GUDDADAARAKERE BESAYA SAHAKARA SANGH Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL SHIMOGA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner society, which is a Joint Farming Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society) registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 has challenged the validity of the order dated 19-4-1979 passed by the Land Tribunal, Shimoga, in No. LRF (T) 1676-77 (GRIP) rejecting the application led by it in Form No. 7 under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act).

(2.) The Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner-Society came into possession of the land in question on 7-9-74 in pursuance of an agreement of We dated 7-9-1974, therefore,, it is not entitled to be registered as an occupant. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the ground mentioned in the order is not correct in view of the fact that the agreement of sale was not of 7-9-1974, but was of the yeas 1962; but that may not make any difference for the purpose of determining the nature of possession of the petitioner-society of , the land in question. Though the Society has made an application in Form No. 7 in respect of the land in question belonging to the 3rd respondent, there is no provision in the Act enabling the society to get itself registered as an occupant of the land in question. Further, in this case, it is not in dispute that the Society came in possession of the land in question in pursuance of the agreement of sale during the year 1962 and continued to remain in possession, of the same under the agreement of sale only. Thus, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the 3rd respondent and the petitioner-Society and the possession of the petitioner Society being in pursuance of the agreement of sale was that of an intending purchaser and not as a tenant.

(3.) The contention of Sri Subramanya Jois, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, was that in view of the coming into force of the Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1974, the sale deed could not be got executed in pursuance of an agreement of sale and as the possession of A he petitioner-Society of the land in question: being lawful, it became deemed tenant under Sec. 4 of the Act and as such it wag entitled to be registered as an occupant of the land in question. This contention cannot be accepted. Under Sec. 45 of the Act, a tenant is to be registered as an occupant only on establishing the fact that he was a tenant of the land and has been cultivating the same personally. The Act also further defines the expression" to cultivate personally" under Sec. 2 (11) of the Act. As per the said definition" to cultivate personally" means to cultivate land on one's own account: