# RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2018] 5 S.C.R. 560
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-04-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3621 of 2018
- **Bench:** Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Navin Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/raghunath-prasad-pande-v-state-of-karnataka-ors-32939
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 - s.14(5) - Resumption of
land from tenants - High Court held against the appellant mainly
on the ground that the possession as required under s.14(5) of Act,
1961 as it then existed was not handed over in favour of landlord
- Held: It is clear from the language of s.14 as it then existed 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 - A certificate is then issued
by the Tribunal in case the application of the landlord for resumption
is allowed - The landlord takes possession of the property by making
further application before the Tribunal with support of the certificate
issued - Pursuant thereto, the tenants are dispossessed before the
31st March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar year in
which the application for possession is made - In the matter on
hand, the compromise was entered into before the Munsiff/Tribunal
and the same was recorded as per law - The existence of such
compromise between the parties is not disputed by the respondents
at any stage - The parties also filed a memo in the resumption
proceedings to the effect that the landlord had 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 landlord to once again carry out the procedure as contemplated
under s.14(5) that too only in order to fulfil the formalities - Since
the composite compromise, is acted upon by handing over the
possession of 4 acres of property in favour of the landlord by virtue
of the order dated 02.03.1970 passed by the Munsiff/Tribunal and
as handing over of possession in favour of the landlord is
undisputed, it can be concluded that the landlord was in possession
of the property to the extent of 4 acres since 02.03.1970, legally -
 [2018] 5 S.C.R. 560
560
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
561
The view of the High Court is hyper technical and too sophisticated
under the facts of the case - The land is already acquired by the
State Government - Civil Judge while deciding the reference
application seeking enhancement of compensation observed that
the beneficiaries under acquisition and the State Government have
taken possession of 4 acres of land from the landlord - The impugned
judgments set aside - Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
 RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE
 v.
 STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3621 of 2018)
APRIL 06, 2018
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 - s.14(5) - Resumption of
land from tenants - High Court held against the appellant mainly
on the ground that the possession as required under s.14(5) of Act,
1961 as it then existed was not handed over in favour of landlord
- Held: It is clear from the language of s.14 as it then existed 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 - A certificate is then issued
by the Tribunal in case the application of the landlord for resumption
is allowed - The landlord takes possession of the property by making
further application before the Tribunal with support of the certificate
issued - Pursuant thereto, the tenants are dispossessed before the
31st March of the calendar year succeeding the calendar year in
which the application for possession is made - In the matter on
hand, the compromise was entered into before the Munsiff/Tribunal
and the same was recorded as per law - The existence of such
compromise between the parties is not disputed by the respondents
at any stage - The parties also filed a memo in the resumption
proceedings to the effect that the landlord had 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 landlord to once again carry out the procedure as contemplated
under s.14(5) that too only in order to fulfil the formalities - Since
the composite compromise, is acted upon by handing over the
possession of 4 acres of property in favour of the landlord by virtue
of the order dated 02.03.1970 passed by the Munsiff/Tribunal and
as handing over of possession in favour of the landlord is
undisputed, it can be concluded that the landlord was in possession
of the property to the extent of 4 acres since 02.03.1970, legally -
 [2018] 5 S.C.R. 560
560
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
561
The view of the High Court is hyper technical and too sophisticated
under the facts of the case - The land is already acquired by the
State Government - Civil Judge while deciding the reference
application seeking enhancement of compensation observed that
the beneficiaries under acquisition and the State Government have
taken possession of 4 acres of land from the landlord - The impugned
judgments set aside - Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3621
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2013 of the High Court
of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Writ Appeal No. 6373 of
2010(LR-REF).
S. S. Javali, Sr. Adv., Azeem A. Kalebudde, Ankolekar Gurudatta,
Neelkanth Dnyashwar Aher, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
 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 landlord may, if he bona fide requires land, other than land
held by a permanent tenant, -
RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
& ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
562
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
(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 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."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
563
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 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.
RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
& ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
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 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 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
565
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. 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.
Devika Gujral
 Appeal allowed.
RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
& ORS.