Statutory possession of agricultural land can trigger declaration duties and vesting despite expired lease and mistaken statutory citation.

A company in continued statutory possession of agricultural land after expiry of a lease was treated as a holder required to file a declaration under Section 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, because the tenancy scheme preserved juridical possession for agrarian reform purposes. On that basis, inquiry and vesting under Section 79-B(3) were held valid. The mistaken reference to Section 66 in the declaration did not defeat the proceedings, since the substance of the filing clearly attracted Section 79-B and the jurisdiction of the authorities was unaffected. The challenge to the vesting order therefore failed, and the State's action under the land reforms statute was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a company in possession of agricultural land after expiry of the lease, but protected by the statutory scheme, remained a holder liable to furnish a declaration under Section 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and whether the land could vest in the State under Section 79-B(3). (ii) Whether filing the declaration by referring to Section 66 instead of Section 79-B disabled the statutory authorities from acting under Section 79-B(3).

Issue (i): Whether a company in possession of agricultural land after expiry of the lease, but protected by the statutory scheme, remained a holder liable to furnish a declaration under Section 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and whether the land could vest in the State under Section 79-B(3).

Analysis: The statutory scheme was treated as an agrarian reform measure providing for ceiling on holdings, prohibition on certain entities holding land, and conferment of ownership in the manner provided by the Act. The provisions on tenancy and continued possession were read together with the prohibition in Section 79-B. Although the lease had expired, Section 6 was treated as preserving the tenancy and therefore the company's possession as juridical possession rather than unlawful possession for the purposes of the Act. On that construction, the company was the person required by Section 79-B(2) to make the declaration, and the inquiry and notification under Section 79-B(3) were within jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The company remained liable to furnish the declaration under Section 79-B, and the vesting under Section 79-B(3) was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether filing the declaration by referring to Section 66 instead of Section 79-B disabled the statutory authorities from acting under Section 79-B(3).

Analysis: The wrong recital of a provision was held not to affect the authority of the statutory functionaries where the substance of the declaration clearly attracted the correct provision and the proceedings were otherwise referable to the scheme of Section 79-B. The jurisdiction of the Tehsildar and Deputy Commissioner was therefore not defeated by the mistaken citation.

Conclusion: The misquotation of Section 66 did not invalidate the proceedings under Section 79-B(3).

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the vesting order failed, the High Court's view was reversed, and the State's action under the land reforms statute was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, continued statutory possession after expiry of lease may constitute juridical possession for the purposes of Section 79-B, and a mistaken statutory citation does not vitiate proceedings when the substance of the declaration falls within the correct provision.

---