S.S. Hilli vs P.M. Hallad

K.N. Singh, J.—This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 24-11-72.

Necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant landlord made an application u/s 14 of Mysore Lands Reforms Act, 1961 for resumption of his lands R.S. 48/1 measuring 7 acres 19 Guntas and R.S. No. 64/2A measuring 2 acres and 11 Guntas on the ground that he bonafide required the same for his personal cultivation. The trial court allowed resumption of the lands to the extent of half of the holding of the land included in R.S. No. 48/1 but it rejected the appellant's prayer for resumption with regard to the other holding. The appellant as well as the tenant both preferred appeals before District Judge, Bijapur. The appellant contended that he should have been permitted to resume land to the extent of half from both the holdings while the tenant submitted that the trial court committed error in permitting resumption of half of the land from R.S. No. 48/1. The District Judge accepted the tenant's contention and allowed the appeal and dismissed the landlord's appeal. The appellant thereupon preferred a Revision Petition before the High Court. A learned Single Judge allowed the Revision Petition partly and set aside the order of the appellate order made by the District Judge and directed that a certificate shall be issued to the landlord to resume R.S. No. 64/2A only, The appellant-landlord has preferred this appeal after obtaining special leave.

Learned counsel for the appellant made two submissions before us. Firstly, he urged that the High Court committed error in refusing resumption on misconception of law by applying Section 31B(i) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Secondly, he urged that the High Court committed error in categorising the land as unirrigated and dry land. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. We perused the material contained in the records as well as the relevant provisions of law but we do not find any good reason to take a different view than that taken by the High Court.

Section 14 of Mysore Lands Reforms Act. 1961 provides for making application to the Court by a landlord for resumption of land. On making of such an application the Court has to Determine the land which the landlord may be entitled to resume, subject to the provisions of Section 16 of the Act Sub-section 10(b) of Section 16 lays down that notwithstanding any thing contained in Clauses(1) to (l0) if any resumable land shall be subject to the restrictions and conditions as specified in Section 31B of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1948 as inserted by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendments) Act,1955. Admittedly, District Bijapur where the land in question is situate was included within the province of Bombay prior to the reorganisation of the States in1956 and consequently it was subject to the Bombay Tendency and Agricultural lands Act. Section 31B(1) of Bombay Tenancy Act provides that in no case a tenancy shall be terminated in such a manner as will result in leaving with the tendent2. less than half of the area of lands leased to him and Sub-section (2) further provides that the tenancy shall not be terminated in such a manner as will result in contravention of the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 or in making any part of the land leased a fragment within the meaning of that Act. These provisions clearly lay down that no resumption shall be permitted if it results into fragmentation of the holding, and further that if the tenant is left with less than half of the area of the land leased to him. The High Court has therefore rightly taken the view that the appellant was not entitled to resume lands included in R.S. No. 48/1.

The second submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the land was Baghayat land which was irrigated by lifting water from well and therefore it should have been classified in the fifth class. The Schedule as prescribed by Section 3 of the Mysore Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 classifies the irrigated and non irrigated land. The appellant's contention that the land falls in class V has been rejected by the High Court on the ground that there was no source of irrigation as specified in that clause. The High Court in agreement with the District Judge held that the land was rightly classified under the 7th class. Therefore, the land less than 4 acres became a fragment as specified in the Schedule. In this view no resumption could be permitted as that would result into fragmentation of the holding. The view taken by the High Court does not suffer from any error.

In view of the above discussion we find no merit in this appeal it is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.