RAGHUNATH PRASAD PANDE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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:-

(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.

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.

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.