The High Court Verdict on Jamma Lands
as sent by K. Sarojini Muthanna , Advocate is reproduced below
Finally, Jamma Land holders have some relief in sight. A Writ petition running for the past 10 years challenging the controversial administrative usage by the revenue department of a 2011 Amendment to the Karnataka Land Regulation Act 1964 has been decided by the High court of Karnataka.
Section 2 (20) and Section 80 of The Karnataka Land Revenue Act were amended by The Karnataka Land Revenue (third Amendment) Act 2011. The amended sections have been produced below:
a. Amendment of section 2.- In the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 12 of 1964), (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act), in section 2, in clause (20), in the explanation for the words “land-holder in the Coorg District” the words “land-holder including Jamma bane privileged and un-privileged, umbli land in the Coorg District” shall be substituted 3.
b.Amendment of section 80.- In section 80 of the Principal Act, for the words “wherever situate” the words “wherever situate, including un-alienated Jammabane land held by the occupant in Coorg District” shall be substituted.
The same brought about conflict and confusion when the officials of the revenue Department started to ask members of families with Jamma property to produce partition deed and 11 E sketch in order to have the names of the next generation legal heirs included in the RTC documents.
Dispute arose when members of joint family property were being forced to partition their property due to mechanical implementation of the amendment.
The petitioners Brigadier Maletira Devaiah and others represented by Advocate K Sarojini Muthanna approached the court to challenge the partition and stop the forced partition being demanded by the revenue officials to make entries of family members and legal heirs in the RTC.
Though the hon’ble high Court was pleased to dismiss WP No.5534/2013 the case filed by Brig. Maletira Devaiah & 42 or by its order dt.25.7.24, The court held on the basis of the governments affidavit that amendment confers complete ownership rights of the property on the occupants which is beneficial in nature. The court held that by the recognition of full occupancy rights in terms of Sub-section (20) of section2 the entire family would become the owner of the property.
While dismissing the writ petitionit has also held that the question of producing partition deeds and 11Emaps to include the names of the legal heirs in the revenue records will not arise. But the legal heirs will have to produce their family tree or proof of being a member of the family. The court has directed the District Revenue Authority to issue a circular giving clarity and stating in detail the due process for entering the names of the legal heirs of joint families into the revenue records vis-à-vis the amendment to subsection 20 of section 2 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act1964 within 30days of receipt of the order.
In so far as partition or division is concerned it is a matter left to the sole discretion of family members. Each member of the family has a right in respect of the property. If a member sought for a partition the same would be contested on the basis of Sn145 of the Coorg Land Revenue Regulations or any other grounds which may be available to the parties. The court held that by virtue of the amendment to Sn20(2) and Sn80 neither of these sections would explicitly or implicitly permit partition.
If a family member wishes to partition suitable arrangements could be made in so far as Kaimada and Thutengala are concerned. That will be a private arrangement between the parties the amendment cannot be questioned in this regard. The amendment does not force anyone to partition the Thutengala and Kaimada.
The court also held that the amendment confers the right to the trees on the bane lands on the occupant.
The case filed by Brig. Maletira Devaiah and 42 others sought,
- a) The quashing of the Impugned The Karnataka Land Revenue (third Amendment) Act 2011 as it would harm the customs and traditions of Kodavas.
b)The petitioners were also aggrieved by the revenue authorities asking the family members to produce a partition deed and 11E maps in order to include the names of legal heirs in the RTC. They also sought for a direction to the authorities not to insist on partition deed to include their names as occupants in the revenue records.
c).The petitioners also sought to administer the customary laws applicable to the privileged tenures falling under Chapter VI Rule 164 of the Rules under the Coorg Land Revenue Regulations 1899 including Jamma Wargs and Bane lands irrespective of whether it is alienated or unalienated,privileged or unprivileged in Kodagu District.
d).For a declaration that the holder of Jamma bane whether alienated unalienated privileged or unprivileged being part of their sannads as owner occupants.
e).And to Restrain the respondent revenue authorities from mutating Jamma Bane lands whether it is alienated or unalienated, privileged or unprivileged in Kodagu District falling under Chapter VI Rule 164of the Rules under Coorg Land Revenue Regulations 1899 in the name of the purchaser.
The court held that the amendment had nothing to do with customary laws but only about a tenure. The amendment has in no way violated any customary practice usage or tradition of the Kodava race.
The court held that the state has not sought to interfere with any customs practices or traditions of Kodavas. The property earlier stood in the name of the elder of the family known as Pattedara with the name of other members of the family also entered into the revenue records thus evidencing right title and interest of not only the Pattedara but also of all the joint family members. The same shall continue to be so. They can either continue to be joint family holders or partition as per their choice. There is no compulsion for a partition by virtue of the impugned amendment. The property continues to be in the name of the family, names of the members of the family would also be added to the revenue records.
The court held that as a consequence of the amendment thereof full assessment is required to be paid including unalienated Jamma bane lands as regards which occupancy rights have been recognized under sub-section Sn. 20(2) of KLR Act. The distinction between privileged and unprivileged tenures has also been removed by this amendment. The court opined that the distinction between alienated and unalienated will also not endure to the benefit of the petitioners.
The order also said, against the petitioners claim that partition would confer on individual members which would lead to the breaking down of the Kodava family system and their customs or commercialization which would have an adverse impact on the environmentally sensitive region The court opined that the land use must be regulated by the appropriate statute applicable and any permission, sanctions or objections which are required for the utilization of the land for commercial purposes, which may have an impact on the environment should be adhered to and complied with by all member of the family. The custom or a usage among the Kodava race not to partition the property is a personal property right of the members of the Kodava race.
The right of occupancy over Jamma Bane land in Coorg extend to other Jamma holders belonging to any other community.
It is for the members of the family to preserve the rich heritage and culture of the family and Kodava race.
The court was generous in commending the Kodava race for their contribution to the armed forces. “It would however be required for me to recognize and take cognizance of the glorious service rendered by members of the Kodava race for having voluntarily rendered such glorious service and protecting the motherland.”
