Karnataka High Court
H Kempaiah Since Deceased Rep By Lrs Smt ... vs T Kemparaju on 28 May, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1678 OF 2024 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. H. KEMPAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REP BY LR'S
SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE
SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
2. SMT. K VIMALAMMA
W/O JAYARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT KALIDASA MARG
GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. SRI K. NARAYANAGOWDA
S/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
-2-
4. SMT K. RADHA
W/O G. NARAYANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT MATHUGADAHALLI VILLAGE,
KAIWARA HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
5. RAMCHANDRA GOWDA
(SINCE DECEASED REP BY LR'S)
SMT. MAMATHA
W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 22,
2ND 'A' MAIN
AJJAMALLAPPA, KACHARKANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 084.
6. SMT K. CHANDRIKA
W/O V. SRINIVAS GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT KANIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
7. SMT. B.K. RENUKA
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT KALLUKATTA
SRINGERI TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DITRICT - 562 101.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
MS. NIKITA GANESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.V. SUNDARA RAMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. T. KEMPARAJU
SINCE DECEASED REP BY LR'S
SMT. SHANTHAMMA
-3-
W/O M. MOHANRAM
D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2. SMT. MANJULA
W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA
D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
3. SHRI THYAGARAJA G.K.
S/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
4. SMT. GEETHA
W/O LATE G DEVARAJ
D/O LATE T KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
5. NALINA
D/O LATE T KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
6. SUJATHA
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
7. SRI NAVEEN
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
8. SRI MANOHAR
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
9. MS. SOUMYA
D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESPONDENT No.2 TO 9 ARE
R/AT GANGALOUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI -4- HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 10 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, V FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.
11 . THE LAND TRIBUNAL BENGALURU NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK BANGALORE BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
12 . SRI M RAMANNA S/O LATE MUNIBYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 12(a). SHRI GANESH S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY 12(b). SHRI B.R MUNIRAJU S/O LATE RAMANNA 12(c) SHRI LAKSHMANAGOWDA S/O LATE RAMANNA 12(d) SHRI LAKSHMANAMURTHY S/O LATE RAMANNA ALL ARE RESIDING AT BUDDIGERE VILLAGE AND POST CHANNARAYANAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
[RESPONDENT Nos. 12(a) to 12(d) AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2025] -5- 13 . SRI K SRINIVAS GOWDA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT46 YEARS 14 . SRI K. MANJUNATH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESPONDENT Nos. 13 AND 14 R/AT BOODIGERE VILLAGE, AND POST CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 001 15 . SRI T S MUNIRAJAPPA S/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 16 . SRI T S NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 17 . SRI S VEERANNA S/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 18 . SRI S MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 19 . SRI VENKATASWAMAPPA S/O N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 20 . N RAMAIAH (SINCE DECEASED REP BY LRS) SMT KAMALAMMA W/O LATE N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS -6- 21 . SRI R THYAGARAJ S/O LATE N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 22 . SRI R KEMAPARAJU S/O LATE N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 23 . SRI NANJEGOWDA S/O LATE N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 24 . SRI R MAHESH GOWDA S/O LATE N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESPONDENT No. 15 TO 24 ARE R/AT BOODIGERE VILLAGE AND POST CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 25 . SRI N KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 26 . SRI N RAJANNA S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 27 . SMT NANDINI W/O LATE N MUNIRATHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 28 . M GANESH S/O LATE MUNIRATHNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 29 . M RITESH S/O LATE MUNIRATHNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS -7- RESPONDENT No. 25 TO 29 ARE R/AT THIRUMALENAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560049 30 . NAGARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 31 . JAYARAJ S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 32 . SHEKAR S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESPONDENT NO 30 TO 32 ARE R/AT THIRUMALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDOR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 572 001.
33. SREE MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHANA AND GURUPEETHAYALAYA TRUST COMMITTEE PUBLIC CHARITABLE DEVAGIRI BRANCH NELLUR KEMRACHI VILLAGE SULYA TALUK SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT REP BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI SHAMBHU UPADYAYA REPRESENTATION GPA HOLDER SRI JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN S/O LATE NARAYAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO 22, 1ST MAIN ROAD, -8- 2ND STAGE OKALIPURAM BENGALURU - 560021.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T. M. VENKATAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2, R-4 TO R-9, SRI. K.S. HARISH, G. A. FOR R-10 & R-11, SRI. D. ROHIT URS, ADVOCATE FOR R-12(a to d), R-13, R-14 AND R-30 to R-32.
SRI. N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-15, R-16, R-18 AND R-25.
SRI. H. C. SUNDARESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-17, SRI. K.N. SATHISH KUMAR FOR R-21.
SRI M. PRAKASHA, ADV. FOR R-33 SRI. G.L.VISHWANATH, SR.ADV.FOR Ms.MANASA B. RAO, ADV. FOR R-26.
SRI.P.B.AJIT, ADV. FOR RESPONDENTS 19, 20, 22 TO 24 & 27 TO 29.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2024 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.27409/2017 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
-9-
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) This appeal arise out of common judgment and order dated 27th September 2024 of learned Single Judge passed in respect of writ petition Nos.30369 of 2017, 23144 of 2017, 24109 of 2017 and 27409 of 2017. The present appeal pertains to the judgment and order in writ petition No.27409 of 2017.
2. Learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition. The findings recorded by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluka, Bengaluru in its order dated 22.05.2017 came to be set aside. The revenue authorities were directed to mutate the names of legal representatives of Mr. Kemparaju-
the original petitioner, in respect of land to the extent of 160 acres which was subject matter of original suit No.93 of 1953 and execution petition No.151 of 1964.
- 10 -
3. The original petitioner was Mr. T. Kemparaju, now represented by his legal heirs who are the private respondents herein. The prayer was made to set aside the judgment and order dated 22.05.2017 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North in INA CR.1/1997-1998. The Tribunal had allowed the prayer of the appellant Mr. H. Kempaiah and allowed occupancy right for him in respect of the land in question to the extent of 54 acres of D class and 10 units in respect of survey numbers in question. The subject matter land was a Jodi and Inam land which came to be governed under the Inams Abolition Act.
3.1 The case of the original petitioner to be noted in nutshell was inter alia that the land bearing survey Nos.1, 4, 18, 21 to 85, 87 to 89 and 87 to 104 situated at Chalamakunte Village, Hobli, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluka. The total area of the land admeasured 494 acres and 25 guntas. It was sold by the Jodidhar one Mr. K.P. Ramaiah in favour of one Mr. Kaveri Reddy on 16.07.1943. It was stated that the land was partitioned between the brothers of Kaveri Reddy. Mortgage was executed in respect of the land by Mr. Kaveri Reddy for his land.
- 11 -
3.2 One Mr. Doddaiah in whose favour the mortgage was executed, filed original suit No.93 of 1953. Execution petition was filed. The share of Kaveri Reddy admeasuring 160 acres of land was attached before the judgment. The suit was decreed on 11.12.1954. The Deputy Commissioner permitted the sale of land by Mr. Kaveri Reddy, who sold the land by Sale Deed dated 20.06.1956.
3.3 On 01.02.1959, it was stated by the petitioner, the notification was issued under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act and the Jodi Inams land including the land in question stood vested in the State Government. Pursuant to the decree in the suit, property was put to execution. Sale Certificate was issued on 11.02.1966. Doddaiah sold the land to the petitioner on 21.03.1968. 3.4 In 1973 and subsequently, proceedings were initiated for regrant of service Inam land. It is claimed by the petitioner that the file relating to regrant was destroyed in fire. Rebuilding of file appears to have been ordered by the authorities. In 2000- 01, petitioner filed application for impleading in the pending regrant proceedings, which request was rejected. On 15.11.2005, petitioner filed appeal before the Karnataka
- 12 -
Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was allowed. The respondents challenged the same by filing writ petition. The same was dismissed holding that the petitioner was a necessary party, whereafter before the Tribunal, the petitioner was arrayed as claimant No.5. The Tribunal passed the order on 22.05.2017 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for occupancy rights. 3.5 While what is stated above are in a nutshell, the facts and events are subsequently also narrated based on the total pleadings and the aspects involved in the controversy. The Tribunal as per its impugned order rejected the case of the original petitioner for regrant of land on the ground that the petitioner had not filed the application required under the law and there was no such prayer by him. The Tribunal's decision was rested also on the ground that the petitioner could not have mortgaged the Jodi land without the permission of the Government and that it had vested with the Government as per the Notification dated 01.02.1959. 3.6 The Land Tribunal in the judgment and order passed by it which was impugned before learned Single Judge observed thus about the claim of Kemparaju,
- 13 -
"The fifth petitioner Shri T. Kemparaju contended that, the Chalamakunte village was a Jodi Inam village which was earlier owned by K.P.Ramaiah and was purchased by the family comprising of Kaveri Reddy, Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy. Consequently, the old thdree persons were the Jodidars of Chalamakunte; that the said persons had partitioned the Jodi village Chalamakunte according to which an extent of 160 acres was fallen to the share of Kaveri Reddy, that Kaveri Reddy has sought for permission from the Deputy Commissioner had permitted the sale of the said Jodi village in terms of his order dated 17.05.1956. However, the Deputy Commissioner has held that Kaveri Reddy had sought permission to dispose of 2/3rd portion of Jodi village and that Kaveri Reddy had earlier mortgaged the entire land to one Munibyrappa and also sold the entire extent to Shri H. Kempaiah and that therefore held that any permission granted at best would permit him to alienate his interest in the Jodi village and if he had sought to exercise more rights than he was legally entitled, then the respective title has to be established in a court of law. Aggrieved by such permission, his brothers filed a Revision Petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Revision No.8 of 1959 which was disposed of directing Thimma Reddy, Nanja Reddy to prefer application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition."
3.6.1 The Tribunal further reasoned while rejecting the claim of Kemparaju, "In so far as the claim of the 5th petitioner Sri. Kemparaju, he made an application on 08.10.2000. The prescribed time limit for making an application for grant of occupancy right under Section 10(3) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, 31.12.1979. Therefore we can safely come to the
- 14 -
conclusion that the application is barred by law of limitation. Further the contention of the 5th petitioner is that on 29.10.1948 had mortgaged the land measuring to an extent of 160 acres. However, that is impermissible under the provisions of Section 6 of the Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Further by virtue of the notification dated 13.01.1959 the entire land was vested with the state with effect from 01.12.1959. In such circumstances, the sale certificate issued to Doddaiah, the vendor of 5th petitioner herein cannot be taken into consideration. In fact Doddaiah has sold the land in favour of T.Kemparaju on 21.03.1968 and as such the said sale has no consequences. Therefore we are of the opinion that the claim made by the 5th petitioner is also liable to be rejected." 3.7 The Tribunal passed the following operative order, "The claim made by the 1st petitioner H. Kempaiah is hereby allowed and granted with an occupancy right to the extent of 54 acres of 'D' class land (10 units) in Survey Nos.1 to 104 situated at Chalamakunte village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk, subject to the outcome of the proceedings in LRF.43 of 1974-75 and subject to the ceiling limit prescribed under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
Further, the claim of the petitioner/claimants 2 to 5 for conferment of an 'occupancy right' in respect of land in survey Nos.1 to 104 situated at Chalamakunte village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluka, are hereby rejected.
The Tahasildar, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluka, Bengaluru, shall take necessary action to resume the land in survey Nos.1 to 102 (excluding survey No.78) situated at Chalamakunte village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North
- 15 -
(Additional) Taluka, excluding the land granted herein, in favour of the 1st petitioner H. Kempaiah, to the Government free from all encumbrance, by evicting those who are in possession of the said land and make necessary entries in the revenue records, as Government."
4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa along with learned Advocate Ms. Nikita Ganesh for learned Advocate Mr. M.V. Sundara Raman for the appellants, learned Advocate Mr. C.S. Prasanna Kumar for learned Advocate Mr. T.M. Venkata Reddy for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 9, learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for respondent Nos.10 and 11, learned Advocate Mr. D. Rohit Urs for respondent Nos.12 (a to d), 13, 14 and 30 to 32, learned Advocate Mr. N. Shankaranarayana Bhat for respondent Nos.15, 16, 18 and 25, learned Advocate Mr. K.N. Sathish Kumar for respondent No.21, learned Advocate Mr. M. Prakasha for respondent No.33, learned Senior Advocate Mr. G.L. Vishwanath for learned Advocate Ms. Manasa B. Rao for respondent No.26 and learned Advocate Mr. P.B. Ajit for respondent Nos.19, 20, 22 to 24 and 27 to 29 at length.
5. From the facts available on record and on the basis of the pleadings, the following main aspects, events and dates in the controversy may be recapitulated.
- 16 -
(i) The land in question was a Jodi land situated at Chalamakunte village of Devanahalli Taluka, presently Bangalore North Taluka, which was originally a Jodi Inam village. One K.P. Ramaiah was a Jodidar.
(ii) The said Jodi Inam land came to be purchased by one Kaveri Reddy on 16.07.1943. A Mortgage Deed was executed on 29.05.1948 to the extent of 160 acres in favour of one Doddaiah. On 17.05.1956, Kaveri Reddy made an application to the Deputy Commissioner seeking permission under Section
6 of the Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950, which was allowed.
(iii) The property was sold to appellant- H. Kempaiah under Sale Deed dated 25.06.1956.
(iv) Under the Inams Abolition Act, a Notification came to be issued on 01.02.1959, by virtue of which the property in question stood vested in the government free from all encumbrances.
(v) Doddaiah filed original suit No.93 of 1966 in July 1966 raising dispute about mortgage deed. Execution proceedings
- 17 -
No.151 of 1994 were initiated. 160 acres of land was sold by Sale Certificate dated 27.07.1966.
(vi) The case is that the land was already vested with the State Government and sale could not have been effected in law and that the Sale Certificate was therefore void and not binding.
(vii) Doddaiah executed Sale Deed on 21.03.1968 in favour of Kemparaju even after the land was vested. 5.1 The details of legal proceedings ensued thereafter are summarized below,
(a) Kemparaju initiated proceedings before Tahsildar on 11.12.1968 for change of khatha in his name. It was rejected by the Tahsildar on the ground that no application for grant of occupancy rights was ever made by Kemparaju, as required under the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act.
(b) Against the order of the Tahsildar, Revision Petition was filed before the Special Deputy Commissioner, which was rejected. The Deputy Commissioner noted that the property was Jodi Inam land and in view of Notification dated
- 18 -
01.02.1959, it came to be vested in the State Government from that date.
(c) After the vesting, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition determined the occupancy rights in favour of H. Kempaiah.
(d) An application dated 01.10.2000 was filed by Kemparaju seeking impleadment in the proceedings. Only prayer advanced was for impleadment.
(e) The Karnataka Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1973 was passed. Section 10(3)(a) was amended permitting applications to be filed for occupancy rights within six years from the date of commencement of the amendment act. The last date for filing of such application was 31.12.1979.
(f) Kemparaju's application was only for impleadment. No application before deadline dated 31.12.1979 was filed by Kemparaju, much less application for grant of occupancy rights was not filed at all.
(g) Kemparaju's application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 01.10.2000. He filed Appeal No.1035 of 2004 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in which he was
- 19 -
allowed to be impleaded. The prayer for regrant or occupancy rights which was never made, was not granted to him. The claim was rejected on the ground that it was time barred. Kemparaju filed writ petition No.204 of 2017. 5.2 It would be relevant to notice the provisions of law applicable. The land property in question is a 'reserved land' under the Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950. Section 6(1) mandatorily contemplates that anyone desires to transact with 'reserved land', has to obtain previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner for selling, alienating, mortgaging, assigning, etc., the 'reserved land' or land in possession of the tenants in any alienated village. The case of the appellant is that Mr. Kaveri Reddy who had executed mortgage deed with Doddaiah-vendor of Kemparaju in respect of 160 acres of land was invalid in view of Section 6(1) above. 5.3 The provisions of the Inams Abolition Act known as the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, which would apply includes Section 3 in Chapter-II which deals with vesting of Inam in the State as well as its consequences. The relevant part of Section 3 is reproduced as under,
- 20 -
"3. Consequence of the vesting of an inam in the State.- (1) When the notification under sub-section (4) of Section 1 in respect of any inam has been published in the Karnataka Gazette, then notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting, and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the following consequences shall ensue, namely,-
(a)...
(b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar including those in all communal lands, uncultivated lands, whether assessed or not, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State of Karnataka, free from all encumbrances;
(c) the inamdar shall crease to have any interest in the inam other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act;
(d) ... (e) ... (f) no such inam shall be liable to
attachment or sale in execution of any decree or other process of any Court and any attachment existing on the date of vesting or any order for attachment passed before such date in respect of such inam, shall, subject to the provisions of Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, cease to be in force;
(g) the Government may, after removing any obstruction that may be offered, forthwith take possession of the inam and all accounts, registers, pattas, mutchalikas, maps, plans and
- 21 -
other documents relating to the inam which the Government, may require for the administration thereof:
Provided that (h) to (k)...
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall operate as a bar to the recovery by the inamdar of any sum which becomes due to him before the date of vesting by virtue of his rights as inamdar and any such sum shall be recoverable by him by any process of law which but for this Act would be available to him."
5.3.1 Thus, as per Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, all rights, title and interest in the Inamdar shall cease and vest absolutely in the State Government as a consequence of publication of Notification under Section 3(1). Furthermore, sub-clause (f) of sub-Section (1) of Section 3 says that no such Inam land is liable to be attached for sale in execution of any decree. 5.4 On the basis of the above provision, the contention of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in overlooking the effect of vesting of lands, which took place with issuance of Notification dated 01.02.1959 under the Inams Abolition Act, whereby the property - land in question, came to be notified as per Section 3(1). When the Notification under Section 1(4) is issued, the land shall vest in the State Government and Section 3 of the Act would operate.
- 22 -
5.4.1 It is the specific case and contention that since the land in question was Jodi Inam land which stood notified under the Inams Abolition Act on 01.02.1959, consequently vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, since the land stood absolutely vested under Section 3(b), Mr. Kaveri Reddy ceased to have right, title and interest in the land from the date of vesting, further that all derivative rights or enforcement measure such as attachment of the property obtained by the mortgagee-Doddaiah also stood automatically extinguished under Section 3(f) as it was the right arising out of Inamdar's extinguished interest. The order of attachment dated 31.08.1953 was rendered void and became unenforceable post- vesting. Subsequent Sale Certificate also became without having any legal effect. 5.4.2 It was also submitted that Section 24(2) of the Act also comes into picture, under which no claim for compensation was made by Kemparaju. It was the only right available to a mortgagee to claim compensation from the State Government after vesting. A mortgagee or charge holder cannot assert any claim over the claimant once it was vested in the State.
- 23 -
5.4.3 On the other hand, the contention of the other side is that Section 3 contains the words 'save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act'. Therefore, the Section will have to be construed in that light, to be subject to other provisions of law. According to respondent-original petitioner, the attachment was in force and any private alienation after attachment could not have been done, therefore, the share in favour of the appellant- Mr. H. Kempaiah was void and he did not derive interest. 5.5 No doubt, the event of issuance of Notification dated 01.02.1959 whereby the land came to be notified under the Inams Abolition Act, is an important aspect, however, in view of the other outweighing aspect discussed and highlighted hereinbelow, the court is of the view that going into the rival contentions on merits of the above issue would be an academic exercise.
5.6 The clinching aspect which would disentitle the original petitioner- Kemparaju-his legal heirs for any relief either in respect of challenge to the order of the Land Tribunal or his claim for regrant is that no application was made on his part in this regard. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal, readily overlooked this material
- 24 -
aspect. The Tahsildar while passing order dated 11.12.1968 had rightly noted that there was no application by Mr. Kemparaju for grant of occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act, which was mandatory. After vesting of the property in the State Government, post Notification dated 01.02.1959, if land was to be reclaimed or to be regranted, it ought to have been upon application for the purpose in accordance with Section 10 of the Act. The Tahsildar found that neither the original holder nor the decree holder-Doddaiah, and also not the purchaser-Kemparaju had any legal standing in relation to the property in question. The Special Secretary in his order dated 25.02.1972 also considered the issue to find that the land had vested in the Government and the private rights were extinguished, confirming the order of the Tahsildar. 5.7 Now we proceed to consider the provisions of the act on this score. Section 10 of the Act is on the aspect of determination of the claims under Sections 4 to 9 of the Act. Pausing here, before looking at the provision of Section 10, the aforesaid Sections 4 to 9 may be briefly referred to. Section 4 is about the Kadim tenants to be registered as occupants of their holdings. Section 5 deals with the permanent tenants to be registered as occupants on certain conditions. Section 6 is
- 25 -
about quasi-permanent tenants, whereas Section 7 is about the land and buildings to vest in the holder of a minor Inam, to which the Act is applicable. Section 8 is about the holders of minor inams to which Act is not applicable. Section 9 says that the land and building shall vest in Inamdar. Section 10 of the Act deals with the issue of determination of claims under the above said Section Nos.4 to 9, which are the different categories.
5.7.1 Section 10 reads as under, "10.(Determination of claims under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9-- (1) The Tribunal shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which a kadim tenant, a permanent tenant, a quasi-permanent tenant, the holder of a minor inam or an inamdar claims to be registered as occupant under Sections 4,5,6,7 and 9 or the holder of a minor inam claims to be registered as holder under Section 8, '[xxx] as the case may be, and decide in respect of which lands the claims should be allowed.
(2) A tenant found to be in possession of any land on the first day of July, 1948, shall be presumed to be a quasi-permanent tenant as defined in clause (14) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 unless the inamdar proves that such tenant is not a quasi - permanent tenant as defined in clause (14) of sub-section (1) of Section 2.
Provided that in the case of a tenant in minor inam such presumption shall be raised if such tenant is found to be in possession of any land on the 1st day of July, 1970.
- 26 -
(3) (a) No person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under Sections 4,5,6,7 and 9 unless the claimant makes an applications to the Tribunal. Every such application shall be made-
(i) in respect of lands in inams which have vested in the State before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1973 within six years from the date of commencement of the said Amendment Act; and
(ii) in respect of lands in inams which vest in the State on or after the commencement of the Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973 within [three years] from the date of vesting of the inam concerned or 31st December, 1979 whichever is later.
(b) where no application is made within the period specified in clause (a), the right of any person to be registered as an occupant shall stand extinguished and the land shall vest in the State absolutely, such land shall be disposed of in accordance with the rules relating to grant of lands.
(c) The provisions of Sections 48-A, 48-C and 112 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the relevant rules framed thereunder shall mutatis mutandis apply to an enquiry for determination of a claim under this Section 10 and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final." 5.7.2 Thus, Section 10(3)(a) says that a person shall not be entitled to be registered as an occupant unless such person- the claimant makes an application to the Tribunal as contemplated under (i) or (ii) as above. The application was required to be made in the present case within six years as per
- 27 -
Section 3(a)(i) from the date of commencement of the Act, 1973. The last date was therefore 31.12.1979. 5.8 There was no application made by the respondent- original petitioner-Kemparaju. What application was made was for impleadment only which was submitted on 18.10.2000. As stated above, the prayer in that was only for impleadment. The prayer for regrant was never put forth. The application for regrant was not made at any time. A lame, faint and teethless plea was then sought to be advanced that the papers were lost in the fire. This was also raised for the first time only without any basis, and it hardly inspired any credibility, either in fact or in law. As stated above, even in the application made on 18.10.2000 for impleadment, it was nowhere stated therein that he had made an application in the relevant form or format at any time to be declared as an occupant. 5.8.1 The learned single Judge failed to account for this decisive aspect that there was neither prayer nor was the application for regrant by the original petitioner on record. Therefore, allowing his claim for regrant and directing mutation in revenue records was not only erroneous but tantamount to irregular and illegal exercise of jurisdiction.
- 28 -
5.8.2 The factual position which emerges is that there was no application by the original petitioner-Kemparaju. Much less before 31.12.1979. The application was only for impleadment in the proceedings. When it was an admitted fact that Kemparaju did not file application under Section 9 of the Mysore Inams Abolition Act, 1954 for the grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question, and the record clearly reveals that only application filed by Kemparaju was on 01.10.2000 seeking mere impleadment in the proceedings of INA.CR.01/1997-98 which was originally filed by the appellant- Kempaiah, there was no question of any entitlement for Kemparaju for regrant.
5.9 The division bench of this Court in S.M. Kannappa Automobiles vs. Koladamatt Mahasamstana (MANU/KA/2671/ 2020), more particularly in paragraph 96 and 103 held that filing of application under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act is a sine quo non for claiming right or privilege there under. It was held that upon vesting of inam under the State Government, the rights of Inamdars would survive provided proper application is made and adjudicated.
- 29 -
Unless application is filed within the said period, right to be registered as an occupant would stand extinguished.
6. In the present case, the last date of make application was 31.12.1979 in terms of Section 10 of the Act as stated above. It is to be re-stated and re-asserted that there was no application with a prayer for regrant. Seeking impleadment in the proceedings without any relief prayed for does not entitle any party to relief automatically. There has to be an application and the prayer. There exists a difference in law seeking to implead and seeking to a claim with prayer for relief. When there is no prayer, no application and no claim made in the instant case, any further case for Kemparaju would not accrue, survive or much less that any prayer for regrant relief could be enforced.
6.1 For all the aforesaid reasons and discussion and for the grounds elaborated in paragraphs 5.5 to 6 preceding, the judgment and order of learned Single Judge in allowing writ petition No.27409 of 2017 has to be set aside. The prayers in the petition made by the petitioner could not have been granted in facts or in law. The present appeal deserves to be allowed.
- 30 -
7. Resultantly, the judgment and order of learned single Judge dated 27.09.2024 in writ petition No.27409 of 2017, is set aside. The appeal stands allowed.
Sd/-
(N.V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(K.V. ARAVIND) JUDGE AHB