1998 (2) TMI 598 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:

1. Whether the provisions of Sections 45 and 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, dealing with the period of limitation for filing an application for grant of occupancy right, are clear and unambiguous.
2. Whether the appellant can rely on the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961, and related rules to contend that the limitation period under Section 48-A of the Land Reforms Act, 1961, does not commence until the rights of re-grant under the Village Officers Abolition Act are finally decided.

Summary:

Issue 1:

The Supreme Court examined whether the language in Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, fixing a period of limitation is clear and unambiguous. The court noted that the amended Section 48-A, which was introduced by Act 1 of 1979, fixed a specific date for the filing of applications by tenants, i.e., six months from 1.1.1979, expiring on 30.6.1979. The court emphasized that the legislature had clearly intended to do away with the power of condonation of delay by deleting the proviso that allowed for such condonation in the unamended Section 48-A. The court held that the language of Section 48-A is not ambiguous and does not admit of any liberal interpretation to extend the period of limitation. Therefore, the application filed by the 1st appellant on 7.3.1984 was barred by Section 48-A of the Land Reforms Act, 1961, and the High Court was right in dismissing the said application.

Issue 2:

The court addressed the alternative contention that the limitation for filing an application under Section 45 did not start until the proceedings under the Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961, as to re-grant, became final. The court noted that the appellant could have filed the application within the prescribed period by mentioning the dispute regarding the landlords in the application and relying on the provision for public notice under Section 48-A read with Rule 19(1). The court further held that the lands resumed under Section 4(3) of the Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, did not become "government lands" and hence were not excluded from the purview of the Land Reforms Act, 1961, under Section 107. The court rejected the appellant's contention that the limitation period under Section 48-A did not commence until the rights of re-grant were finally decided. The court also clarified that the amendment to Section 126 by Act 1 of 1979 was classificatory and declaratory, indicating that the Land Reforms Act, 1961, was always applicable to lands attached to village offices after the abolition of the said offices.

For these reasons, the appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.