Karnataka High Court
D Muniraju S/O Devappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 October, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.A.No.1960/2006
C/W
W.A.Nos.1954/2006, 4445-4450/2011,
W.A.2065/2006
& W.A.Nos.1927/2006 & 4435-4444/2011 (KLR-
RR/SUR)
W.A.NO.1960/2006:
BETWEEN:
D MUNIRAJU
S/O DEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YRS
R/O PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.C.VENKATESHA, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARMENT
M S BUILDING,
DR AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE- 560 001.
2 THE SPL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR INAMS ABOLITION
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
3 SRI PATEL CHIKKA HANUMAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
3a.SRI.A C ANANTHASWAMY
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O PATEL CHIKKAHANUMAIAH
R/O AVALAHALLI VILLAGE
MYSOR ROAD,
BANGALORE
3b. SRI A C NANJUNDASWAMY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
3b(i) SMT.ROOPA N.SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O LATE A.C.NANJUNDASWAMY
3
3b(ii) SRI.SHEREYAS N. PATEL
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O LATE A.C.NANJUNDASWAMY
3b(iii) SMT.SPOORTHY N. PATEL
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
D/O LATE A.C.NANJUNDASWAMY
ALL ARE RESIDING AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 26.
4 SRI K V GUNDOPANTH
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
4Aa. SRI K V INAMDAR
AGED 60 YEARS,
R/O NO 30,
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE - 4
5 SRI B THAMMAIAH
S/O LATE BYRAPPA
AGED 63 YEARS,
R/O PANTHARAPALYA
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R,
SRI.K.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R-1 & 2, SRI.I.S.UPPIN,
ADVOCATE FOR R-3(a) & R-3(b)(i to iii),
SRI.S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4a,
4
SRI.K.V.JAYACHANDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.13578/2002 DATED 28.09.2006.
W.A.Nos.1954/2006 & 4445-4450/2011:
BETWEEN :
1 KEMPAIAH
DEAD BY LRS
a. SMT.CHINNAMMA
W/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
BANGALORE - 560039
b. SRI.NAGAPPA
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
BANGALORE 39
c. SRI.SRINIVAS
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
5
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
d. SRI.VENKATESH
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
e. SMT.RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
f. SMT.PAPAMMA @ SAROJAMMA
D/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
2.SRI.SANJEEVAPPA
DEAD BY LRS
2a.SMT.NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
6
2b. SRI.HANUMANTHA
S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
2c.SRI.RAMESH
S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
3. L SESHAPPA
DEAD BY LRS.
3a.SMT.MAHADEVAMMA
W/O LATE SESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TQ.
3b.SRI.BASAVARAJ
S/O.LATE SESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
3c.SRI.SATISH CHANDRA
7
S/O LATE SESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
4. SRI.BASAVAIAH
DEAD BY LRS.
4a.SMT.SIDDAMA
W/O LATE BASAVAIAH
DEAD BY LRS
4b.SRI.RAMESH
S/O LATE BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILALGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
4c.SRI. LIGANNA
S/O LATE BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
4d.SRI.RACHAPPA
S/O.LATE BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
8
5.SRI.HANUMAPPA
DEAD BY LRS.
5a.SMT AKKAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TQ.
5b.SRI.SHANKARAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
5c.SRI.PILLAPPA
S/O.LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
5d.SRI.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
6.SRI.ANDANAPPA
DEAD BY LRS.
9
6a.SMT.RUDRAMMA
W/O LATE ANDANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
6b.SRI.SIDDALINGAIAH
S/O.LATE ANDANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
6c.SRI.MUNIRAJU
S/O.LATE ANDANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
6d.SRI.GANGADHARA
S/O LATE ANDANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
6e.SRI.JAYARAM
S/O LATE ANDANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
10
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
7.SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA
DEAD BY LRS.
7a.SMT.CHOWDAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILALGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
7b.SRI.MUNIRAJU
S/O.LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
7c.SRI.NARAYANA
S/O.LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/A.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-39. ..APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.S.R LAKSHMIPATHY REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
11
M.S.BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001.
2 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR INAMS ABOLITION,
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE-09.
3 PATEL CHIKKA HANUMAIAH
DEAD BY LRS.
3a.SRI.A.C.ANANTHASWAMY
S/O LATE PATEL CHIKKA HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/A.AVALAHALLI VILLAGE
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560026
3b. SRI A C NANJUNDASWAMY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
3b(i) SMT.ROOPA N.SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O LATE A.C.NANJUNDASWAMY
3b(ii) SRI.SHEREYAS N. PATEL
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O LATE A.C.NANJUNDASWAMY
3b(iii) SMT.SPOORTHY N. PATEL
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
D/O LATE A.C.NANJUNDASWAMY
12
ALL ARE RESIDING AT `SPATIKA'
NO.24/1, 4TH MAIN,
N.R.COLONY,
BANGALORE - 19.
4 K V GUNDOPANTH
SINCE DECD. BY LRS.
4a.SRI.K.V.INAMDAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
GRAND S/O. LATE K.V. GUNDOPANTH
R/AT NO.30, KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560004
5 B THAMMAIAH
S/O.LATE BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE -
560039 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R,
SRI.K.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2, SRI.I.S.UPPIN,
ADVOCATE FOR R-3a & R-3b(i) to (iii),
SRI.S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4(a),
SRI.K.V.JAYACHANDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION
4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
13118/2002 DATED 28.09.2006.
13
W.A.No.2065/2006:
BETWEEN :
SRI M KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIBEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT PANTHARAPALYA
KINGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI.N S SANJAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1 THE SPL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR INAM ABOLITION
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE
2 SRI PATEL CHIKKAHANUMAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
2a.SRI.A.C.ANANTHASWAMY
S/O LATE PATEL
CHIKKAHANUMAIAH
MAJOR
R/AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE
MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE
2b.SRI.A.C.NANJUNDASWAMY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
14
2b(i) SMT.ROOPA N.SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O LATE A.C.NANJUNDASWAMY
2b(ii) SMT.SPOORTHY N. PATEL
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
D/O LATE A.C.NANJUNDASWAMY
2b(iii) SRI.SHEREYAS N. PATEL
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O LATE A.C.NANJUNDASWAMY
ALL ARE RESIDING AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE
3 SMT KARAGAMMA
W/O THAMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
YANEGUNTE VILLAGE
HASIKALA PO,
HOSKOTE TLAUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
4 SMT RATHNAMMA
W/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 EYARS
NO.16, MUNESWARAM FARM
100 FEET ROAD, PANTHARPALYA
NAYANDAHALLI PO
BANGALORE-560
039 ....RESPONDENTS
15
(BY SRI.K.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R-1, SRI.I.S.UPPIN,
ADVOCATE FOR R-2a & R-2b(i) to (iii), R-3 & R-4
NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4
OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.21291/2002 DATED 28.09.2006.
W.A.Nos.1927/2006 & 4435-4444/2011:
BETWEEN :
1 SRI.MUNIVEERAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS'
1a. SMT.JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
W/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA
1b.SRI.M.MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA
1c. SRI.M.MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA
1d. SRI.M.MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA
1e. SRI.M.MUNIKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
16
S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.168,
PANTHARAPALYA,
MYSORE ROAD,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 39.
2 SRI.BYARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE AVALAPPA,
R/AT PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
3 H RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA,
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
4 SRI.MUNISHAMAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
4a.SMT PAPACHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
R/AT PANTHARAPALYA
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
17
4b. SRI.KEMPAMMA
D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
4c.SRI.APPAIYANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YERAS,
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
4d. SRI.BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
4e.SMT.MUNIRATHNAMMA
W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
5 MOTAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
18
5a.SMT.AKKAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
W/O LATE MOTAPPA
5b.SRI.KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O LATE MOTAPPA
5c.SRI.MUNIRAJA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE MOTAPPA
5d.SRI.MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O LATE MOTAPPA
6. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE GALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
7. SRI.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE SEETHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
8. SRI.A NARAYANA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
19
8a. SMT.P.SUMUKHA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O LATE A.NARAYANA
8b.SRI.N.SANTHOSH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O LATE A.NARAYANA
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.44, PANTHARAPALYA,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 39.
9. SRI.N KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE NANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
10. SRI.G CHANNARAYAPPA
S/O LATE GUMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
11 SMT NANJAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
11a.SRI.MUNIBYRAPPA
S/O LATE NANJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
20
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
11b.SRI. BORE GOWDA
S/O LATE NANJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
11c.SMT MUNIHANUMAKKA
D/O LATE NANJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39
11d.SRI.SIDDALINGAPPA
S/O LATE NANJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE -39 ..APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.C M NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
21
M.S.BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001.
2 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR INAMS ABOLITION
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE -09.
3 SRI.PATEL CHIKKAHANUMAIAH
DEAD BY LRS
3a. SRI.A C ANANTHA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O.LATE PATEL CHIKKAHANUMAIAH,
MAJOR,
R/AT.AVALAHALLI VILLAGE,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE 26,
3b.SRI.A C NANJUNDA SWAMY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
3b(i) SMT.ROOPA N.SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O LATE A.C.NANJUNDASWAMY
3b(ii) SRI.SHEREYAS N. PATEL
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O LATE A.C.NANJUNDASWAMY
3b(iii) SMT.SPOORTHY N. PATEL
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
22
D/O LATE A.C.NANJUNDASWAMY
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
AVALAHALLI VILLAGE,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 26.
4 SRI.K V GUNDOPANTH
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
4a. SRI.K.V.INAMDAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
GRANDSON OF
LATE SRI.K.V.GUNDOPANTH
R/AT.NO.30, KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE 560 004.
5 SRI.B THAMMAIAH
S/O LATE BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT.PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 39. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2,
SRI.I.S.UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 (a) & R-3b(i) to (iii),
SRI.S.S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4a,
SRI.K.V.JAYACHANDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER
SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE
23
WRIT PETITION NO.8152/2002 DATED 28.09.2006.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Even after 50 years after passing of Inams Abolition Act and original parties having died in these 50 years the dispute pertaining to occupancy rights/tenancy rights is not decided even though the matter has reached this court several times. It is in this context in order to put an end to litigation after hearing parties taking into consideration earlier orders passed we proceed to pass the following order:
2. Material on record discloses land bearing Sy.Nos.10 and 13 now Sy.Nos.12, 23, 39, 47 and 52 of Pantharapalya Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk formed part of a jodi inam land belonging to 24 Sri.Gundopanth. After coming into force of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as `Act') the said lands vested with the Government, as on 13.01.1959. Inamdars after vesting of lands with the Government lost their right, title and interest in the lands so vested. They were prohibited from collecting rents from their tenants.
Sri.Chikka Hanumaiah, father of respondents 3(a) and 3(b) had taken these lands on lease from Inamdar Sri.Gundopanth under registered lease deeds dated 30.06.1927, 29.03.1936 and 24.09.1945 and he was cultivating the land on the day lands vested with the Government. He was paying rent to inamdar Sri.Gundopanth. Said Sri.Chikka Hanumaiah filed an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition within the time prescribed seeking for issue of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.10 and 13 and other lands. At that point of time there was no 25 distinct and separate survey number as Sy.No.12. When the matter was pending before Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition Sy.Nos.10 and 13 were split up and a distinct and separate survey number as Sy.No.12 measuring 20 acres 13 guntas was given. Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam after receipt of report from Tahsildar regarding the factum of possession of lands and after due enquiry after recording consensus statement of Inamdar, Sri.Gundopanth, granted occupancy rights in respect of 26 items including Sy.No.12 in favour of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah by order dated 17.10.1964. After such order, entries were made in the revenue records and mutation was also effected in the name of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah. Said order was neither challenged by Inamdar, Sri.Gundopanth nor villagers before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. However, the Chairman of Village Panchayath one Sri.Devappa challenged the 26 order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner dated 17.10.1964 in favour of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah with regard to five survey numbers namely Sy.Nos.12, 23, 39, 47 and 52 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.1306/1971. Tribunal allowed the appeal by its order dated 17.10.1972. Being aggrieved by said order Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah preferred a writ petition in W.P.1814/1972. Said writ petition was allowed remanding the matter to Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration. Appellate Tribunal after remand passed an order on 21.04.1977 allowing the appeal partly in respect of Sy.Nos.23, 39 and 47 and confirmed the grant of occupancy rights in favour of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah in so far as Sy.Nos.12 and 52 is concerned. Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah being aggrieved by rejection of grant in his favour in respect of Sy.Nos.23, 39 and 47 preferred writ petition in W.P.5202/77 before this court. But no writ petition was 27 filed by Sri.Devappa, Chairman of Village Panchayath against order of Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in favour of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah in respect of Sy.Nos.12 and 52. Said order passed on 21.04.1977 granting occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.12 and 52 in favour of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah attained finality. On the day said order came to be passed by Special Deputy Commissioner was the competent authority granting occupancy rights under the Act.
3. W.P.No.5502/1997 filed by Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah in respect of Sy.Nos.23, 39 and 47 was allowed and the matter was remanded to Special Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration in respect of said survey numbers only. In the meanwhile the appellant/petitioners in writ petition filed an application for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.12 before Land Reforms Tribunal contending that 28 they have been cultivating the land as tenants under the original inamdar Dr.Gundopanth. Said application for grant of occupancy rights was allowed by order dated 30.10.1979 exparte. On the basis of order granting occupancy rights mutation entry was made in the name of those applicants. On coming to know of the said order, as it affected his interest, Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah filed writ petition in W.P.343/1981 challenging the order of Tribunal before this court. One Sri.B.Thimmaiah in W.P.16703/1981 also filed one more Writ Petition challenging the said order. This court by order dated 21.03.1964 set aside the order passed by Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 23 before Appellate Tribunal who are appellants herein and remitted the matter to Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. After such remand a contention was raised before Land Tribunal stating application in Form No.7 was not maintainable 29 before the Land Tribunal. In W.P.No.20400/98 and W.P.Nos.21142-160/98 this court by order dated 30.07.98 transferred all the applications filed before the Land Tribunal by respondent Nos.4 to 23 to the Special Deputy Commissioner for consideration of their claim for conferment of occupancy rights. Said order passed by this court and connected matters dated 30.07.98 has become final as none of the parties to the proceedings chose to challenge the said order. In the said order passed by this court it is clearly held that applications filed by petitioner is in Form No.7 shall be treated as Form No.1 under the Act. Therefore Special Deputy Commissioner had to consider the question as to whether the applicants have proved that they have been in possession of lands in respect of which occupancy rights is claimed as on the date on which the lands vested with the Government under the Act which has come into force on 13.01.1959. So far as Sri.Patel 30 Chikka Hanumaiah is concerned in respect of Sy.No.12 he had already been granted the said land by order dated 17.10.1964 and it has attained finality. However the Special Deputy Commissioner acting on the entries in the R.T.C for the period subsequent to 1979 upto date held that the appellants herein have established their case for grant of occupancy rights and accordingly granted the occupancy rights to the appellants. Against the said order Patel Chikka Hanumaiah preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal on consideration of contentions, documents produced by them and also oral evidence held that lands in question were all inam lands which vested with the Government as on 13.01.1959. Prior to vesting, lands were in possession of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah vide three registered deeds. Inamdar Dr.Gundopanth gave his consent for grant of occupancy rights. The respondent Nos.4 to 23 before Tribunal 31 have not produced a scrap of paper to show that prior to 1959 or subsequently, except the statement of grandson of Dr.Gundopanth, inamdar who admitted that land was in their occupation, there is no material to show they were cultivating the land as tenants. Tribunal further held the names of these respondent Nos.4 to 23 was entered in the mutation register only after exparte order of occupancy rights was passed on 30.10.1979. Once that order is set aside those entries also loose its value and therefore it was of the view that respondent Nos.4 to 23 before Tribunal have not made out a case for grant of occupancy rights either under the provisions of Act or under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Therefore it proceeded to pass order rejecting the claim of these petitioners/appellants and setting aside of the order of Special Deputy Commissioner granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 23 before 32 Tribunal. Aggrieved by said order writ petitions are filed. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties found no merit in writ petitions and therefore has dismissed the writ petitions. It is against the said order these appeals are filed.
4. Sri.C.N.Nagabhushan, learned counsel appearing for appellants submitted that appellants were cultivating the land even prior to the date of 13.01.1959 they do not possess any rent receipt to show payment of rent. Their name is also not mutated in the revenue records till 1979 but it is settled law payment of rent is not necessary for establishing a claim of tenancy. What is to be established is that they are actually cultivating the land on the day prior to vesting of the land. Grandson of inamdar has categorically stated before Special Deputy Commissioner that it is these appellants who were cultivating the land in question. At any rate 33 order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner which is now set aside by Appellate Tribunal is an order without jurisdiction, as subsequently Apex Court has held even application under Inam Abolition Act is to be decided by Tribunal only. Therefore when the application is filed by them, whether it is under provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act or under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act, it is only Tribunal which is vested with the power to adjudicate their claims. Tribunal has not adjudicated their rights. Hence it is a fit case that all the orders are to be set aside and matter be remitted to Land Tribunal for fresh adjudication and in accordance with law. He further submitted that application is filed under Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Land Reforms Tribunal has to adjudicate the dispute and therefore the order passed is one without jurisdiction. The case has to be remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh adjudication and in accordance with law. 34
5. Sri.C.K.Narayan Reddy, Sri.Venkatesh, Sri.Channappa, learned counsel appearing for appellants submitted that application is filed under provisions of Land Reforms Act. Earlier occupancy rights was granted taking into consideration the mutation entries in the revenue records from 1979 till today mutation entry has been in their name. In addition to that grandson of inamdar has consented for grant of occupancy rights. Inspite of the same the authorities are not justified in not granting occupancy rights in their favour.
6. Sri.Lakshmipathy G.R the learned Counsel contended that on the basis of the order of Land Reforms Tribunal, mutation entries have been made in the name of these appellants. Third respondent challenged the said entry by preferring an appeal which 35 came to be dismissed against which he filed revision before Deputy Commissioner which also came to be dismissed. A writ petition against said order also came to be rejected. Thus mutation entries stands in their name and reached finality. Thus authorities have not considered these facts while granting occupancy rights.
7. Sri.N.S.Sanjay Gowda, learned counsel submits Tribunal has not recorded any finding on the question of claim regarding tenancy and it has set aside the order of Deputy Commissioner solely on the ground that mutation entry was made on the basis of an order of Land Tribunal which is illegal and therefore they are denied grant of occupancy rights. He further submitted that Sri.Munibeerappa, 12th respondent before Special Deputy Commissioner died on 07.07.95 while order granting occupancy right passed on 18.11.1999. Now the order is set aside by Land Tribunal without 36 impleading his legal representatives as parties, order passed by Tribunal is void and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submitted even in respect of Inam lands, Karnataka Land Reforms Act is applicable except to the occupancy rights granted in favour of tenants under the provisions of the Act. Therefore finding of the Tribunal that Karnataka Land Reforms Act is not applicable to Inam land is erroneous and requires to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 supported the impugned order. Learned Government Advocate also supported the impugned order.
9. In the light of the aforesaid material on record and rival contentions the point that arise for our consideration is:
"Whether a case for interference is made out in 37 respect of the Order passed by learned Single Judge, as well as the order passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
10. From the aforesaid material on record it is not in dispute that land in question is an Inam land. One Dr.Gundopanth was the inamdar. Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah took the lands on lease from Dr.Gundopanth under three registered lease deeds dated 30.06.1927, 29.03.1936 and 24.09.1945. Lands which were subject matter of these lease deeds are Sy.Nos.10, 13, 23, 39, 47 and 52 of Pantharapalya Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is the contention of appellant that Sy.No.12 was not subject matter of these lease deeds and therefore Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah has no right to said deed. It is in respect of Sy.No.12 appellants have put forth their claim. Learned Single Judge on careful consideration of 38 the material on hand has categorically held there was no distinct and separate survey numbers as survey No.12 measuring 20 acres 13 guntas prior to vesting of land. When the matter was pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, the pre- valuation of Sy.Nos.10 and 13 were made. They were split up and then given distinct and separate survey numbers. Sy.No.12 is one of the new survey number carved out of Sy.Nos.10 and 13. Therefore though Sy.No.12 is not the subject matter of three registered lease deeds, after the land vested with the Government an application is made by Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah for grant of occupancy rights. Proceedings were initiated and then Sy.Nos.10 and 13 were split up and Sy.No.12 was formed. Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah was cultivating Sy.Nos.10 and 13 including Sy.No.12. The aforesaid registered documents at undisputed point of time prior to vesting of land clearly establish his 39 tenancy in so far as land in question is concerned. When an application is filed for grant of occupancy rights inamdar appeared and gave his consent and an order dated 17.10.64 came to be passed granting occupancy rights in respect of all lands. Inamdar did not challenge, villagers did not challenge but it is the Chairman of Village Panchayath who challenged the said order. In the said appeal order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner granting occupancy rights of lands was set aside by order dated 17.10.72. Being aggrieved by said order Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah preferred a writ petition in W.P.1814/1972. Order of the Special Deputy Commissioner was set aside and matter was remitted back to him for fresh consideration. On fresh consideration Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 21.04.1977 granting occupancy rights in favour of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah in respect of Sy.Nos.12 and 52. He 40 declined to grant occupancy right in respect of Sy.Nos.23, 39 and 47. In so far as grant of occupancy rights in respect of 12 and 52, Chairman Sri.P.Devappa did not prefer any appeal. Therefore order granting occupancy rights in favour of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah in respect of Sy.Nos.12 and 52 attained finality.
11. It is Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah who preferred writ petition challenging order of Tribunal in W.P.5202/97 rejecting his request for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.23, 39 and 47. Said writ petition was allowed remanding the matter to Special Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration in respect of Sy.Nos.23, 39 and 47. In the meanwhile these appellants and others filed application in Form No.7 seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of various portions of Sy.No.12 before Land Reforms 41 Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated 30.10.1979, their applications were allowed and occupancy rights was granted. Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah in whose favour already the occupancy rights had been granted under the Act, who was not made a party before the Tribunal, challenged the said order by preferring an appeal. One Sri.B.Thimmaiah also challenged order of Land Reforms Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of these appellants. Both writ petitions were allowed by order dated 21.03.1984. Order of Land Reforms Tribunal was set aside and matter was remanded back to Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. After remand a contention was raised that Land Reforms Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights in respect of inam lands. It was contended before the Land Reforms Tribunal that it has no jurisdiction to decide the claim arising under Inams Abolition Act and it is to be transferred to Special Deputy Commissioner. Land 42 Tribunal rejected the said request by order dated 30.06.98. Aggrieved by the same children of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah preferred W.P.20400/98 and also W.P.2142-160/98 seeking for transfer of pending application to Special Deputy Commissioner. After hearing the parties, the said application was allowed and applications pending before Land Reforms Tribunal was transferred to Special Deputy commissioner for consideration. Said order has also attained finality. It is in pursuance to said order, Special Deputy Commissioner took up application of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah claiming occupancy rights under Inam Abolition Act in respect of Sy.Nos.23, 39 and 47 and applications of these petitioners claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.12 together. He recorded the evidence and by order dated 18.11.99 granted occupancy rights to all these appellants in Sy.No.12 measuring in all 20 acres 13 guntas. It is to be noticed 43 here that in the said application which was numbered CR:1/98-99 12th petitioner was one Sri.Munibeerappa who died on 07.07.95. Inspite of the same petition was filed in the name of said Sri.Munibeerappa and order came to be passed on 18.11.99. Therefore when the children of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah challenged order of Deputy Commissioner by preferring an appeal to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Sri.Munibeerappa was arrayed as 15th respondent. If only his legal representatives had been brought on record before order is passed they would have been put on alert and impleaded as legal representatives. However material on record shows that Sri.Munibeerappa was represented by Sri.N.S.Srinivasan, Advocate. After hearing both the parties, Tribunal by a reasoned order referring to all the provisions of both Inam Abolition Act and Karnataka Land Reforms Act on careful scrutiny of entire material on record held that claim of these 44 applicants is not established. Except the statement of grandson of Dr.K.V.Gundopanth which was recorded in 1979 there is no material on record to show any one of them were cultivating lands prior to the date of vesting on 13.01.1959 or prior to 31.03.1974. Therefore it set aside the order of Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition. It is true that payment of receipt is not a sine qua non for grant of occupancy rights. But the fact of cultivating the land prior to the date of vesting is to be established by person claiming occupancy rights. If a person has taken the land for lease, as in this case, it could be evidenced by lease deed registered or unregistered. If land is cultivated or rent is paid, it is demonstrated by producing not only registered lease deed but also producing receipts showing rent at undisputed point of time, that would form the basis for grant of occupancy rights. The appellant name was not mutated in the revenue entries. The appellant state 45 there is no lease deed, there is no rent receipt, there is no mutation entry and their whole evidence is that of evidence of grandson. However his grandfather who gave the land on lease admitted the claim of Patel Chikka Hanumaiah, grandson's evidence looses weight and it cannot be acted upon. Unfortunately Special Deputy Commissioner did not appreciate the material in proper perspective. He has carried away by mutation entries from 1979 onwards which is based on order dated 30.10.79 of Land Reforms Tribunal. What is relevant is cultivation of land prior to the date of vesting. The land vested with State Government on 01.03.1974 under the provisions of Land Reforms Act. Mutation entries is not proof of cultivation of land prior to the date of vesting is produced. There is no scrap of paper to evidence this fact. Therefore they are not entitled to occupancy rights neither under provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act or Inams Abolition Act. It 46 was contended that in view of the latest Judgment of Apex Court, Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass order. As stated above on 21.04.77 when the Special Deputy Commissioner after remand granted occupancy rights in favour of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah, Special Deputy Commissioner was the authority to grant occupancy rights. By then Act was not amended. Land Reforms Tribunal was conferred jurisdiction to decide the claims under Inam Abolition Act. Subsequently, this court had taken a view inspite of said amendment the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. That is how matters were referred to Special Deputy Commissioner. Infact that order was affirmed by Supreme Court on an earlier occasion. More than all these applications filed before Land Reforms Tribunal was transferred to Special Deputy Commissioner by an order of this court which was not challenged. It is only recently, the Supreme Court has taken a view that Land 47 Reforms Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide even the said question. But in the facts and circumstances of the case we are satisfied the day on which occupancy rights granted in favour of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah Special Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction, Land Reforms Act was not amended and order granting occupancy rights had attained finality and all proceedings ignoring the said fact, behind the back of Sri.Patel Chikka Hanumaiah the appellants were granted occupancy rights. It is in this context we do not find any substance in the contention of appellant .
12. Similarly the contention that impugned order is passed against a dead person also has no substance because, the order in favour of 15 th respondent is passed on an application filed by him after his death. If on the date of application he was not alive he was not entitled to grant, no benefit is accrued and is taken 48 away by this order. Learned Single Judge has considered all these facts meticulously and by reasoned order has negatived their contention. Sitting in appeal we find no jurisdiction to find fault with the order which is based on legal evidence. In view of the same we see no merit in these appeals. Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SBN