Guddadaarakere Besaya Sahakara Sangh vs Land Tribunal Shimoga and Others

In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner society, which is a Joint Farming Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society) registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 has challenged the validity of the order dated 19-4-1979 passed by the Land Tribunal, Shimoga, in No. LRF (T) 16/76-77 (GRF) rejecting the application filed by it in Form No. 7 under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner-Society came into possession of the land in question on 7-9-74 in pursuance of an agreement of sale dated 7-9-1974, therefore, it is not entitled to be registered as an occupant. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the ground mentioned in the order is not correct in view of the fact that the agreement of sale was not of 7-9-1974, but was of the year 1962; but that may not make any difference for the purpose of determining the nature of possession of the petitioner-society of the land in question. Though the Society has made an application in Form No. 7 in respect of the land in question belonging to the 3rd respondent, there is no provision in the Act enabling the society to get itself registered as an occupant of the land in question. Further, in, this case, it is not in dispute that the Society came in possession of the land in question in pursuance of the agreement of sale during the year 1962 and continued to remain in possession of the same under the agreement of sale only. Thus, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the 3rd respondent and the petitioner-Society and the possession of the petitioner-Society being in pursuance of the agreement of sale was that of an intending purchaser and not as a tenant.

The contention of Sri Subramanya Jois, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, was that in view of the coming into force of the Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1974, the sale deed could not be got executed in pursuance of an agreement of sale and as the possession of the petitioner-Society of the land in question being lawful, it became deemed tenant under Sec. 4 of the Act and as such it was entitled to be registered as an occupant of the land in question. This contention cannot be accepted Under Sec. 45 of the Act, a tenant is to be registered as an occupant only on establishing the fact that he was a tenant of the land and has been cultivating the same personally. The Act also further defines the expression "to cultivate personally" under Sec. 2(11) of the Act As per the said definition "to cultivate personally" means to cultivate land on one''s own account:

(i) by one''s own labour, or (ii) by the labour of any member of one''s family or;

(iii) by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind, but not in crop share, under the personal supervision of oneself or by member of one''s family.

Explanation-1 to the said definition further provides that in the case of an educational, religious or charitable institution or society or trust, of a public nature capable of holding property, formed for educational, religious or charitable purpose, the land shall be deemed to be cultivated personally if such land is cultivated by hired labour or by servants under the personal supervision of an employee, or agent of such institution or society or trust. Explanation-II also further provides thatin the case of a joint family, the land shall be deemed to be cultivated personally, if it is cultivated by any member of such family. The petitioner-society does not fall either in the categories mentioned in Explanations-I and II or under the main definition. Therefore, the personal cultivation of the land being one of the essential requirements for being registered as an occupant is not satisfied by the petitioner-Society.

The Act provides a separata Chapter relating to Cooperative Farms being Chapter VII. Chapter VII of the Act also does not contain any provision enabling the petitioner-Society to get itself registered as an occupant. As per Sec. 89 of the Act any ten or more persons of a village or two or more contiguous villages holding between them, either as land-owners or tenants, rights in and possession over fifty acres or more in such village or contiguous villages and desiring to start a Co-operative Farm comprising the land so held and possessed by them may apply in writing in prescribed form to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the registration thereof. After the Co-operative Farm is registered under Sec. 91 of the Act. the possession of all lands in the village or contiguous villages held by a member, in respect of which the Co-operative Farm is registered shall, for so long as the registration of the Co-operative Farm is not cancelled stand transferred to the Cooperative Farm, which shall thereupon hold such lands and may use it for agricultural purposes as provided by Sec. 92 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Sec. 92 further provides that on the withdrawal of membership of a Co-operative Farm by any person, the possession of the land in respect of which he had become a member shall be transferred by the Co-operative Farm to such person. Thus, it is clear that a Co-operative.

Farm registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies, Act 1959, shall be holding the land belonging to its members either as owners or tenants thereof. Chapter VII of the Act does not provide that a Co-opertive Farm can hold the lands either as tenant or as owner independent of its members. It can only hold the, lands belonging to its members. Sec. 79(b) of the Act provides for prohibition of holding agricultural lands by certain persons Though the Co-operative Farm does not fall within the category of persons prohibited from holding agricultural lands, in view of the provisions contained in Chapter VII of the Act relating to Co-operative Farms, a Cooperative Farm can only hold the lands belonging to its members either as owners, or as tenants thereof, and not, otherwise. That being so, the petitioner-Society even though it is a Joint Farming Co-operative Society, it is not entitled to be registered as an occupant independent of its members. Therefore, the rejection of the application filed under Sec. 48-A of the Act is otherwise justifiable.

For the reasons stated above, I do not see any ground to issue rule-Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.