SUBHAKAR AND ORS. versus HARIDEESH KUMAR AND ORS.

SUBHAKAR AND ORS. versus HARIDEESH KUMAR AND ORS.

Punja land in Dakshina Kannada district, not fit for cultivation and only growing grass naturally, is not agricultural land under Section 2(18) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. No evidence was led to show the land was being used for agricultural purposes.

Parties
Appellants: Subhakar and others; Respondents: Harideesh Kumar and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of Agricultural Land, Occupancy Rights, Punja Land Classification
Land Reforms Definition of Agricultural Land Occupancy Rights Punja Land Classification

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Subhakar and others

Appellants

Harideesh Kumar and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Punja land qualifies as agricultural land under Section 2(18) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
  2. 2 Whether appellants are entitled to occupancy rights for the disputed land

Ratio Decidendi

Punja land in Dakshina Kannada district, not fit for cultivation and only growing grass naturally, is not agricultural land under Section 2(18) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. No evidence was led to show the land was being used for agricultural purposes.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs