Mallappa Vs. Land Tribunal

karnataka land reforms act, 1961 (karnataka act no. 10 of 1962) - section 6 - no tenancy shall be terminated merely on ground period fixed has expired. - land acquisition act (1 of 1894)section 6 (1) :[p.d. dinakaran cj & v.g. sabhahit,j] challenge as to acquisition of land - quashing of section 6(1) notification - direction to hear the petitioners as required under section 5a of the land acquisition act review petition by the state after a lapse of 2590 days dismissal of appealed against the order passes in writ petition and review petition -delay of 3047 days held, sufficient cause for condoning the delay has not been made out. even on merits, the objections filed by the petitioners has not been considered and the single judge was justified in remanding the matter to the respondents to proceed with the acquisition proceedings from the stage of hearing the petitioners under section 5a of the act. writ appeal dismissed on the ground of delay and also on merit. limitation act (36 of 1963)section 5 :[p.d. dinakaran cj & v.g. sabhahit, j] condonation of delay- sufficient cause - consideration of challenge as to acquisition of land - quashing of section 6(1) notification - direction to hear the petitioners as required under section 5a of the land acquisition act review petition by the state after a lapse of 2590 days dismissal of appealed against the order passes in writ petition and review petition -delay of 3047 days held, sufficient cause for condoning the delay has not been made out. even on merits, the objections filed by the petitioners has not been considered and the single judge was justified in remanding the matter to the respondents to proceed with the acquisition proceedings from the stage of hearing the petitioners under section 5a of the act. writ appeal dismissed on the ground of delay and also on merit. .....that on account of the expiry of the period of five years of the lease, the relationship of the landlord and the tenant do not exist between the parties. but, this is a wrong interpretation of law done by the tribunal. as per section 6 of the karnataka land reforms act, no tenancy of any land shall be terminated merely on the ground that the period fixed for its duration whether by agreement or otherwise has expired. this court has also interpreted this section in the case of gurusiddaiah chandrashekhariah v. land tribunal, bagalkot, 1979 (2) klj 176 as follows :'where a lease was for five years on an yearly basis, merely because the rentals amount for the period of five years had been paid in advance and there was a recital that after the expiry of five years possession of the land must be given to the landlord, it cannot be said that the same have the effect of converting the lease into a mortgage. in view of section 6 of the act, the recital to surrender possession after five years can have no consequence.'in view of this position of law, the tribunal has erred in not granting occupancy rights to the petitioner.4. hence, i proceed to pass the following order :the impugned order is set aside and form no. 7 filed by the petitioner claiming occupancy rights in the suit schedule property is allowed.