Karnataka High Court
Muniraj And Anr. vs Karnataka Appellate Tribunal And Ors. on 20 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(3)KARLJ570, 2004 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1201, 2004 AIHC 1755, (2004) 3 KCCR 1935, (2004) 3 KANT LJ 570
Author: H. Rangavittalachar
Bench: H. Rangavittalachar
ORDER
1. The writ petition is filed challenging the correctness of the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal holding that the appeal filed by respondents 4 to 8 before it, is maintainable.
Facts are as under:
2. Lands bearing Sy. Nos. 130, 131, 134, 135 and 136 of "Khayamgutta Binnamangala Village" are inam lands. After the coming into force of the Karnataka Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, 1954 petitioners herein filed applications for registration of occupancy rights in respect of the lands under their cultivation before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition (Hereinafter referred to as the Deputy Commissioner). While their applications were being enquired into by the Deputy Commissioner, respondents 4 to 8 herein filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure for getting impleaded on the ground that they are also interested persons being the purchasers of certain house sites situated in the lands. This application came to be rejected by the Deputy Commissioner. Subsequently by a final order dated 12-7-1999, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the applications of the petitioners and ordered them to be registered as occupants.
3. The final order of the Deputy Commissioner came to be challenged by respondents 4 to 8 herein belatedly before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT). They made 3 applications before the Tribunal.--
(i) I. A. No. I was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.
(ii) I.A. No. II was filed for staying the operation of the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner.
(iii) I.A. No. III was filed for seeking leave of the Tribunal to prosecute the appeal.
The Tribunal allowed all the 3 applications, while allowing LA. No. III it has held that "Respondents 4 to 8 though were not parties before the Special Deputy Commissioner since they are the purchasers of certain house sites in the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 130, 131 and 134, they have interest in the properties in question". Hence, their appeal is maintainable.
4. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. Assailing this reason of the Tribunal as erroneous, Sri Gangi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the scheme of the Inams Abolition Act, only an inamdar or a person claiming occupancy rights alone are entitled to file an appeal under Section 28 of the Act. But, strangers like respondents 4 to 8 have no right of appeal. Tribunal therefore was not right in entertaining their appeal.
5. Per contra, Sri Sudarshana Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 8 defended the order by stating that a person even though is not a party before the Deputy Commissioner in an enquiry under Section 10 of the Act but if his interests are affected by the order, is entitled to maintain an appeal.
6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to briefly refer to the provisions of the Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and to state the persons entitled to maintain an appeal under Section 28 of the Act.
7. The Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) was passed with the intention of abolishing all the inams. Section 3 of the Act provides that the consequences of vesting among other things being that all rights of Inamdar Stands abolished and the entire inam vests in the State of Mysore absolutely free from all encumbrances. However, the "Act" confers rights in favour of certain categories of tenants, cultivating the lands, under the Inamdar under Sections 4, 5 and 6; On holders of minor Inam under Sections 7 and 8 and on the Inamdar under Section 9. Apart from the inamdar and the tenants, under Section 12 every owner of a private building is entitled to keep the building; and under Section 13 of the Act a third party is entitled to keep the converted lands, provided the conversion is effected, according to law: But, the "Tenants" and the "Inamdar" are required under the Act to make applications before the jurisdictional authority (The Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, later the land Tribunal for some time now again the Deputy Commissioner) to have their rights declared. So also the owner of a private building if there is a dispute regarding his ownership.
8. Section 10 of the Act provides for adjudication of the Rights of Tenants, Inamdar, including a holder of minor inam and of the applicants who have filed their applications under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act. Since the said section has a bearing to the point in issue, the relevant clause of the section i.e., Section 10(1) is extracted omitting What is unnecessary. It reads:
"Section 10. Determination of claims under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner 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, as the case may be, and. decide in respect of which lands the claims should be allowed".
9. An appeal is provided against the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under Section 10 of the Act to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 28 of the Act. It reads as under:
"Section 28. Appeal from orders under Section 11.--(1) Against any decision of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 11, the Government may, within six months from the date of commencement of the Mysore Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 or from the date of the decision, whichever is later, and any person aggrieved by such decision may, within thirty days from the said date, appeal to the prescribed authority and the decision of the prescribed authority shall be final".
10. A bare reading of Section 28 suggests that the Right of Appeal is conferred only on the State Government and to the person or persons claiming rights under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Act.
11. However, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shantha Rao v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, to by the learned Counsel for respondent, has taken the view that even persons who are not parties before the Deputy Commissioner in the enquiry under Section 10 of the Act, but if their interests are affected, they are also entitled to file an appeal under Section 28 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the decision is set out herein: para reads:
"The language of Section 28 is very wide. It does not say that the right of appeal is conferred only on the aggrieved parties. That right is conferred on all persons aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the question, whether the petitioner was an aggrieved party is irrelevant. The Tribunal should have seen whether she is an aggrieved person. In B.K. Ramachandra Rao v. Kamapalappa, this Court has laid down that the words of Section 28 of the Act are so comprehensive as to include any person who is interested in the subject-matter of the dispute, whether or not he is a party to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner; and hence a person interested though not party to the proceedings can appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The facts of the present case fall within the rule laid down in that decision".
12. No doubt by this decision, even persons who are not parties before the Deputy Commissioner in a proceedings under Section 10 of the Act have a right of appeal provided they have an interest in the subject-matter. But, then to be persons interested in the subject-matter of dispute, within the meaning of Section 28 of the Act in the context of abolition of an Inam, its consequences of vesting of inam in the State Government free from all encumbrances under Section 3 of the Act and the Act being a complete Code in itself i.e., creating rights, establishing a Forum for declaration of rights and establishment of an Appellate Authority, 'person interested' can only mean persons whose rights are created or saved under the Inams Abolition Act or their derivative title holders or persons whose rights to lands are saved under Section 12 or 13 of the Act or their successors, when their rights are being affected by any decision of the Deputy Commissioner, whether or not they were parties before him and such persons have a right of appeal under Section 28 of the Act, but the expression "person interested" cannot be interpreted so widely to include even others whose rights cannot be traced to any of the provisions of the Act. That is not the ratio laid down by the Division Bench judgment of this Court referred above. The question whether respondents 4 to 8 fit into the above stated categories and hence can be called as "Interested" persons within the meaning of Section 28 of the Act has to be decided by the Tribunal after an enquiry in this regard. But in this case, the Tribunal has failed to consider the above points and has merely proceeded to hold that "if a person has an interest in the property, that gives him sufficient "Locus" to file an appeal", whether or not he fits into the above mentioned categories of persons. This reasoning would be widening the scope of appeal where the intentment of Legislature is otherwise. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly it is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the Tribunal with a direction to re-enquire about the maintainability of the appeal in the light of the discussions made above. The Tribunal shall dispose off the matter within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the order. Parties are entitled to produce additional documents or evidence in support of their contentions regarding maintainability. It is made clear that in other respects i.e., the orders passed on I.A. Nos. I and II remains undisturbed.