Person Working At Mutt Can't Claim 'Tenancy Rights' Over Appurtenant Land Granted For Residential Use: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that a cook, working for the Sr Admar Mutt in Udupi district, cannot claim occupancy over appurtenant land which was granted to him by the Mutt for residential use. A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice P Krishna Bhatt allowed the appeal filed by the Mutt challenging the single judge bench order dated April 21, 2011, by which it had confirmed the Land tribunal order granting occupancy to the cook. The bench said, "The Land Reforms Act, 1961 is undoubtedly a beneficial legislation...Such a legislation should not be allowed to be used as a tool for aggrandizing undeserving persons by showing them as tenants in respect of the lands."Case Background: G. Anantha Bhatta, husband of respondent No.1 had filed an application seeking occupancy under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in respect of 0.35 acres of land, which was allowed by the Land Tribunal in respect of 0-07-5 acres of land. An appeal against the said order filed by the Mutt came to be dismissed by a single Judge, leading to the instant appeal. Appellant's submissions: Advocate Vinay N appearing for the Mutt submitted the applicant- the late husband of respondent No.1 was working as a cook in the Mutt and the residential premises with appurtenant land in question was given to him only for his occupation and therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, in respect of the said land. Further, it was said that the subject matter of the enquiry before the Tribunal was not a "land" within the meaning of Section 2(A)(18) of the Act and the applicant was not a "tenant" within the meaning of Section 2(A)(34) of the Act. It added that the Single Judge had misread the evidence placed before the Tribunal and wrongly recorded that the representative of the appellant- Mutt, who appeared before the Tribunal, had stated that the applicant was a 'tenant'. It was claimed that the applicant was working as a cook in the Mutt and the subject matter of the application was given to him by the Mutt for his occupation. Respondent's submissions: Advocate S Rajashekhar appearing for the wife contended that she and her husband had been cultivating the land in question as a 'tenant' under the appellant, and therefore after due enquiry the Tribunal has passed an order granting occupancy rights in their favour. Court findings: The court considered the relevant provisions and said, "Once the application is filed before the Tribunal seeking registration of the applicant as an occupant in respect of the land, the Tribunal is required to enquire into two aspects namely–Whether the subject land is a 'land' within the meaning of the Section 2(A)(18) of the Act? And whether the applicant is a 'tenant' within the meaning of Section 2(A)(34) of the Act?" It added, "A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has not framed the said questions for consideration nor has it given any finding thereon with supporting reasons." Then the court noted,"Evidence of the representative of the Mutt only shows that the consistent version of the appellant-Mutt was that the applicant was a tenant in respect of the house let out for his occupation as he was a servant of the Mutt, being a cook. This does not amount to the appellant admitting the fact that land in question is a "land" within the meaning of Section 2(A)(18) and further that the applicant was a "tenant" within the meaning of Section 2(A)(34) of the Act. " The court considered that land granted by the Tribunal measuring only 7½ cents (i.e. 3267 sq. ft.) being an urban property situated in Shivalli Village cannot be a 'land' within the meaning of Section 2A(18) of the Act. Further, the case of the applicant showing that there was no written document evidencing the 'chalgeni' tenant relationship between the applicant and the appellant-Mutt. The only documents produced during an enquiry before the Land Tribunal are the house property tax paid receipts. "Clearly shows that what was held by late Anantha Bhatta was a house tenancy with appurtenant land," it observed. The court also opined that, "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 an agrarian relationship as tenant in respect of the land, for which Form No.7 is filed by them to register them as occupants. Such legislation should not be allowed to be used as a tool for aggrandizing undeserving persons by showing them as tenants in respect of the lands." It added that,"The alleged landlord is a Mutt, which is a religious and charitable institution. Lands are endowed upon such institutions by devotees in the hope that by using the usufructs and other benefits derived out of the land the Mutt...

Person Working At Mutt Can't Claim 'Tenancy Rights' Over Appurtenant Land Granted For Residential Use: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags