Karnataka High Court
P. Ramaiah Setty (Dead By Lrs. ... vs R. Nanjundaiah (Since Dead By Lrs. N. ... on 5 September, 2006
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
JUDGMENT Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.
Page 1079 This appeal is filed by Defendants Nos. 1, 3 to 6, 8 to 15 and 17 to 21 assailing the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1999 passed in R.A.No. 12/1979, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) K.G.F, by which the Judgment and decree dated 15.11.1977 passed in O.S.26/ 1970, by the Munsiff, now civil Judge (Junior Division) K.G.F., is reversed and consequently decreed the suit filed by the Respondents-1 to 4 herein.
1. Heard Sri. A. Mohan Ram, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants-appellants, Sri. S.R. Krishnakumar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-1 (a) (i) to 1 (a) (vi), R 1(c), R-3(a) and respondent No. 4 and perused the material on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.
2. The Plaintiffs-respondents-1 to 4 herein filed the suit for declaration and possession of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Narasappa was a permanent tenant over the suit schedule property under the Inamdar (Jodidar) namely, Sri. Subbarao; Plaintiff No. 1 is the elder brother of said Narasappa, Plaintiff No. 2 is daughter of said Narasappa, Plaintiff No. 3 is the son-in-law of Narasappa and Plaintiff No. 4 is the daughter of plaintiff No. 1; that Narasappa bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs through registered will dated 16.07.1964; that entire Krishnarajapuram village, Bangarpet Taluk was a Khayamgutta village i.e., Inam village (Jodi village); that the total extent of land of the village is 103 acres out of which, to the extent of half portion, Raja Manikyavelu was the inamdar and Sri. K. Subba rao (Defendant No. 2) was the inamdar (jodidar) to the extent of another half portion; that Raja Manikyavelu was also the proprietor of Mahalakshmi Wool and Cotton Mills, Bangalore; that defendant No. 2 K. Subba Rao was inamdar to the extent of 55 acres; that after coming into force of the Mysore (Personal and Page 1080 Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act 1954 ("Inams Abolition Act" for short), the entire extent of 103 acres of land came to be vested in the Government and in view of the same, the permanent tenant namely, Narasappa filed application for grant of occupancy rights in his favour under the provisions of the "Inams Abolition Act to an extent of 55 acres of which K. Subba Rao was the inamdar. The same was registered in case No. 4997/1961-62 on the file of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Kolar (hereinafter referred to as 'Spl. D.C., for short) and at the first instance, the same came to be rejected on 18.06.1962; thereafter said Narasappa filed appeal No. 871/1962 before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal ('MRAT' for short), Bangalore which came to be allowed and the matter was remanded back to the original authority on 30.04.1964; that on 16.07.1994, Narasappa bequeathed the property in question in favour of the plaintiffs and thereafter, he died on 30.07.1964; that on 16.01.1965, the Spl. D.C., rejected the application filed by plaintiffs (legal representatives of deceased Narasappa) to implead themselves as parties to the proceedings solely on the ground that the death certificate of Narasappa was not produced along with the application. Against the said order of rejection of application to come on record, the legal representatives of Narasappa filed appeal before the 'MRAT' Bangalore in appeal No. 176/66 (I.A.K). The said appeal came to be allowed by the Tribunal on 31.01.1967, the copy of the order is marked at Ex.P.2; that the Tribunal directed the Spl. D.C. to issue occupancy rights in favour of Narasappa's legal representatives i.e., plaintiffs. Thereafter, the Spl. D.C. granted occupancy rights in favour of the Plaintiffs by his order dated 24.07.1967 as per Ex.P.3 which is followed by grant certificate/endorsement Ex.P4 issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar on 25.08.1967 to the effect that the Plaintiffs are the occupants of the land in question. As no further appeal was filed by anybody much less by the defendants-appellants herein and the said order of grant of occupancy rights in favour of the Plaintiffs has retained its finality.
In the meanwhile, as aforesaid, Sri. Raja Manikyavelu was in arrears of land revenue. As such, the entire extent of 103 acres of land was put to public auction by the State Government for recovery of arrears of land revenue in the year 1964 and the 1st defendant namely, P. Ramaiah Setty purchased the entire extent of land of jodi village in the auction held on 04.04.1964 and the sale certificate was issued in favour of 1st defendant on 25.08.1964, in proceedings No. Dis. M.4. C. 365/64-65. Thereafter, the 1st defendant sold the entire property in favour of defendants-3 to 22 on 04.09.1964 by dividing the land in certain proportions and after purchase of the properties, the defendants-3 to 22 have dispossessed the plaintiffs forcibly and consequently, the present suit is filed for declaration and possession.
3. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that the defendant No. 1 has purchased the land in question on 04.04.1964 in the auction conducted by the State Government for recovery of arrears of land revenue Page 1081 and consequently, he became the absolute owner of the property. Thereafter, the 1st defendant sold the property in question in favour of defendants-3 to 22 on 14.09.1964 in certain proportions and in pursuance to the said sale deeds, the defendants-3 to 22 have taken possession of the land and they are in possession of the property. Hence defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the Plaintiffs.
4. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, five witnesses were examined and 06 documents were got marked. The defendants have examined seven witnesses and got marked 26 documents. The trial Court, after evaluating oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit. The first Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court and consequently, decreed the suit. Hence, this second appeal by some of the defendants.
5. Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties have argued in support of their respective contentions. It is also argued on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the First Appellate Court is not justified in ignoring the direction issued by this Court in R.S.A. No: 262/1986 dated 30.06.1997. This Court while remanding the matter at an earlier point of time had directed the First Appellate Court to consider the objections of the defendants relating to validity of the will executed by Narasappa in favour of the plaintiffs.
6. In view of the aforesaid pleadings and contentions of the parties, the following substantial questions of law arises for consideration:
(a) Whether the matter needs to be remanded to the first appellate court for considering the legality or otherwise of the Will said to have been executed by Narasappa in favour of plaintiffs?
(b) Whether the rights of the permanent tenant namely late Narasappa over the property in question are extinguished in pursuance to the auction sale dated 04.04.1964 and what is the effect of the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act 1955 and Section 87(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 on the permanent tenancy over the property in question held by deceased Narasappa?
(c) Whether it is open for the Civil Court to re-open the question relating to occupancy rights granted in favour of the Plaintiffs by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal after the same has attained finality?
7. At the out set, the learned Counsel Sri. S.R. Krishna Kumar appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Plaintiffs-respondents will not press their contentions based on will said to have been executed by Narasappa in their favour. According to him, as the Plaintiff No. 2 smt. Ramakka is the daughter of late Narasappa, she represents the estate of Narasappa sufficiently and that therefore, even in the absence of will said to have been executed by late Narasappa in favour of the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff No. 2 will continue to be the owner representing the estate of Narasappa. Even if the will is not produced or proved in accordance with law, it will affect only the rights of plaintiff No. 1, 3 and 4 and the same will not affect Page 1082 the rights of plaintiff No. 2. Thus, he submits that the will said to have been executed by Narasappa in favour of Plaintiff on 16.07.1964 may be ignored and that he is not pressing his case based on Will. Said submission is recorded. In view of the aforesaid submission, in my considered opinion, no useful purpose will be served by again remanding the matter back to the first appellate Court for consideration of question relating to the validity of the will. It is no doubt true that this Court at an earlier point of time, in R.S.A.262/1986, directed the first appellate Court to consider the case of the rival parties with regard to the will said to have been executed by Narasappa in favour of the Plaintiffs. But even after remand, the said will dated 16.07.1964 was neither produced nor proved by the plaintiffs. However, the first appellate Court decided the appeal in accordance with law on other points and decreed the suit.
In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs, before this Court, the validity of the Will need not be gone into. Even otherwise this Court is of the considered view that as the will is not produced and proved by the plaintiffs, their case relating to execution of Will by Narasappa fails. Thus, the case of the Plaintiff No. 2 alone shall have to be considered on merits inasmuch as, she represents the estate of her father late Narasappa who was the permanent tenant of the land in question. However, the claim of the Plaintiffs-1, 3 & 4 is liable to be rejected inasmuch as, they will not have any right over the suit property in the absence of bequeath made by the deceased Narasappa in their favour.
8. It is relevant to note that the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act 1954 has received the assent of the President (Gazetted on 19-3-1955). In view of the said enactment, the Personal and Miscellaneous Inams held by the erstwhile Inamdars vested in the State from the year 1955 itself. It is not in dispute that the Inam in question is the personal Inam and thus, the Inam held by Inamdar Sri. K. Subbarao (defendant No. 2) stood vested in the State Government in the year 1955. Even prior to the date of such vesting, the Inamdar (Jodidar) was in arrears of the land revenue. The consequences that follow from such vesting of the Inams in the State are described in Section-3 of the "Inams Abolition Act" which reads as under:
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 Mysore 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 ensure, namely:
(a) The provisions of the Land Revenue Code relating to alienated holdings shall, except as respects minor inams to which this Act is not applicable, be deemed to have been repealed in their application to the inam; and the provisions of the Land Revenue Page 1083 Code and all other enactments applicable to unalienated, villages shall apply to the said inam;
(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, quarties, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State of Mysore, free from all encumbrances:
(c) The inamdar shall cease to have any interest in the inam other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act;
(d) All rents and land revenue including cesses and royalties accruing in respect of lands comprised in such inam on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State and not to the inamdar and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid;
(e) All arrears of revenue, whether as jodi, quet-rent, or khayamgutta, and cesses, remaining lawfully due on the date of vesting in respect of any such inam shall after such date continue to be recoverable from the inamdar by whom they were payable and may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be realised by the deduction of the amount of such arrears and cesses from the compensation money payable to such inamdar under this Act;
(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 other documents relating to the inam which the Government, may require for the administration thereof:
Provided that the Government shall not disposses any person of any land in respect of which they consider that he is prima facie entitled to be registered as the occupant or as the holder of a minor inam (or to be continued as a tenant);
(h) the inamdar and any other person whose rights have vested in the State of Mysore under Clause (b) shall be entitled only to compensation from the Government as provided in this Act;
(i) the relationship of landlord and tenant shall, as between the inamdar and a kadim tenant or permanent tenant or quasi-permanent tenant, be extinguished;
Page 1084
(j) the relationship of superior holder and inferior holder shall, as between the inamdar and the holder of a minor inam, be extinguished;
(k) Kadim tenants, permanent tenants and quasi-permanent tenants in the inam and persons holding under them and holders of minor inams shall, as against the Government, be entitled only to such rights and privileges and be subject to such conditions as are provided for by or under this Act; and any other rights and privileges which may have accrued to them in the inam before the date of vesting against the inamdar shall cease and determine and shall not be enforceable against the Government or such inamdar.
(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.
(Emphasis Supplied) Further, it is relevant to note the provisions of Section-5 and 10 of the "Inams Abolition Act" which are necessary for consideration of the question involved in this appeal, which read as under:
5. Permanent tenants to be registered as occupants on certain conditions : (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) every permanent tenant of the inamdar shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as a occupant in respect of all lands of which he was a permanent tenant immediately before the date of vesting:
Provided that no person who has been admitted into possession of any land by inamdar on or after the first day of July 1948, shall, except where the Deputy Commissioner after an examination of all the circumstances otherwise directs, be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of such land.
(2) In addition to the annual land revenue payable in respect of the land, a permanent tenant entitled to be registered as an occupant of any land under Sub-section (1), shall be liable to pay to the Government, as premium for acquisition of ownership of that land, an amount equal to twenty times such land revenue. The amount of premium shall be payable in not more than ten annual installments along with the annual land revenue and in default of such payment, the amount due shall be recoverable as an arrears of land revenue due on the land in respect of which it is payable.
(Provided that where a permanent tenant entitled to be registered as an occupant of land under Sub-section (1) is shown as a registered occupant in the settlement register and other records referred to in Section 117 of the Land Revenue Code or where the rent paid by a permanent tenant entitled to be registered as an occupant under Sub- Page 1085 section (1) [is not more than the land revenue], no premium shall be payable under this sub-section.)
10. [Determination of claims under Section. 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 quasi-permanent tenant as defined in Clause (14) of Sub-section (1) and 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] [(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 application to the [Tribunal]. Every such application shall be made, -] 2[(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 rules relating to grant of lands].
[(c) The provisions of Sections 48A, 48C 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 5 [and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final] [18 of 90].
10-A. Entries to be made in the record of rights. (1) After the determination of claims under Section 10, the [Tribunal] shall send the prescribed particulars of the decision of the officer maintaining the record of rights under the Mysore Land Record of Rights Act, 1958.
(2) On receipt of the particulars under Sub-section (1), and notwithstanding anything contained in the [Karnataka Land Record Page 1086 of Rights Act, 1958], the officer concerned shall enter such particulars in the registers.
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. The plain reading of Section-3(1)(b) of "Inams Abolition Act" it is clear that all rights, title and interest vested in Inamdars (defendant No. 2) have ceased to exist and are vested absolutely in the State of Mysore (now called State of Karnataka) free from all encumbrances. The Inamdars ceased to have any interest in such Inam lands other than the interest that is specially saved under the "Inams Abolition Act". After vesting, all the rents and land revenue including cesses and royalties accruing in respect of lands comprised in such Inam shall be payable to the State and not to the Inamdar. Inamdars were only entitled for grant of certain compensation as provided under the said Act.
Sub-section (f) of Section-3(1) of the "Inams Abolition Act" further makes it clear that such Inams shall not 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, and such debt in respect of the Inam shall, cease to be in force. Thus, it is clear that the existing attachment for non payment of land revenue by the inamdars as on the date of vesting ceased to be in force from the date of vesting. The arrears of land revenue as on the date of vesting shall have to be recovered from the Inamdars by deducting the said amount from out of the compensation to be payable to Inamdars by the State Government as per Section 3(1)(c) of Inams Abolition Act. Consequently, the land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. In other words, the property in question would be the property of the State Government from the date of vesting free from all encumbrances. Consequently, the State Government could not have sold the land in question in public auction for recovery of the arrears of land revenue after the date of vesting. Thus, the auction sale conducted by the State Government, in which, the 1st defendant had purchased the land in question is ab-inito void. Since the defendant No. 1 himself did not get any right over the property in question in pursuance of the sale, subsequent sale made in favour of defendants-3 to 22 by the 1st defendant is also void and therefore, the defendants-3 to 22 also have got no right, title or interest over the property in question.
10. Even otherwise, the interest of the permanent tenants will not extinguish or vanish after vesting by virtue of the aforesaid enactment. The rights of the permanent tenants are protected under the Act. The proviso to Sub-section (g) of Section 3(1) of the 'Inams Abolition Act" mandates that the State Government shall not dispossess the person of any land in respect of which the State Government considers that he is prima facie entitled to be registered as the occupant or to be continued as a tenant. Section-5 of the Act farther makes it clear that the permanent tenants shall be registered as occupant on certain conditions. If particular person is a permanent tenant prior to the date of vesting or on the date of vesting, it is open for Page 1087 him to file application for registering himself as occupant and the State Government, after making enquiry shall register such permanent tenant as the occupant in respect of the lands of which he was a permanent tenant immediately before the date of vesting. The procedure for determination of the claims made Under Section 5 of the "Inams Abolition Act" is prescribed under Section-10 of the "Inams Abolition Act". If Section 5 is read harmoniously with the provisions of Section-3 it can be safely concluded that the rights of permanent tenants are protected even after the date of vesting of land in the State. Thus, the sale in favour of defendant No. 1 by the State and the subsequent sale by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 3 to 22, even assuming to be legal and valid, the same are subject to the rights of permanent tenant i.e., Narasappa. At the most it can be said that the defendants 1, 3 to 22 are clothed with the rights of Inamdar. However, the rights of the Inamdar will extinguish immediately after vesting subject to his right of getting compensation from the Government under Sub-section (h) of Section 3 of the "Inams Abolition Act".
Added to this, as can be seen from the provisions of Section 87 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964, even if the land is sold for recovery of arrears of land revenue, such sale will not affect the rights of Kadim tenants or permanent tenants in alienated holdings/rights in respect of such occupancy or holding.
11. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, Narasappa had filed his application for grant of occupancy rights under the provisions of Section-5 of the "Inams Abolition Act" and his application for grant of occupancy rights came to be rejected initially by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 08.06.1962. However, on appeal, the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. 871/ 1962 set aside the order passed by the Spl. D.C. and remanded the matter back to the original authority by the order dated 04.04.1964 and thereafter, the original authority (Spl. D.C.) has once again rejected the application filed by Narasappa on 06.01.1965. However, the said order is again appealed against by the plaintiffs in appeal No. 176/ 1965. The appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 31.01.1967 (as per Ex.P.2) allowed the appeal and consequently held that the plaintiffs are entitled to be registered as occupants and directed the Spl. Deputy Commissioner to pass appropriate orders granting occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the Spl. Deputy Commissioner passed order dated 24.07.1967 (as per Ex.P.3) by granting occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiffs which is followed by the grant certificate issued by the Tahsildar as per Ex.P.4. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 31.01.1967 in appeal No. 176/1965 and order dated 24.07.1967 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner granting occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiffs as per Ex.P.3 have attained finality inasmuch as, they have remained unchallenged by anybody much less by the defendants.
12. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the defendants-appellants Page 1088 herein submits that though the said orders passed by the 'MRAT' and the Spl. D.C. were not further appealed against, the validity of said orders also should have been gone into by the Civil Court in the present proceedings. Such contention made on behalf of the appellants cannot be accepted. Once the orders passed by the competent original authority as well as the Tribunal under the said enactment have attained finality, the same cannot be allowed to be re-agitated or re-opened as the Inams Abolition Act is a self contained code by itself.
The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Stumpp schedule & Somappa Pvt. Ltd. v. S.M. Chandrappa and Ors. reported in 1985 (2) Kar. L.J. page-483 has observed as under:
It is thus seen that the Inams Abolition Act attaches finality to the orders granting registration of occupancy rights. What does it mean? It is not an implied exclusion of the jurisdiction of Civil Courts? Is not the Inams Abolition Act a complete Code by itself? Does it not provide machinery for adjudicating the rights of parties with appellate forum to correct the errors of the adjudicating authority? If that is so, could Civil Courts still exercise general jurisdiction over the same dispute. Had the Legislature intended to provide dual remedies to parties or intended to establish two authorities to determine the same question? We think not. The grant of occupancy right as 'Kadim' tenant, permanent tenant or any other tenant is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the special authority constituted under the Inams Abolition Act which is a special enactment. Its order is appealable to the prescribed authority and it then becomes final. It is, therefore, legitimate to infer that by reason of the provisions of Section-28 read with Section 31(3) of the Inams Abolition Act, the adjudication as to registration of occupancy right in respect of the land which immediately before the date of vesting was properly included in the holding of the applicant becomes final and conclusive. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to reopen that matter.
While laying the above dictum, the Division Bench of this Court has relied on various earlier Judgments of this Court on the point and concluded as stated above.
13. This Court, in yet another Judgment in the case of Anjanappa and Ors. v. Byrappa (Since deceased) by L.Rs reported in 1985 (5) Kar. L.J. 459 has held as under:
The order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 10 of the Act granting occupancy rights is final subject to appeal to the Tribunal. The Act provides a complete forum for the determination of claims. The jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted. In the instant case, the defendant appellant was granted occupancy right to the land in question in his individual capacity and not in his representative capacity as Manager of the Joint Family. That order of the Special Deputy Commissioner has become final and cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings like the present suit for partition. It is not open Page 1089 to the Civil Court to give a decision, which is contrary to that of the Special Deputy Commissioner.
Further, in the case of Manikyam C. v. R. Thimmaiah reported in 1983(1) Kar.L.J. page-328 this Court has observed thus:
The Civil Court ceases to have jurisdiction to decide the question of title, when once the land vested in the Government under the Inams Abolition Act. All such questions have to be decided only by the special forum created under the Act.
It is relevant to note the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishnamurthy v. Hemanna reported in ILR 1987 Kar-1469, after considering the various Judgments of this Court rendered at an earlier point of time has observed thus:
9...the consistent view of this Court is that the adjudication by the authorities under the Act is exclusive and Civil Court has no jurisdiction of entertain a suit for declaration of title or possession in respect of lands vested in the State Government.
Further, the Apex Court in the case of Pushpagiri Math v. Kopparaju Veerabhadra Rao reported in 1996 (SCC) 2225, while dealing with the similar provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Inam Abolitions and conversion of land into Raitawari Act has observed thus:
4. When it is an admitted case that the land originally belonged to the math and when the appellate court has recorded by finding of fact on the basis of the documentary evidence that the Math is the owner of the property and that the respondent admittedly came in possession as an inamdar to render service to the math, he cannot claim any possessory title or title in his own right. Under A.P. Inam Abolition and Conversion and Ryotwari Act, Act.37/56, after the Act had come into force, the pre-existing right, title and interest stood extinguished and the new rights were sought to be conferred under Section 3 read with Section 7 thereof either in a suo motu enquiry under Section 3 or an application under Section 7. A new grant of ryotwari patta is to be made by the Tehsildar by way of an order after enquiry to the extent of entitlement as per law. It would be subject to an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, which becomes final. In Peddinti Venkata Murali Ranganatha Deslka Iyengar v. Govt., of A.P. [1996] 1 JT [SC] 234 : 1996 AIR SCW 408, a bench of two Judges of this Court (in which one of us K. Ramaswamy J., was a member and considered the scope and operation of the Act. While considering the constitutional validity of Section 7 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987, the Court held that a person or institution or the tenant in occupation is entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of the land. The institution is entitled to the extent of 2/3 and the tenant or Page 1090 person is entitled to ryotwari patta to an extent of 1/3 share. The grant of ryotwari patta under Section 7 becomes conclusive overriding the effect given by Section 15 over any other law. It would, therefore, be dear that after the Inam stood abolished, the pre-existing rights extinguished and the obligation to render service burdened with the land was relieved. The holder of the land became entitled to free-hold ryotwari patta. Thus the pre-existing right, title and interest stood extinguished.
5. It would thus be clear that by statutory operation of the provisions of the Act, the pre-existing right or interest held by the inamdar or the institution stood extinguished and conferment of ryotwari patta under Section 7 read with Section 3 becomes conclusive between the parties. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to declare title to the Inam land by necessary implication stood excluded. Under those circumstances, the respondent cannot claim any exclusive title to the property as an owner and lay claim for declaration of title on that basis. Unfortunately, the High court blissfully became ignorant to the statutory operation of law and the legal evidence and the effect and proceeded on the premise that the grant has been lost and the respondent has become owner of the property by prescription. Though the plea of adverse possession was raised, no issue has been framed in that behalf nor any finding was recorded by the trial court or the appellate court. Under these circumstances, the High Court was wholly wrong in its conclusion that the respondent has established his title to the property.
In view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court in the aforecited cases, it has to be held that the Civil Courts shall not re-open the matters pertaining to grant of occupancy rights in favour of the permanent tenants or Kadeem tenants, once they become final. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the question relating to grant of occupancy rights should have been gone into by the Civil Court cannot be accepted.
14. It is further contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that as the appellants were not parties to the proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner and Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, the Civil Court should have perused the records and it ought have convinced itself about the validity of those orders. The said contention also cannot be accepted inasmuch as, these appellants-defendants did not get any right, title or interest over the property in question by virtue of the sale deed. As aforesaid, the auction of the property in question held by the State Government for realization of arrears of land revenue itself was bad in the eye of law and consequently, the auction purchaser-defendant No. 1 did not get any right, title or interest over the said property. Consequently, defendants-3 to 22 who are the subsequent purchaser of the land in question from defendant No. 1 also will not get any right over the property in question. When the defendants had or have no right over the property Page 1091 in question, they could not have been impleaded in the proceedings either before the Special Deputy Commissioner or before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. Even assuming that the auction sale held by the State Government is legal, the consequential effect would be that the auction purchaser-defendant No. 1 will purchase the rights of the Inamdars. As aforesaid, the Inamdar's rights should vested in the State Government immediately prior to the date of vesting of such lands i.e., in the year 1955 itself. Therefore, 1st defendant-auction purchaser would not get any right, title or interest over the property in question except the right of getting compensation from the State Government. As aforesaid, the auction sale, even assuming to be valid, would be subject to the rights of permanent tenant - Narasappa. After his death plaintiff No. 2 being his daughter, is granted occupancy rights as per Ex.P2, P3 and P4. In view of the above, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. Consequently, the substantial questions are answered as under:
a) the matter need not be remanded to the first appellate Court for consideration of question relating to the validity or otherwise of the will dated 16.07.1964 executed by Narasappa in fevour of Plaintiffs, as the Plaintiffs have withdrawn their case based on the said will.
b) The rights of permanent tenants will not extinguish by virtue of vesting of land in the State Government, in view of the provisions of Sections-3 & 5 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act 1954 read with Section 87 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964.
c) It is not open for the Civil Court to re-open the matter relating to grant of occupancy rights when the said order pertaining to grant of occupancy rights has become final and reached its finality under the provisions of the Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act.
For the foregoing reasons and in view of the discussion made supra, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, as the same is devoid of merits.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.