The State Government Employees' ... vs The Hubli-Dharwad Urban ILR 1999 KAR 1797, 1999 (3) KarLJ 286 Therefore, once the land is declared as a vacant land, it ceased to be an agricultural land. Once the land is ceased to be agricultural land by application of process of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the land is no more agriculture. Once the land is not an agricultural land, the question of getting the land converted from agriculture to non-agriculture as provided under Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, does not arise. A similar question arose in Civil Appeal No. 6079 of 1997 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that once the land is treated as a vacant land and exemption is granted, there is no requirement of obtaining permission under Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

1969 (2) Mys.L.J. 184 - Smt. Puttamma and Ors. v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and Anr. wherein it was held as under: To contend that the conversion of the land could be done only if the landlord was in possession of the same; the land in possession of a tenant could be converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purpose by the landlord if the tenant did not opposes such application. Their lordships held in under: Section 95(2) does not authorise the Deputy Commissioner to accord permission for conversion without reference to the inability on the part of the applicant for conversion, to make the conversion he proposes to make, by reason of his not being in possession of the land. If, a tenant or a sub-tenant is in possession and the landlord cannot secure possession except after the eviction of the tenant or the sub-tenant, the proper stage at which an application for conversion could be made is normally the stage when the landlord secures possession from the tenant or the sub-tenant as the case may be.

1978 (1) KLJ 208 - Narasimha Setty K.G. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. wherein it is observed as under: Under Section 44 of the Act lands which fall within the definition in Section 2(18) alone stand transferred to and vest in the Government, Lands which ceased to be agricultural lands by order of alienation passed by the Assistant Commissioner are not agricultural lands within Section 2(18) and the Land Tribunal has so jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 48A and grant occupancy rights in respect of such lands. Failure on the part of the Tribunal to raise the legal presumption under Section 133 Land Revenue Act from the entry in the record of rights vitiates its order.

1983 (2) KLJ 148 - Gopalappa v. Gurushankariah and Ors. was relied upon wherein it was observed as under in paragraphs 9 & 11: As the law stands in the State, the holder of an agricultural land, if he intends using the same for any non-agricultural purpose, should get that land converted for a non-agricultural purpose under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Land Revenue Act). The land in question has been converted long prior to March 1, 1974 as a non-agricultural land. The learned Judge has found, from the material available, that a few houses had also been built on the land after the land was converted. In this connection the observation made by him at paragraph 5 of the order is as follows: In the instant case Exs.B and F are the endorsements given by the Tahsildar about the grant of alienation. According to the endorsement Ex. F the petitioner had paid the conversion fine before 21-11-72. He got the khatha changed into his name. He applied and got licence for construction of houses and that in fact he had constructed four houses. The material on record clearly establish that the land in question was a converted land. ..... The two enactments, namely, the Land Reforms Act and the Land Revenue Act are distinct and different. Permission to convert an agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose has to be obtained from the prescribed authority under the Land Revenue Act. A person aggrieved by grant of such permission has to challenge the same before the appropriate authorities prescribed thereunder. He cannot bypass that remedy and get that order invalidated before the Land Tribunal constituted under the Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal has no power to go behind the statutory order according permission to convert the land for non-agricultural purpose under the Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the finding of the learned Judge that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the claim of the appellant and the provisions of the Act were not attracted to the land in question is correct and calls for no interference. Therefore, the appeal is rejected.

In 2003 (5) Kar.L.J. 13 - Madhav Bandopant Kulkarni and Anr. v. The Land Tribunal, Belgaum and Ors. it is observed as under: The document conclusively establishes that as for as this 15 guntas of land is concerned, that by order dated 31-10-1963, non-agricultural permission was granted; this was a good ten years prior to the amendment of the Land Reforms Act. It is a condition precedent under the Land Reforms Act that the land in question must be agricultural land and then alone that the Tribunal assumes jurisdiction to grant occupancy right.... Since the learned Single Judge was in error in having directed the remand, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified. The earlier part of the order setting aside the Tribunal's order granting occupancy rights is upheld. It necessarily follows by implication that the Form 7 stands rejected. (paras 3 and 7) ............. The revenue authorities are the deciding authorities in matters of granting non-agricultural permission and if the authorities were satisfied and they did accord conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural, then, on and from the date of the order, the lands change complexion. The existence of a few mango trees would not be sufficient to change the nature and character of the land." (para 6)

C. Hanumanthappa S/O. Chinnappa vs State Of Karnataka 2007 (4) KarLJ 394 when once the order of alienation passed by the competent authority under Land Revenue Act comes into existence, the land ceases to be agricultural one for the purpose of Section 2(18) of the Land Reforms Act. In such an event, the land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 48-A to grant occupancy rights in respect of such land. No doubt the entries in the record of rights raises legal presumption under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act but this is a rebuttal presumption and as already stated the tenant was successful in establishing that as on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior to the said date, he was cultivating the said lands as a tenant.

C. Hanumanthappa S/O. Chinnappa vs State Of Karnataka 2007 (4) KarLJ 394 The criteria for granting occupancy rights is occupation of the land by the tenant as on 1.3.1974. In the present case apparently even according to the so called tenant he came into possession of this land only from 1970 onwards. In the year 1968 itself Mr. Marulaiah the auction purchaser cum-owner of the land in question got 7 acres of land converted to non-agricultural purpose. ......... Apparently, the application for occupancy rights came to be filed somewhere in 1979 (extended period) much after coming into force the amended Land Reforms Act of 1974. The amendment to the definition of agriculture at Section 2-A (1) includes dairy farming and poultry farming as well. By virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 91, though proceedings commenced under principal Act, if they were pending as on the date of coining into force of the amended Act, the provisions of principal Act as amended by 1974 Act shall be applicable to such proceedings. ............. Apparently, the land was converted much prior to the amendment of the Land Reforms Act in 1974. The criteria in the present case would be whether the land in question was an agricultural land or not as on the date of application for grant of occupancy rights. A plain reading of definition of agriculture under amended Act of 1974, both dairy farming and poultry farming are classified as agriculture. When the order of conversion is perused in detail, it is noticed the order of conversion obtained by erstwhile owner Marulaiah was also for the purpose of agriculture industries apart from dairy farming and poultry farming. Definitely, agriculture industries does not fall within the ambit of definition of agriculture under Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1974. The order of conversion does not indicate bifurcation of 7 acres of land for the said three uses, i.e. agriculture industry, poultry farming and dairy farming. This would only mean there was no specification or direction, what extent of land should be made use of by the owner for each of the above said three purposes. In other words, the erstwhile owner Marulaiah had the right or option to make use of the 7 acres of land for any one of the above purposes. He could have used the entire 7 acres of land either for agriculture industries or poultry farming or dairy farming or for all the three. Therefore, 7 acres of land out of 10 acres had lost its character of agriculture. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal could consider grant of occupancy rights only to an extent of 3 acres.

No comments: