spelt out of the lease deed. That knocks at the bottom of the case of the landlord." (Emphasis supplied) 13. Thus, the rule for interpreting statutes, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, was extracted by the Full Bench of this Court, and there cannot be any dispute with regard to the same. The Land Reforms Act is an agrarian Act that came into effect with the laudable objective of safeguarding the interests of tenants, who are actually ploughing the land. When such objective, with which the Act was enacted is taken into consideration, it has to be held that, it is a beneficial legislation for the cultivators or the tenants. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 14. Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, deals with the grant of land in certain cases. The second proviso to Section 77A of the KLR Act prescribes a cap on the grant of such lands. When the land so granted together with the land already held by such person exceeds 2 hectares of D Class land, or its equivalent. If the land held by such applicant, along with the land granted, does not exceed 2 hectares of D Class land or its equivalent, then there cannot be any difficulty. However, if it exceeds, it can be said that, such holding will exceed the ceiling limit, and an inquiry will have to be held to determine the extent of the land that exceeds the ceiling limit, for which the procedure as contemplated under Section 67 of the KLR Act is to be followed. 15. As per Section 67(4) of the KLR Act, even if the person concerned does not file the statement as required, within the prescribed period, the Tribunal may itself select the land which shall be surrendered by the person concerned, and pass an order to that effect. Subsection 3A - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 of Section 67 of the KLR Act, gives the option to the tenant to select the land they propose to surrender. Therefore, an inquiry will have to be conducted by the Tribunal, before holding that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of the land. Even after the grant of the land, as sought by the petitioner, if the total holding exceeds the ceiling limit, the procedure as contemplated under Section 67 of the KLR Act is to be followed, which the Tribunal has failed to follow. 16. It is the contention of the petitioners that 2 acres of land in Block No.122/2 of Narendra village is held by one Ishwar Yallappa Limbannavar, and not by the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 seriously opposes this submission by contending that, transfer of 2 acres of land in Block No.122/2 in the name of Ishwar Yallappa Limbannavar is only an eyewash to save the excess land. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 17. In that regard, an enquiry will have to be held as to when and on what basis 2 acres of land was entered in the name of Ishwar Yallappa Limbannavar. 18. Therefore, it is clear that the Assistant Commissioner could not have rejected the claim of the petitioners solely on the ground that, the land claimed by the petitioners if granted would exceed the ceiling limit as stated in second proviso to Section 77 A of KLR Act. Necessary enquiry will have to be held by the Assistant Commissioner before forming such an opinion and giving opportunity to the petitioners as provided under the Act. 19. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, even if the order impugned is to be taken into consideration, as the petitioners are owning 9.02 acres of land, and if the land claimed to an extent of 2.27 acres is granted, the total extent of land to be held by the petitioners would be 11.27 acres. Therefore, each of the petitioners will get 5.36.5 acres each. Under such circumstances, each of the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 petitioners are required to surrender the land to an extent of 36.5 guntas each. It is also his contention that, if on the other hand, 2 acres of land in Block No.122/2 of Narendra village is to be excluded by accepting the contention taken by the petitioners, even after grant of 2.27 acres of land as claimed, each of the petitioners would get 4.34.5 acres of land each and it will be within the ceiling limit provided under second proviso to Section 77 A. 20. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners could be accepted provided his contention that, each of the petitioners are entitled to hold the land not exceeding the ceiling limit, by adopting the rule for interpretation of statutes, keeping in mind the KLR Act is a beneficial legislation for the cultivators as tenants. The object and scope of Section 77 A of KLR Act, is to enable a person who was a lawful tenant as on the appointed date, and who had failed to make an application under Section 45 of the Act within the stipulated period, which resulted in vesting of the land in the Government. The law provides - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 an opportunity to the person to file an application for grant of the land. When both the petitioners have filed the application for grant of land, the property held by both of them could be considered separately by extending the benefit under the beneficial legislation. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the extent of the excess land, if in case 2 acres of land in Block No.122/2 of Narendra village is taken into consideration, and in the second instance if the same is not taken into consideration. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Assistant Commissioner has committed an error in passing the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioners without following the procedure as contemplated under law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 21. Regarding the claim of respondent No.3, that he was the owner in possession of the land in question, and he is entitled to enter his name in the record of rights, I do not find any justification for the same. The materials on - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 record disclose that the land in question was a tenanted land, and as on the appointed date, it vested with the Government by operation of law as per Section 44 of the KLR Act. Since then, the owner ceases to have any interest over the same in his capacity as the owner of the property. Under such circumstances, even if the grant as claimed by the petitioners is rejected, the land will stand in the name of the Government, but it will not be restored in the name of respondent No.3. On this ground also, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 22. In view of the discussions held above, the petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 08.09.2002 passed by respondent No.2 in No:KLR:7A: Narendra:SR 10/99-00 vide Annexure-H and the order dated 23.04.2008 passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5098 WP No. 8995 of 2008 No.107/2003 vide Annexure-N, are hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, the entry in the revenue records as they stood prior to passing of the impugned order, is ordered to be restored. (iv) The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad for fresh consideration of the application filed by the petitioners in the light of the discussions made above. (v) Both the parties shall appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad on 21.04.2025, without waiting for issuance of fresh notice. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM,gab,MKM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13