A beneficial legislation like the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 should not be allowed to be used as a tool for aggrandising undeserving persons by showing them as tenants in respect of the lands, the High Court of Karnataka has said.
“The Land Reforms Act, 1961 is undoubtedly a beneficial legislation. It is important to remember that this piece of legislation is meant to preserve, protect and also confer benefits on persons who are able to clearly establish the factum of agrarian relationship as tenant in respect of the land. Such a legislation should not be allowed to be used as a tool for aggrandising undeserving persons...,” the court observed.
A Division Bench comprising Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice P. Krishna Bhat made these observations while quashing conferment of occupancy right granted by Udupi land tribunal in 2003 in respect of a land, measuring 7½ cents (about 3,267 sq ft), in favour of a person, who was working as a cook in Admar Mutt, Udupi.
Setting aside the 2011 order of a single judge and the 2003 order, the Division Bench said that the tribunal had failed to hold proper enquiry to find out whether the ‘land’ and applicant ‘tenant’ come within the purview of the KLR Act.
Noticing that the mutt had given him a residential premises with appurtenant land for his accommodation as he was a servant in the mutt, the Bench said that the property, falling in the urban area within the limits of Udupi town municipality, cannot be a ‘land’ within the meaning of Section 2A(18) of the KLR Act.
Pointing out that the cook was a tenant of the house let out to him by mutt and not tenant of agricultural land as per the provisions of the KLR Act, the Bench, quoting a judgment of 1975 of the High Court, has said that in undivided district of Dakshina Kannada of which Udupi was part, it is common for urban house properties to have few fruit bearing trees around the premises. In any case, in about 3,267 sq ft of land no agricultural activity can be carried out, the Bench observed while stating that mere existence of a few fruit bearing trees in a compound of a house would not make the land in question agricultural land in the undivided Dakshina Kannada district.
