In Brief
Nadakerappa, a tenant, sought occupancy rights to agricultural land under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Although the landlord's name was omitted from his initial application form, the Land Tribunal granted him occupancy rights in 1982. The landlord challenged this 13 years later. The Supreme Court held that the grant was valid: the tenant qualified as a protected tenant with over 12 years of continuous cultivation, and defects in the application form do not vitiate substantive rights under this beneficent legislation. The landlord's long delay and acquiescence while engaging in multiple proceedings elsewhere estops him from now challenging finality. The Court set aside the High Court's remand order, finding it lacked adequate justification, and restored the Single Judge's dismissal on grounds of delay and laches.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[ { "raw_citation": "see Writ Petition No.12461/1984", "case_name": "Mariyappa (petitioner) v. State of Karnataka / Land Tribunal", "paragraph": "4", "treatment": "referred" }, { "raw_citation": "see Writ Petition No.27230/2002 and Writ Petition No.23034/2002", "case_name": "Pillamma and children v. Land Tribunal and Nadakerappa", "paragraph": "2", "treatment": "referred" }, { "raw_citation": "see LRA No.179/1986", "case_name": "Mariyappa (appellant) v. Land Tribunal and Nadakerappa", "paragraph": "4", "treatment": "referred" }, { "raw_citation": "see Order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982", "case_name": "Nadakerappa (applicant) v. Land Tribunal / Tenant application", "paragraph": "3", "treatment": "referred" }, { "raw_citation": "see MFA No.319/1993", "case_name": "Land owners v. Nadakerappa", "paragraph": "6", "treatment": "referred" }, { "raw_citation": "see RFA No.1134/2003", "case_name": "Land owners v. Nadakerappa", "paragraph": "6", "treatment": "referred" }, { "raw_citation": "see Writ Petition No.20187/2002", "case_name": "Nadakerappa v. Special Deputy Commissioner and others", "paragraph": "5", "treatment": "referred" }, { "raw_citation": "see Writ Appeal No.3971/2002", "case_name": "Mariyappa (appellant) v. Nadakerappa and others", "paragraph": "5", "treatment": "referred" }, { "raw_citation": "see O.S. No.7459/1991", "case_name": "Nadakerappa v. Land owners", "paragraph": "6", "treatment": "referred" }, { "raw_citation": "see R.A. No.196/1992-93", "case_name": "Mariyappa v. Tahsildar", "paragraph": "5", "treatment": "referred" }, { "raw_citation": "see Revision Petition No.118/2001", "case_name": "Mariyappa (by legal representatives) v. Special Deputy Commissioner", "paragraph": "5", "treatment": "referred" }, { "raw_citation": "see Writ Appeal No.1563 of 2007 connected with Writ Appeal No.1950 of 2007", "case_name": "Nadakerappa (legal representatives) v. Pillamma (legal representatives)", "cited_year": "2007", "paragraph": "1", "treatment": "referred" } ]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.