Smt. Juliebai W/O Blaise Fernandes Represented by Her Gpa Holder Sri Narayan Keshav Prabhu Vs. the Tahsildar, - Court Judgment

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

1. The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No. 3/1 measuring 7 guntas 8 annas of Honnavar, U.K. District. The 3rd respondent had made an application, seeking grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 3 guntas of land from out of the aforesaid 7 guntas 8 annas of land. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 17.9.1985 rejected the application on the ground that the land in question is not an agricultural land. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.20771/1993 This Court by order dated 22.11.1996 rejected the said writ petition holding that the land in question is situated within the city municipal limits of Honnavar and that it is not a 'land' as defined under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The 3rd respondent filed an appeal challenging the said order before this Court in WA. No. 92/1997, which was also dismissed on 21.09.1998. The Division Bench has held thus:

10. The Legislature made a distinction between an agricultural land and a non-agricultural land. The said Legislature enacted The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, whereas, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is enacted by the Parliament. Thus, there is a distinction between an agricultural land and an urban land. By reading the provisions of the above stated Karnataka land Reforms Act, it is manifest that the occupancy certificate can be granted only for the agricultural lands or the lands which can be used for agriculture, but not for the lands which are urban or urban nature or can be used for house sites for construction of houses or lands which are appurtenant to houses. The land in urban area and municipal area is deemed to be a vacant land as per Section 2(g) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976. Therefore, the disputed land is not an agricultural land as it is surrounded by a house. It is in the nature of urban land as it is situated within the municipal limits of Honnavar Municipality. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge rightly rejected the request for grant of occupancy certificate.

11. There is no dispute that the occupancy certificate can be granted where an agricultural land is situated within the Municipal limits or urban area if it still continues to be an agricultural land. But such an instance is absent in the present case. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the grant of occupancy certificate.

2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, U.K. District, Karwar, Under Section 130 of the KLR Act for summary eviction of the 3rd respondent from the land in question. The said application was transferred to the Tahsildar, Honnavar, who has passed an order dated 22.2.1999 at Annexure-E, rejecting the application on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. An appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, U.K. District, as per Annexure-F dated 1.7.1999. The petitioner has questioned the validity of the order of the Tahsildar at Annexure-E and the order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-F in this writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

4. The Land Tribunal in its impugned order has clearly held that the land in question is not an agricultural land and therefore, the occupancy rights in respect of the said land cannot be granted in favour of the 3rd respondent The writ, petition challenging the said order was dismissed which was confirmed in writ appeal. In the writ appeal this Court has held that the land in question is not an agricultural land as it is surrounded by a house and it is in the nature of urban land situated within the municipal limits of Honnavar Municipality.

5 Sub-Section (18) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act defines 'land' as follows:

2(18). 'Land' means agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house site or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes.

Section 130 of the Act provides for summary eviction of persons unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of land. It is as under:

130. Summary Eviction

Any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land -

(a) the transfer or acquisition of which either by the act of parties or by the operation of law, is invalid under the provisions of this Act, or

(b) to the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under the provisions of this Act and the said provisions do not provide for the manner of eviction of such person,

may be summarily evicted from such land by the Tahsildar after such inquiry as he deems fit and the Tahsildar may make such orders as regards the disposal of such land as he deems fit.

6. As noticed above, the expression 'land' employed in Section 130 of the Act has been statutorily defined in Sub-section (18) of Section 2 of the Act. It is an indisputable canon of construction that when an expression is defined in the statute, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, the expression has to be construed as having the same meaning assigned to it in the dictionary clause of the statute. The object of such a definition is to avoid the necessity of frequent repetitions in describing all the subject matter to which the word or expression so defined is intended to apply. When the word 'means' is used in a definition clause, it defines precisely to lay down what the expression shall usually mean. It the definition of 'land' is read into Section 130 of the Act, summary eviction of any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land as defined under the Act can alone be ordered, provided the occupation of the 'land' is wrongful on account of one or other provisions of the Act. When the land in question does not come within the purview of 'land' as defined under the Act, question of eviction of the petitioner from the said land by the Tahsildar in exercise of the power vested in him under Section 130 of the Act does not arise.

7. In Abbubakar Beary v. Tahsildar : ILR1992KAR1779 , a similar question arose for consideration. In the said case, the petitioner filed an application under Section 38 of the Act for registration of ownership of a dwelling house and land appurtenant. The application came to be dismissed. The owner filed an application for summary eviction of the petitioner. The Tahsildar ordered the eviction of the petitioner. This Court held that in order to invoke Section 130 of the Act, the use and occupation of the land should be wrongful on account of one or other provisions of the Act. The possession of the land by the petitioner may be wrongful but it is not on account of any provision of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 130 cannot be invoked. It has been further held that the remedy is only by way of civil suit.

8. In the light of the above discussions, I am of the view that the first respondent is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking summary eviction from the land in question under Section 130 of the Act. The 2nd respondent is also justified in dismissing the appeal challenging the order of the 1st respondent. There is no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to recover possession of the property in question from the respondent No. 3 in accordance with law. No costs.