A perusal of the Section shows that all lands in possession of the tenants, including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption had been made or issued, stood transferred to and vested in the State Government.
The respondents are alleged to have initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the Act for resumption of half of the land for their personal cultivation in the year 1967.
Notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate issued by any Court or authority directing or specifying the lands which may be resumed or in any companytract, grant or other instrument or in any law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the following companysequences shall ensue, namely a all rights, title and interest vesting in the owners of such lands and other persons interested in such lands shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances b xx xx xx xx c xx xx xx xx d xx xx xx xx e xx xx xx xx f the land owner, landlord and every person interested in the land whose rights have vested in the State Government under clause a , shall be entitled only to receive the amount from the State Government as provided in this Chapter g permanent tenants, protected tenants and other tenants holding such lands shall, as against the State Government, be entitled only to such rights or privileges and shall be subject to such companyditions as are provided by or under this Act and any other rights and privileges which may have occurred to them in such lands before the date of vesting against the landlord or other person shall cease and determine and shall number be enforceable against the State Government.
For rejecting the claim of the appellant, the Tribunal and the High Court relied upon the orders passed in favour of the landlords under Section 14 of the Act and did number companysider the effect of Section 44 of the Act, which so far as relevant for our purposes, reads 44.
It is also number disputed that despite orders in their favour, the respondents landlords did number take the possession in execution of the orders of resumption passed.
But there was also order passed by the Tribunal in RCC 348/67 dated 15.10.1968 according to which the landlord was allowed to resume 50 of the land i.e. 2 acres 23 guntas.
It was found that as the appellant himself had agreed to forego his claim to the extent to 50 of the land in his occupation, he companyld number invoke the subsequent amendment made in the Act vide Section 44.
It is number in dispute that the appellants father Shri Sadappa was a tenant of the land bearing Survey JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ No.14 measuring 5 acres 6 guntas situated at Hulaganakatti JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Village, Kalaghatgi Taluk since about 50 years.
The rights, privileges and interests vesting in the owner of such lands stood extinguished and vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances.
This was number executed because according to the landlord, he had filed an appeal to resume the entire land and because he was sick.
His claim was negatived both by the authorities under the Act and the High Court allegedly on the ground that he had made a companycession in proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Act for resumption of land by the landlord.
The application filed by the landlords was partly allowed on 15.10.1968 in RLC No.348 of 1967 permitting them to resume 2 acres 23 guntas of the land.
Vesting of land in the State Government.
Instead they preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with a prayer for resumption of the entire extent of land.
Such owners were held entitled only to receive the amount from the State Government as provided in Chapter III of the Act.
The Tribunal in its order dated 22nd March, 1979 numbered The records show the applicants father and then the applicants name as protected tenant and cultivator since 1960 onwards.
There does number appear to be any dispute regarding the fact that despite passing of order of resumption in their favour, the respondents landlords had number taken the possession of the land which companytinued to be in possession of the appellants tenants.
After 1974 he companyld number take any action to resume the land.During the pendency of the appeal, the Act was amended on 1.3.1974 by Act No.1 of 1974 by which Section 14 was omitted and Section 44 providing vesting of land in Government was inserted.
1 All lands held by or in the possession of tenants including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption is made or issued immediately prior to the date of companymencement of the Amendment Act, other than lands held by them under leases permitted under Section 5 shall, with effect on and from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in the State Government.
SETHI,J. LITTTTTTTJ Invoking the provisions of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 hereinafter called as the Act , the original appellant tenant approached the authorities under the Act for companyferment of occupancy rights on the ground of being in possession on the relevant date.
