S. Devaraj Vs. Patel Nanjegowda

S. Devaraj vs Patel Nanjegowda

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Karnataka Decided Jun 08, 1972

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/377264

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/377264
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: V.S. Malimath, J.
Decided On: Jun 08, 1972
Case Number: Civil Revn. Petn. No. 601 of 1972
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LABOUR & SERVICES. Dismissal from service: [Subhash B. Adi, J] Dispensation of Disciplinary enquiry - Electricity (Supply) Act (54 of 1948) Section 79 and Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Conduct, Discipline, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1987, Regulation 14 Petitioner alleged to have been involved in theft...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962 - Sections 14, 14(1), 15, 15(1), 16, 16(9), 17, 18, 19, 20, 41 and 58(1); Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Sections 15

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. Devaraj

Advocate H.S. Shankaranarayana, Adv.

Respondent

Patel Nanjegowda

Advocate S. Pramila and ;A.R. Nagarajan, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962 - Sections 14, 14(1), 15, 15(1), 16, 16(9), 17, 18, 19, 20, 41 and 58(1); Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Sections 15
Reported In: AIR1972Kant350; AIR1972Mys350; (1972)2MysLJ141

Excerpt

- labour & services. dismissal from service: [subhash b. adi, j] dispensation of disciplinary enquiry - electricity (supply) act (54 of 1948) section 79 and karnataka electricity board employees (conduct, discipline, control & appeal) regulations, 1987, regulation 14 petitioner alleged to have been involved in theft - criminal complaint also lodged in this regard - however, based on same evidence criminal court held that charge of theft is not proved and also recovery is not proved by prosecution - disciplinary authority relying upon admission of criminal charge by petitioner before investigation officer and in charge sheet, passing order of dismissal held, not proper, particularly, when enquiry was dispensed with and petitioner had no opportunity before disciplinary authority. further, statement made before investigating officer cannot be treated as an admission under section 27 of evidence act. - the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove thai the income from the lands sought to be resumed forms the principal source of his income for his maintenance. the effect of sub-section (2) clearly is that the provision of section 16 will apply mutatis mutandis subject only to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the act. 3. the court below was therefore, right in dismissing the application of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to prove that the income from the lands sought to 'be resumed is the principal source of his income for his maintenance, as required by section 16 (9) of the act......section 16 is one of the provisions that regulates the proceedings pertaining to resumption of lands by soldiers and seamen. sub-section (2) of section 15 states that the provisions mentioned therein including section 16 shall regulate the proceedings pertaining to resumption of lands by soldiers and seamen. but, what was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that because the petitioner happens to be a soldier, he is not required to establish that the income from the lands sought to be resumed forms the principal source of his income for his maintenance. the effect of sub-section (2) clearly is that the provision of section 16 will apply mutatis mutandis subject only to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the act. sub-section (1) of section 15 is not in any wav inconsistent with sub-section (9) of section 16 of the act. as there is no inconsistency between sub-section (1) of section 15 and sub-section (9) of section 16, it is clear that the soldiers end seamen, who seek resumption of lands, have to satisfy the requirements of sub-section (9) of section 16 of the act.3. the court below was therefore, right in dismissing the application of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to prove that the income from the lands sought to 'be resumed is the principal source of his income for his maintenance, as required by section 16 (9) of the act.4. for the reasons stated above, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

V.S. Malimath, J.

1. This is a landlord's revision petition against the order passed by the First Additional District Judge. Bangalore in L. R. Appeal No. 18 of 1971, affirming the order passed bv the Mun-siff, Doddaballapur in R. L. C. No. 1 of 1970. The petitioner is the landlord of the lands in question. He filed a statement under Section 14 read with Section 15 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 for resumption of the lands from his tenant, the respondent. The Court of first instance dismissed. the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove thai the income from the lands sought to be resumed forms the principal source of his income for his maintenance. That order has been affirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge. Hence this revision petition.

2. Shri H. S. Shankaranarayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner being a soldier, he is not required to satisfy the requirement of Section 16 (9) of the Act. Both the Courts have accepted the petitioner's case that he is a soldier. I have, therefore, to proceed on the basis that the petitioner is a soldier. Section 15 of the Act is a special provision dealing with resumption of lands by soldiers and seamen. The same reads as follows :--

'(Resumption of land by soldiers and seamen)

(1) Where the landlord is a soldier or seaman--

(a) he shall be entitled to resume land to the extent of the ceiling area whether his tenant is a protected tenant or not;

(b) he shall be liable to file the statement under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 and his tenant shall be competent to make an application under subsection (1) of Section 58'.

(i) in the case of a soldier in service in the Armed Forces of the Union, within one yearfrom the date on which he is released from the Armed Forces or is sent to the Reserve;

(ii) in the case of the father, mother, spouse, child or grand child of a soldier, within one yearfrom the date of the death of such soldier;

(iii) in the case of a seaman, within one yearfrom the date on which he ceased to be a seaman.

(c) after a certificate is issued in respect of any land under Section (1) of Section 14. he shall be granted possession of such land as soon as may be after making an application for such possession, but the tenant shall not be dispossessed before the crops, if any. grown on such land by such tenants are harvested.

(2) In respect of any land of which the landlord is a soldier or seaman, the provisions of Sections 14, 16, 17. 18, 19, 20 and 41 and chapter 111 shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1). be applicable mutatis mutandis.' Sub-section (2) of Section 15 specifically states that Section 16 is one of the provisions that regulates the proceedings pertaining to resumption of lands by soldiers and seamen. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 states that the provisions mentioned therein including Section 16 shall regulate the proceedings pertaining to resumption of lands by soldiers and seamen. But, what was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that because the petitioner happens to be a soldier, he is not required to establish that the income from the lands sought to be resumed forms the principal source of his income for his maintenance. The effect of Sub-section (2) clearly is that the provision of Section 16 will apply mutatis mutandis subject only to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 is not in any wav inconsistent with Sub-section (9) of Section 16 of the Act. As there is no inconsistency between Sub-section (1) of Section 15 and Sub-section (9) of Section 16, it is clear that the soldiers end seamen, who seek resumption of lands, have to satisfy the requirements of Sub-section (9) of Section 16 of the Act.

3. The Court below was therefore, right in dismissing the application of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to prove that the income from the lands sought to 'be resumed is the principal source of his income for his maintenance, as required by Section 16 (9) of the Act.

4. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1972 Same Parties S. Devaraj vs Patel Nanjegowda Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge V.S. Malimath, J. Acts & Sections Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962 - Sections 14, 14(1), 15, 15(1)...

Tenancy