Jamnalal Bajaj Seva Trust v. Secy.

State of Karnataka
W.P. No. 55344/2017

FACTS
Petitioner is a Charitable Institution that acquired land in 1958.
 Aims to carry out social welfare and philanthropic activities and has connections with
Gandhian organisations
 With the passage of the KLA, 1961, the land held by the trust came under the purview
of the Act and the trust filed a declaration under S.66 with the Land Tribunal.
 The Land Tribunal took over the proceedings and was directed to hold an enquiry on
the land and holding.
 Later, in 2001, the trust filed an application before the land tribunal to drop the
proceedings as the land was not an agricultural land.
 However, the tribunal instead held some 213 acres 20 guntas of land to be excess in
2010. On two more occasions after that (2015 and 2017), the tribunal spelt out
different values of what was excess land.
 Then, in 2014, the trust filed a memo in the Tribunal to declare the land as an urban
land. However, similar to what happened in 2010, Tribunal did not consider the
Tehsildar Report and again declared land to be excess. This order was subsequently
set aside by the HC which directed the tribunal to consider the Tehsildar report and
then determine the nature and extent of land. Even after that, the trust, this time held
out more excess land than what was mentioned in the report.
 Despite the Court’s remand for fresh consideration of the Tehsildar report, the
Tribunal refused to consider the same stressing on the fact that the land held was
excess and was agricultural land based on revenue and sale records.
 Due to the 2017 order of the tribunal, the revenue authorities took possession of the
alleged excess land and hence the petitioners have approached the HC.

ISSUES: 1) Whether the land in question is an agricultural land?

2) Whether petitioners are entitled to get back the possession of the seized land?

ARGUMENTS
 APPELLANTS: The land in question is not an agricultural land. It was acquired by
the trust for social welfare and philanthropic activities. Evidence is shown through the
way of application to the Collector of Wardha who sanctioned lands for the petitioner.
 However, under a misconception, the trust has filed for a declaration under S.66 but to
date, it has not been used for any agricultural purpose.
 Land Tribunal has incorrectly passed three orders all of which have different values of
lands declared as excess thereby indicating no application of mind on the Tribunal’s
part.
  The Tribunal has also violated the Court remand order for reconsideration.
 Relied on the case of K. Kunhambu v. Chandramma, which concerned the leasing of
industrial land to the lessee but was being used for non-agricultural purposes only.
This led the Court to apply the exclusionary clause under S.2 (18) and remove the
land from the purview of the said section. The Court held that conversion of land for
non-agricultural purposes under Land Revenue Act cannot always be used as a
standalone means to deny the owner the benefits accruing under the exclusionary
clause to S.2 (18).
 Relied on the case of ITC Ltd. v. Blue Coast Hotels, where the Court held that just
because revenue records show a land to be agricultural, does not automatically make
it an agricultural land even if the application for conversion in pending.

 RESPONDENTS: The sale deed shows that the land acquired was an agricultural
land and the revenue records also show that the land was an agricultural land.
 The trust has on its own volition filed a declaration under S.66 and now it is estopped
from taking any action otherwise (claiming that the land falls under an urban
agglomeration under the repealed ULC Act).
 Cannot approbate and reprobate
 Using agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes does not amount to a change in
the nature of the land. Even if the land is declared an urban area, that would still not
make it a non-agricultural land unless the Land Revenue Act permits such conversion.

LAW: 1) Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

 S.2(18) defines land and says that such land is exclusive of any land used for non-
agricultural purposes.
 S. 67(7)(a): No charitable, educational or religious institution to hold more than 20
units of land. Further, they can hold land only if the income from the land is
appropriated solely for the institution.
 S. 66: Landholders will file a Declaration to the Tehsildar on particulars of the land,
family members, etc. Applicable only to agricultural land.
 S.79: Tehsildar to manage the surplus land until they are disposed of under S.77
 S.79B: This section empowers the Deputy Commissioner to declare a land to be taken
over by the state government if the holders of the land fall within the prohibited
category of owners under the section. This prohibition is inclusive of charitable
institutions as well.

JUDGMENT: The court after carefully considering the issue at hand has framed three issues
to be determined:
1) Nature and extent of land to be used
2) The purpose for which the land was bought
The Court observed that the matter has been in litigation for almost 50 years and it would be
unwise to remit it for a fresh reconsideration to the Tribunal considering that the matter has
been remitted previously also.
After carefully examining the evidence, documents and reports prepared by the surveyors and
Tehsildar, the Court concluded that the land in question is not cultivable and will not fall
under the definition of ‘land’ as per the Land Reforms Act.
It disagreed with the AAG on the application of the ratio in Bhagwat Sharan v.
Purushottham and opined that the case concerned the dispute of private parties contending
the existence of a HUF. However, in the present case, the matter involves the state and a
private person where the state essentially is in a dominant position. The position taken in the
Kunhambu case was accepted by the Court as it presented similar circumstances to the
present case where the land was used for non-agricultural purposes right from the beginning.
The Court observed that despite the remand of the matter to the Tribunal based on the
Tehsildar report showing non-cultivable land, the Tribunal has refused to consider the report.
Therefore, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the Tribunal’s 2017 order, holding that
the trust land is not agricultural land within the meaning of S. 2(18) of the Land Reforms Act.
It ordered the Respondents to deliver the land taken to the trust.