H.K. Ramamurthy vs Land Tribunal, Bhadravathi, Shimoga and Others

The petitioner who is a Senior Health Inspector in the Government and a Government servant is challenging the order of the Tribunal under Annexure-A in favour of the second respondent.

It is contended that the land measuring 5 acres 4 guntas in Sy. No. 6 of Mallanahalli Village belongs to Sri Prasanna Someshwara Temple. The petitioner made an application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land. There were no other applications. But the Tribunal holding that the petitioner is a Government servant and he could not have been cultivated the land as a tenant, rejected the application of the petitioner and hence the present petition.

It is contended that Section 2(A)(11) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 defines personal cultivation in the following terms:

''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 crops share; under the personal supervision of oneself or by member of one''s family.

''Explanation I.-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.-In 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".

Therefore, it is not necessary that a person must be in actual cultivation of the property in question.

Reliance was placed upon Seethadevi v Narayana Kamath, 1987(2) Kar. L.J. 89 (DB), which is to the following effect:

"No person can make an application in Form 7 or an application in the nature of an amendment after the expiry of the period fixed under Section 48-A(1) of the Act seeking occupancy right in respect of new item of land not included in the application filed within time".

It is contended that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights in favour of second respondent because his application was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. It is further submitted that in the light of the dictum in Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam, Kudli v State of Karnataka, 1992(3) Kar. L.J. 258 (DB), since the land are Inam Lands and the order is passed under Section 6 of the Inams Abolition Act, the matter has to be remanded to the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams.

Heard the Counsel.

6.Prima facie the writ petition has to be dismissed, because the Government servant cannot claim occupancy rights as he could not be a person held to be cultivating the land. While commenting upon the object of the Act, the Apex Court in Chinnamarkathian alias Muthu Gounder v Ayyavoo, AIR 1982 SC 137, has observed that it was a beneficial legislation for granting security of tenure to cultivating tenants of agricultural tenants. The Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider whether a paster of a Church claiming occupancy right can be considered as a tenant or not within the meaning of Section 2(A)(34) of the Act and it was held "when the paster was not cultivating the land on his own, but held the land for and on behalf of the owner as an administrator thereto. Merely administering the affair, question of his being either a tenant or deemed tenant would not arise at all".

Now a Government servant who is supposed to be in the service of sovereign claims to be the occupant of the land on the ground that he is entitled to have such benefit, as he can cultivate such land through his servant or agents. A Government servant is governed by the Conduct Rules and Service Rules. If he were to undertake any other avocation in life then he ceased to be Government servant. In fact, depending upon the length of his job and the responsibility entrusted to him, even the Government servant cannot leave the place of his service without getting the permission in writing of his immediate superiors. When such is the Code of Conduct, it cannot be imagined that a Government servant can find his way in Section 2(A)(11) or Section 2(A)(34). To claim the benefit conferred upon the tenant by the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as amended from time to time. In my opinion the very claim made by the petitioner that he as a Government servant is also a tenant within the meaning of the above Act, adorned him with a dual role. Such claim is an utter violation and flagrant breach of the condition of service of the Government servant.

In this view, I find that the order passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioner is correct and I confirm the same. The question of going into the grant of occupancy right in favour of the second respondent does not arise.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs.

The Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this petition to the concerned Secretary to the Government for appropriate action against the petitioner.