CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1867 of 2008 PETITIONER: Venkateshappa RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1867 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.25804 of 2004)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Division
Bench of the of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ
appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.
Challenge in the writ appeal was to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge. The dispute relates to applicability of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) in
the background of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam
Abolition Act, 1954 (in short ‘Inam Act’) as amended by the
Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 (in
short ‘Amendment Act’).
3. The factual controversy lies in a very narrow compass.
Appellant had filed the writ petition no.32930 of 1996
which was disposed of by orders dated August 4, 2000 and
August 24, 2000. By the latter order the following directions
were given:
“Even with regard to the question as to
whether the lands in question are Inam lands
or not, it is impossible for me to form a correct
impression because each of the learned
Advocates is making a different statement.
The Tribunal shall first ascertain whether, the
lands in question are imams lands and if the
answer is in the affirmative, then the Tribunal
shall forward the records to the Special Deputy
Commissioner who shall give notice to the
parties, hear them and decide the case. If
however, the Tribunal does have jurisdiction in
law to entertain the proceeding insofar as, if
the lands are not inam lands then the Tribunal
shall proceed to do so.”
4. It is the case of the appellant that the Land Tribunal did
not consider this aspect and did not also record any finding
and came to an abrupt conclusion as follows:
“The Gattarlahally was the jodi village, after
abolition, it is vest to the Government and not
a Inam land.”
5. Before the learned Single Judge the specific stand
relating to the jurisdiction was disposed of with the following
observations:
“After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, I have examined the correctness of the
findings and reasons recorded in the impugned
order by the Land Tribunal on the contentious
points. In my considered view, none of the
contentions urged in this petition warrant
interference with the impugned order for the
reason that, the order passed by the Special
Deputy Commissioner under the Act of 1954
does not bind third respondent as he was not
party to the proceedings. Further, in view of
sub-section (1) of Sec.44 of Act
notwithstanding the order of the Special
Deputy Commissioner, Act of 1/74 has come
into force, it is a tenanted land and therefore it
will statutorily vests with the State
Government. Thereafter, consequences as
enumerated under sub-section (2) of Sec.44
will come into operation. Further, the
contention urged that Form No.7 application is
not maintainable as urged above in this
petition are wholly untenable in law for the
reason that submissions made on behalf of
third respondent is well founded in place
reliance upon the provisions of KLRF Act and
also in view of Muniyellapa vs. B.M. Krishna
Murthy reported in AIR 1992 SC 205 and the
same is accepted. Therefore, contention urged
on behalf of petitioner in this regard placing
reliance upon the decisions of this Court are
wholly untenable in law and the same is
rejected. Further the reliance placed upon
Rangaiah’s case is wholly in-applicable to the
fact situation and is misconceived. Hence,
reliance placed upon the said Judgment are
misplaced and the contention in this regard is
rejected.”
6. Learned Single Judge only observed that since the
respondent was not party to the proceeding, the order passed
by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the 1954 Act was
of no consequence and even otherwise the consequences as
enumerated in Section 44(2) came into operation. The
Division Bench did not analyse the issue in detail and upheld
the view of the learned Single Judge.
7. The specific ground has been raised in this appeal that
question of jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal to reopen a case
and decide by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams
Abolition has not been dealt with. Reference has been made to
Section 141 of the Act.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
though it has not been specifically dealt with, the factual
scenario clearly shows that no relief has been granted to the
appellant.
9. On the earlier occasion, the learned Single Judge has
specifically stated that the question of jurisdiction of the
Tribunal has to be dealt with as quoted above. This apparently
has not been done by the Land Tribunal, and learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench lost sight of these relevant
aspects.
10. In the circumstances, the impugned orders of the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are
quashed and the matter is remitted to the learned Single
Judge to deal with the issue in accordance with law.
11. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.