In Brief
In this land reforms case, the appellant challenged a High Court order that set aside a Land Tribunal's decision granting her predecessor occupancy rights over 3.07 acres of Punja (non-cultivated) land. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to examine the statutory definition of 'agricultural land' under Section 2(18) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which broadly includes land capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto (such as pasture or woodland). The Court found the Tribunal had made categorical findings that the tenant possessed the land as on the appointed date and that it was necessary for cultivating adjacent leased land. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.