Karnataka High Court
Shri Dharmarayaswamy Temple vs Chinnathayappa on 12 October, 1990
Equivalent citations: ILR1990KAR4242
ORDER Rama Jois, J.
1. This petition is presented by Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple, Bangalore, represented by its Committee of Dhamadarshis questioning the legality of the order of the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk allowing the applications filed by respondents-1 to 10 under Section 48-A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and granting them occupancy rights in respect of land in Sy. No. 79 of Neelasandra village, Bangalore North Taluk.
2. The brief facts of the case and the history of the previous litigation regarding the claims of respondents-1 to 10 for grant of occupancy rights are these:-
(i) Sarvamanya Neelasandra village, Bangalore North Taluk was a religious and charitable Inam in favour of the petitioner temple. The former State of Mysore enacted the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inarns Abolition Act, 1955. Under the provisions of the Act all religious inam lands stood vested in the State Government with effect from 1-4-1959, on which date the Act came into force. The Act provided that after the Inam tenure is abolished, and the lands are vested in the State, occupancy rights in respect of erstwhile inam lands be conferred in favour of persons who were Kadim tenants and Permanent tenants under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act respectively. In respect of other tenants, other than Kadim tenants and permanent tenants, Section 6 of the Act provided that from the date of vesting the said tenants shall continue as tenants under the Government in respect of the lands of which they were the tenants under the Inamdar prior to the date of vesting. Section 8 of the Act provided that except in respect of the categories of lands specified in the said Section, the Inamdar was entitled to be registered as an occupant of the lands which stood vested in the Government consequent on the Abolition of the Inam lands. The relevant portion of the relevant Sections read:-
"4. Kadim tenants to be registered as occupants of their holdings:- (1) Every Kadim tenant of the Inamdar shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of all lands which, immediately before the date of vesting, were properly included in his holding."
xxx xxx xxx "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 an occupant in respect of all lands of which he was a permanent tenant immediately before the date of vesting."
xxx xxx xxx
6. OTHER TENANTS TO BE TENANTS UNDER GOVERNMENT:- Every tenant of the Inamdar other than a kadim tenant or a permanent tenant shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, and subject to the provisions of Chapter IV, be entitled to be continued as a tenant under the Government in respect of land of which he was a tenant under the Inamdar immediately before the date of vesting.
xxx xxx xxx
8. LANDS AND BUILDINGS TO VEST IN THE INAMDAR:- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) every inamdar shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all lands other than -
(i) communal lands, waste lands, gomal lands, forest lands; tank beds, mines, quarries, rivers, streams, tanks and irrigation works;
(ii) lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under Sections 4 or 5; or is entitled to be continued as a tenant under Section 6; and
(iii) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by any person other than the Inamdar."
According to Section 4 every Kadim tenant of the erstwhile inam land was entitled to occupancy rights. Section 2(8) which defined 'Kadim tenants' stated that it means a tenant as defined in Section 84 of the Land Revenue Code. According to Section 84 of the Land Revenue Code a Kadim tenant is a person who is a tenant of Inam land (alienated land) paying to the Inamdar (superior holder) land revenue at the established rates of Land Revenue. Section 2( 12) defined 'Permanent tenants' as those tenants of erstwhile Inam land, the duration of whose tenancy was co-extensive with the tenure of Inamdar. These two categories of tenants were entitled to secure occupancy rights under Sections 4 and 5 respectively. If there were any other class of tenants, other than Kadim tenants or permanent tenants they were entitled to continue as tenants of the Government in view of Section 6 of the Act. If only in respect of any erstwhile Inam lands, there were neither kadim tenants nor permanent tenants, nor any other tenants, the Inamdar was entitled to be registered as occupant under Section 8 except of course regarding certain categories of land, which were expressly excluded under Section 8 of the Act.
(ii) After the Inams Abolition Act came into force, respondents 1 to 4 and 6, father of respondent No.7 and husband of respondent No.9 made applications under Section 5 of the said Act claiming occupancy rights in respect of different bits of land in Sy. No. 79 of Neelasandra village on the ground that they were permanent tenants. The petitioner-temple also made an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition under Section 8 of the Act claiming occupancy rights in favour of the temple on the ground that the land was not a tenanted land. The Special Deputy Commissioner, who was the Competent Authority to adjudicate the claims for occupancy rights, after due inquiry, made an order on 10th July 1964 rejecting the application of respondents 1 to 9 for grant of occupancy rights. By the said order he granted the application of the temple for occupancy rights in respect of the entire 15 acres 12 guntas of land in Sy. No. 79 of Neelasandra village.
(iii) Aggrieved by the said order, respondents-1 to 4 and 6, father of respondent-7, respondent-8 and husband of respondent-9 preferred appeals before the then Mysore Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order having found no substance in their claim for occupancy rights, dismissed the appeals and confirmed the order made by the Special Deputy Commissioner.
(iv) Aggrieved by the said order, the aforesaid respondents preferred eight separate Writ Petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.1515 to 1517, 1675, 1697, 2989, 1729 and 1732 of 1967. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 4-5-1970. The Division Bench of this Court considered every one of the contentions of the respondents, who were petitioners in those petitions and rejected them. One of the contentions so considered and rejected by the Division Bench was that even if respondents 1 to 10 were not permanent tenants they were deemed tenants in terms of Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act, under which a person lawfully cultivating the land belonging to another was also regarded as a tenant. Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act on which they relied (which is exactly similar to Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, to which we shall refer later) reads:-
"4. PERSONS TO BE DEEMED TENANTS:- A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not -
(a) a member of the owner's family, or
(b) a servant on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share or a hired labourer cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the owner or any member of the owner's family, or
(c) a mortgagee in possession."
Relying on the above provision it was contended for the respondents, who were petitioners before this Court, that even if the finding that they were not entitled to occupancy rights recorded by the Special Deputy Commissioner and confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal was correct, it should have been held that they were deemed tenants in view of Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act in which event they were entitled to be continued as tenants under the Government under Section 6 of the Act and if so occupancy rights in respect of lands in Sy. No. 79 could not have been conferred under Section 8 to the petitioner as under that Section no occupancy rights could be granted in favour of an Inamdar in respect of lands which were under cultivation of other tenants who were to continue as tenants under the Government under Section 6 of the Act.
(v) The Division Bench considered the aforesaid contention of the respondents and rejected it. Relevant portion of the Judgment reads:-
"Under the provisions of the Act, Sarvamanya Neelasandra village vested in the Government with effect from 1-4-1959. As stated earlier, the petitioners applied to the Special Deputy Commissioner for being registered as occupants of different portions of S.No.79. The Special Deputy Commissioner rejected their claim and registered Shree Dharmarayaswamy Temple as the occupant of entire S.No.79 under Section 8 of the Act. The petitioners appeals from the orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner were dismissed by the M.R.A.T. by its common order dated 28-8-1967.
Sri Kadidal Manjappa, Sri Shivaramaiah and Sri G.S. Ullal, appeared for different petitioner or petitioners. Shree Dharmarayaswamy Temple represented by its Dharmadarshis made applications for being impleaded as an additional respondent in all these petitions. We allowed those applications and ordered the temple being impleaded as an additional respondent in each of these petitions.
Sri B.V. Srinivasamurthy, Advocate appeared for the temple while the learned Advocate General appeared for State and Muzrai authorities in other petitions.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that even if the petitioners had not established the title of Chikkaveerappa (who executed sale deeds in their favour) to these lands, they should have been treated as permanent tenants of these lands and registered as occupants under Section 5 of the Act that they should have been regarded as deemed tenants and that at any rate they should have been continued as tenants under Section 6 of the Act. It was also contended that the temple should not have been registered as the occupant of this survey number which is in a tank bed.
Relying on the order of the Government in Muzrai appeal No.37/52-53, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that this order conferred on them permanent tenancy rights and that by the time the Inam village vested in the Government they had become permanent tenants of these lands.
For the purpose of these petitions, it is not necessary to go into the question whether it was competent for the Government to grant a permanent lease of a land which had been granted to a religious institution as an Inam or whether the power of the Government under Section 2 of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 is limited to grant approval to a proposal of the committee of Management of a religious institution to grant a lease of the property belonging to such institutions for a period exceeding 5 years. We shall proceed on the assumption that the Government had competence to grant a permanent lease of the Inam land endowed to a religious institution.
From a perusal of the said order of the Government in appeal, it is clear that it did not itself confer on the petitioners any permanent tenancy rights. It merely directed that they should be given permanent tenancy rights after recovering from them premium to be fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. The right of the petitioners to the grant of permanent tenancy was also subject to the condition of payment of the rent as might be fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. If they had fulfilled those conditions, they could claim the grant of permanent tenancy rights in pursuance of the said Government Order made in appeal and revenue authorities had to make separate order or orders granting permanent tenancy in their (the petitioners) favour.
As seen earlier, the petitioners did not agree to pay the premium and the rent fixed by the Deputy Commissioner but challenged his order fixing such premium and rent and obtained from the Government stay of the recovery of such premium and rent. Thus, the petitioners did not fulfil the conditions of the said Government Order in appeal and did not acquire any permanent tenancy before the Inam village vested in the Government on 1-4-1959.
However, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that before the Government passed the order of stay, the Revenue Authorities had recovered from some of the petitioners some amounts towards such premium. But it has not been established that full premium at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per acre had been recovered from any of the petitioners before the date of vesting i.e., 1-4-1959 and that they had satisfied the conditions in the Government order for claiming the rights of permanent tenancy. Hence none of the petitioners had acquired permanent tenancy, rights in any of these lands by the date of vesting.
However, Sri Manjappa argued that once a lease is created the tenant's interest in the demised land is not taken away by the mere fact that the rent is in arrears. In support of this contention, Sri Manjappa relied on several decisions. It is unnecessary to refer to those decisions because in the present cases, there was no completed lease in favour of any of the petitioners. As stated earlier, the said Government order in the appeal merely directed grant of permanent tenancy rights in favour of the petitioners, if they fulfilled certain conditions; as they did not fulfil those conditions, there was no such grant.
It was next contended by Sri Manjappa that as the petitioners were lawfully in possession of the lands, they must be regarded as deemed tenants within the meaning of Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) and that their tenancy could not be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act.
What Section 4 of the Tenancy Act provides is that a person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person, shall be deemed to be a tenant if such person is not a member of the owners family or a servant of the owner or a mortgagee' in possession. Thus, it is only a person who is lawfully cultivating the land belonging to another person, that can be registered as deemed tenant under this Section. But the petitioners have not established that they were lawfully in possession of the lands. It may be, that they believed that their vendor, Chikkaveerappa had good title to these lands and they in turn had acquired good title from him. But such belief, by itself is not sufficient to make their possession lawful when it has not been established that Chikkaveerappa had title to these lands. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had taken these lands on lease from the said temple. As stated earlier, the Deputy Commissioner made an order of eviction of the petitioners on the ground that they were in unlawful possession of the lands endowed to the temple. As their possession was not lawful, they cannot be registered as deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act.
Sri Manjappa next relied on Section 6 of the Act which provides that every tenant of the Inamdar other than a kadim tenant or a permanent tenant shall with effect on and from the date of vesting be entitled to be continued as tenant under the Government in respect of the land of which he was a1 tenant under the Inamdar immediately before the date of vesting.
As the petitioners were not tenants of these lands under the Inamdar i.e., the temple before the date of vesting, they cannot claim the benefit of Section 6 of the Act which is available only to tenants of the Inamdar before the date of vesting.
Lastly, it was contended by Sri Manjappa that as these lands formed part of Koramangala tank bed, the temple could not have been registered as the occupant under Section 8 of the Act.
It is not disputed that Koramangala Tank had breached long before the date of vesting. Following the decision of this Court in Krishna Murthy v. State of Mysore (W.P.Nos.1233 and 1234/1960) the M.R.A.T. held that though a tank bed lost its character as such, long before the date of vesting under the Inams Abolition Act, the Inamdar would be entitled to be registered as occupant of such tank bed. Hence, we are unable to accept the contention of Sri Manjappa that there is any error and much less any manifest error in the view taken by the MRAT that the temple could be registered as the occupant of the breached tank bed.
Sri Ullal, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1675/1967, submitted that this petitioner had purchased on 26-4-1945 an extent of land measuring 23 guntas in S.No.79 and that the Special Deputy Commissioner and the M.R.A.T. have not considered this aspect of the case. But this petitioner has not established that the person from whom he claims to have purchased 23 guntas of land had good title to it. The fact that this piece of 23 guntas had been purchased on 26-4-1945 from some persons other than Chikkaveerappa, is not material because it would make no difference from whom this petitioner purchased this piece of land so long as the title of his vendor to it, had not been established.
In the result, we dismiss these petitions but in the circumstances of these petitions, we direct the parties to bear their own costs."
(Underlining by us) It may thus be seen from the above Judgment, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-
(1) The respondents were not permanent tenants and therefore were not entitled to occupancy rights under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act.
(2) They were not even deemed tenants as defined in Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act as they were not lawfully cultivating the lands in Sy. No. 79, but they were in unlawful possession of the lands.
(3) They were not tenants of any other class so as to entitle them to continue as tenants of Government under Section 6 of the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act.
(4) As the land was not in possession of any class of tenants, the petitioner temple was entitled to be registered as occupant under Section 8 of the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act.
On the above findings, the occupancy rights conferred on the petitioners in respect of entire extent of 12 acres 14 guntas in Sy. No. 79 of Neelasandra village was upheld by this Court.
3. After the matter was decided finally by this Court, strangely respondents 1, 4 and 6 filed fresh applications before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition claiming occupancy rights in respect of the very land in respect of which there was an earlier order by the Special Deputy Commissioner rejecting the occupancy rights. The Special Deputy Commissioner behind the back of the petitioner-temple granted occupancy rights in favour of respondents 1, 4 and 6 in respect of portions of lands in respect of Sy. No. 79 by his order dated 22-12-1975. On coming to know of the said order, the petitioner-temple preferred appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal disregarding the order of the Division Bench of this Court in the Writ Petitions, rejected the appeals of the petitioner-temple. Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Tribunal the Temple presented Writ Petitions Nos. 8791 to 8793 of 1978. These Writ Petitions were allowed by this Court holding that after the matter stood concluded by a Division Bench decision of this Court it was a clear case of abuse of the process of the Court by respondents 1, 4 and 6 to have moved the Special Deputy Commissioner for the second time for grant of occupancy rights under the same Act, in respect of the same land in respect of which their claim had been rejected and the matter had become final by the Division Bench decision of this Court imposing exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/- on each of the three respondents viz., respondents-1, 4 and 6 in those Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the said order, the three respondents preferred Writ Appeal Nos. 283 to 285 of 1988 before this Court. They were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 9-2-1988. Against the said order respondents-1, 4 and 6 preferred Special Leave Petitions Nos. 10278, 10278A and 10278B of 1988 before the Supreme Court. The Special Leave Petitions were also dismissed on 12-10-1988.
4. Thus from the facts stated above, it may be seen that the claim for occupancy rights under the provisions of Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act made by respondents-1, 3, 4, 6 to 10 had been rejected and the rejection was confirmed in appeal and also in the Writ Petitions by an order of the Division Bench of this Court and as regards respondents- 1, 4 and 6 the matter was once again rejected in the three Writ Petitions and in the three Writ Appeals and also in the three Special Leave Petitions referred to above. There is, however, some difference in relation to the facts in respect of cases of respondents-2 and 5, which we shall deal with separately.
5. After all this, the respondents moved the Land Tribunal established under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the very lands in Sy. No. 79 on the ground that they were tenants cultivating the lands as on the appointed date under that Act and therefore entitled to the grant of occupancy rights. In order to appreciate the claim made by the respondents, under the Land Reforms Act, it is necessary to make a brief survey of that Act. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, came into force on 2-10-1965. The Act was in execution of the policy of agrarian reforms and was intended to give ownership of the land to the actual lawful tiller and to avoid absentee landlordism. Certain revolutionary amendments were made to the provisions of the Act by Act No. 1/1974, which came into force w.e.f. 1-3-1974. The Land Reforms Act so amended is relevant for the purpose of this case. According to the Land Reforms Act as amended, ail agricultural lands which were under cultivation by the tenants as on the appointed date i.e. as on 1-3-1974 stand vested in the State Government under Section 44 of the Act, Section 45 of the Act provided for registering the tenants as occupants of the agricultural lands of which they were the tenants. Section 48 of the Act provided for constitution of Land Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating the claims for grant of occupancy rights and for granting occupancy rights. Section 48A of the Act prescribed the procedure for enquiry by the Land Tribunals. Section 142 of the Act provided that the enactments specified in Schedule-Ill to the Act shall stand repealed subject to the saving clauses incorporated therein. One of the Acts mentioned in Schedule III was the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. Section 2(34) of the Act defined the word 'tenant' reads:-
"2(34) 'tenant' means an Agriculturist (who cultivates personally the land he holds on lease) from a landlord and includes, -
(i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 4;
(ii) a person who was protected from eviction from any land by the Karnataka Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961;
(iia) a person who cultivates personally any land on lease under a lease created contrary to the provisions of Section 5 and before the date of commencement of the Amendment Act;
(iii) a person who is a permanent tenant; and
(iv) a person who is a protected tenant.
Explanation:- A person who takes up a contract to cut grass, or to gather the fruits or other produce of any land, shall not on that account only be deemed be a tenant."
Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act states that a person lawfully cultivating the lands of another, except as a member of the family of the owner or as a paid servant or as mortgagee in possession shall be deemed to be a tenant which is word to word similar to Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act set out at paragraph 2(iv) of this order on which the respondents had relied, in the first batch of Writ Petitions to establish that at least they were ordinary tenants entitled to continue as tenants of Government under Section 6 of the Inams Abolition Act and which was rejected. In fact, it is after the conclusion of the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act the Land Reforms Act with its amendment by Act No.1 of 1974 came into force on 1-3-1974. These respondents, whose claim that they were tenants of portions of the land in Sy. No. 79 of Neelasandra village was rejected and it was held that their possession was unlawful as can be seen from the Division Bench Judgment of this Court, filed applications under Section 48A of the Land Reforms Act stating once again that they were the tenants of those very lands of which they were held to be not tenants and their possession was unlawful. These applications, according to respondents, were pending before the Land Tribunal for over 15 years. After the respondents failed in their claim for grant of occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act and their alternative contention that they were ordinary tenants was also rejected as can be seen from the order of the Division Bench and after three of them, namely, respondents-1, 4 and 6 failed in their second attempt to get occupancy rights having lost the case even at the highest Court on 12-10-1988 in S.L.P. Nos. 10278, 10278A and 10278B of 1988, they moved the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk, for the grant of occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Tribunal by its order dated 25th January 1989 (Annexure-E) allowed the applications of the respondents and granted occupancy rights. Questioning the legality of the said order, the petitioner-temple has presented this Writ Petition.
6. As stated earlier, among respondents-1 to 10 there is some difference on the facts of the case of respondents 2 and 5 which we deal with separately. As regards the claim of each one of the respondents-1 to 10 other than respondents 2 and 5, as stated earlier their claim for occupancy rights had been rejected under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act and further their alternative claim that even if they were not permanent tenants and therefore not entitled to continue as tenants of Government under Section 6 of the Inams Abolition Act was rejected and they were found to be in unlawful possession of the lands and the occupancy rights granted in favour of the petitioner-temple, was upheld.
7. The Land Tribunal after noticing the history of the case proceeded to state that it was competent for the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the claims for occupancy rights under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and the mere fact that the claim for occupancy rights had been rejected under the provisions of the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act did not debar the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal to enquire into and adjudicate upon the claim for occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act, particularly, for the reason that there was an expanded definition of the word 'tenant' under Section 2(34) read with Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal relied on a Division Bench decision in MUNIYALLAPPA v. KRISHNA MURTHY ILR (Karnataka) 1977 (1) 700. The Land Tribunal proceeded to hold that the respondents were deemed tenants under the provisions of the Act and therefore they were entitled to the occupancy rights under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal reads:-
"We have already referred to the definition of 'tenant' as defined in Section 2(34) of the Act. The definition contained in Section 2(34) of the Act is of a wide magnitude. In this regard, we have to bear in mind the object of the Act, it cannot be gain said that the Act in question has been enacted by the legislative as a step towards agrarian reforms and to confer occupancy rights on the actual cultivators. The definition of Section 2(34) was deliberately amended by the legislative to give effect to the object of the legislation. It has not been denied that the respondent did not deny the fact that these applicants are in actual possession nor was it contended that the applicants are not actually cultivating the lands. According to the definition of Section 2(34) of the Act, all that is required is that when a person cultivates personally the land which belongs to another person he will have to be treated as a "deemed tenant". Therefore we have no hesitation in holding that the respondent is a landlord and a superior holder as the occupancy rights have been registered in favour of the respondent under Section 8 of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, to which a reference has already been made. Now these applicants are actually cultivating the lands as on 1-3-1974 which fact has not been denied by the respondent. There is no reason as to why these applicants should not be treated as "deemed tenant" having regard to the provisions of the Section 4 read with Section 2(34) of the Act while doing so we should not loose sight of the fact that mere cultivation by a person of the land belonging to another person is not sufficient. The cultivation should be lawful cultivation. It is nobody's case that these applicants have been in unlawful cultivation of these lands. In fact, they have entered into possession of these lands by virtue of several registered deeds, the original of which have been produced before us as exhibits P-36 to P-42. We have read those documents and we have also given our anxious consideration. There cannot be any doubt that Chikkaveerappa has assigned his interest in favour of these applicants. Hence it is a case of assignment of interest of an inferior holder in favour of another inferior holder. Even the Government also in their orders clearly stated that since they are in actual possession of the respective portions of the lands which they have obtained from Chikkaveerappa and his vendees, they are entitled for registration and to be treated as permanent tenants. Further they have continued in actual possession and enjoyment of these lands and when this fact is not disputed, it is difficult to characterise that their possession is unlawful. That apart, even after the registration of occupancy rights were granted under Section 8 in favour of Sri Dharmaraya Swamy Temple in the earlier proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, it is manifest that their possession cannot be treated as unlawful. Sri Dharmaraya Swamy Temple is the landlord of these lands as on 1-3-1974. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that having regard to the native of the possession, history of the case and other factors, and also having regard to the provisions of Section 2(34) read with Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act, we treat the applicants as tenants cultivating the land in question. Once we treat them as tenants as on 1-3-1974 we have no other alternative but to register the occupancy rights in their favour, because if they are tenants as on 1-3-1974, they are entitled for registration of the occupancy rights under Section 45 of the Act, especially when their claims have not been seriously disputed.
The exhibit P-26 discloses that the occupancy rights were granted to Sri Munikrishna S/o Ayyappa of Munegowda garden, Neelasandra village vide case No.8/61-62 dated 28-11-1974 of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams in respect of Sy. No. 79 of Neelasandra village. The exhibit P-35 says that the LRs. of Smt. Papamma and Sri Kotappa were granted occupancy rights in case No.31/61-62 dated 30-7-1974 of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams in respect of Sy. No. 79 of Neelasandra village which is now under discussion. These orders were not challenged by the respondent.
Now the only the other ground that requires to be considered is whether these applications are barred having regard to the earlier proceedings. According to us, in view of the Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Act, merely because an order has been rejecting their claims under the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, it does not mean that these applicants are not entitled to have their cases considered, because Sub-section (2) which is a non-abstante clause clearly states that if the lands in question are tenanted lands as on 1-3-1974, the tenants are entitled for Registration of occupancy rights under Section 45 of the Act. This question also came up for consideration in the case of Sri Muniyallappa v. B.M. Krishna Murthy, a decision reported in 1977(1) ILR Kar. 700."
xxx xxx xxx "Para 25 of the said Judgment deals with interpretation of the expression 'deemed tenant' under Section 2(34). Having regard to this authoritative pronouncement, we have no hesitation in holding that in view of Section 44(2) of the Act, the earlier proceedings do not come in the way of entertaining these applications by the Land Tribunal and conferring occupancy rights in favour of the applicants.
Accordingly allowed all these applications and registers the occupancy rights in favour of the applicants. The applicants are tenants who continued in possession lawfully, even as on 1-3-1974 and they are entitled for registration of occupancy rights under Section 45 of the Land Reforms Act, notwithstanding the fact that respondent/Inamdar was granted occupancy rights under Section 8 of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act and accordingly allowed these applications and the applicants are granted occupancy rights in Sy. No. 79 of Sarvamanya Neelasandra village, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore."
It is the legality of the above order, which is challenged in this Writ Petition.
8. Smt. Pramila, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of her contention that the order of the Land Tribunal was totally illegal also relied on the same Judgment of the Division Bench on which the Land Tribunal relied to allow the applications filed by respondents. Elaborating her contention, the learned Counsel submitted as follows:- In the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act not only the claim of the respondents for occupancy rights in respect of the very lands in Sy. No. 79 of Neelasandra village on the ground that they were permanent tenants was rejected but also their alternative claim that they were deemed tenants as defined under Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act and therefore they were at least entitled to continue as tenants of the Government under Section 6 of the Inams Abolition Act was also rejected. It was only on the finding by the Special Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal that the respondents were neither permanent tenants nor any other type of tenants falling under Sections 4, 5 or 6 of the Inams Abolition Act the claim of the petitioner-temple for grant of occupancy rights under Section 8 of the Inams Abolition Act was granted. These orders were upheld by this Court. Apart from this, a clear finding recorded in the earlier proceedings was to the effect that the respondents were in unlawful possession of the land. In view of the said finding the respondents could not claim to be tenants under Section 2(34) read with Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act. According to the Division Bench Judgment in Muniyallappa's case it was not open for the Land Tribunal to set at naught the findings recorded in the proceedings arising under the Inams Abolition Act. In the applications filed in Form No.7 and in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal it is not the case of the respondents that after the confirmation of occupancy rights of the land in question on the petitioner-temple they became tenants of the land under the petitioner once again and therefore the order of the Land Tribunal suffers from patent error of law and is liable to be set aside.
9. Sri S.G. Sundaraswamy and Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, strenuously contended that the definition of the word 'tenant' under Section 2(34) read with Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act was very wide and therefore the rejection of the claim of respondents under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act constituted no bar for their claim to be tenants under the Land Reforms Act and on the respondents claiming occupancy rights on the ground that they were lawfully cultivating the lands belonging to the petitioner-temple and therefore they were deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Act, and therefore the Land Tribunal had jurisdiction to confer occupancy rights.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondents in support of their contention that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide as to whether the respondents were entitled to the conferment of occupancy rights rely on Muniyallappa's case. The learned Counsel for the respondents in support of their contention that Tribunal could not have granted occupancy rights in favour of respondents also rely on the same Judgment. The relevant portion of the Judgment reads:-
"The Act came into force on 2-10-1965; it applies to all agricultural lands in the State inclusive of lands in the former Inam villages. When the Act was enacted, all Inams in the State had not been abolished as is obvious from Schedule II to- the Act. The Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961 and the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act 1950 were inserted in Schedule II by Act 6 of 1970. Section 126 of the Act declares that the provisions of the Act in so far as they confer any rights and impose obligations on tenants and landlords shall be applicable to tenants holding lands in Inam and other alienated villages or lands and to landlords and Inamdars holding in such villages or lands. So far as the lands in Inam villages which were abolished are concerned, provision is made by Section 141 of the Act to declare as follows:
"Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of any of the Land Tenures Abolition Acts specified in Schedule II to the Act, in so far as such provisions relate to the conferment of the right of an occupant or grant of a ryotwari patta in favour of any inferior holder or tenant in respect of any land held by him."
This provision has been incorporated in the Act to make it clear that the proceedings for conferment of occupancy under the Inams Abolition Act and other Acts specified in Schedule II, do not abate, nor orders made thereunder are annulled.
xxx xxx xxx The purpose and scope of the two Acts are distinct. The Inams Abolition Act, as stated earlier, was enacted for the purpose of abolition of Inam tenures and conversion of such tenures into ryotwari tenure and in that process, grant occupancy rights to the Inamdars and the three classes of tenants. The purpose of the Land Reforms Act, however, is different. It is a legislation enacted to effectuate radical agrarian reforms by imposing ceilings of land holdings and termination of landlord and tenant relationship in respect of tenanted lands and further conferment of occupancy rights on tenants personally cultivating the lands. Chapter III of the Act contains provisions for termination of relationship of landlord and tenant, vesting of tenanted lands in the State and thereafter grant of occupancy rights to the tenants. The material date with reference to which the rights under Chapter III have to be determined is 1st March, 1974. Section 44 provides that all lands held by or in possession of tenants (including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption is made or issued) immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, other than lands held by them under leases permitted under Section 5, shall with effect from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in the State Government."
xxx xxx xxx "It is relevant to observe that under the Inams Abolition Act all lands in Inam Villages vested in the State Government. But under the Act, not all agricultural lands vest in the State; only lands held by or in possession of tenants immediately prior to 1st March 1974 vest in the State Government. The claim of the tenant or tenants for registration of occupancy under the Act has to be decided with reference to the date of vesting under Section 44 viz., 1st March, 1974. Under the Inams Abolition Act, the rights of the Inamdars and tenants were decided with reference to the date of vesting under the said Act. The lands in question vested in the State Government under the Inams Abolition Act in about 1956. The material dates under the two Acts and the scope and purpose of the two Acts being different, the termination of the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act in regard to grant of occupancy cannot bar an investigation of the claim under Section 45 of the Act by the Land Tribunal. What the Tribunal, under the Act, has to enquire into, is whether the lands claimed by the applicant before it, have vested in the State Government under Section 44. For that purpose it has to decide whether the lands were held by or in the possession of any tenant immediately prior to 1st March 1974. The next question the Tribunal has to decide is: who is the person that has been cultivating such lands personally immediately prior to 1st March 1974? The two questions being closely related have to be dealt with and disposed of together. Besides, the person claiming to be the tenant of the lands, the State is an interested party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. If the land is a tenanted land, even in the absence of any application by tenant, it stands transferred to and vested in the State Government. There may be instances where tenants have not filed applications for registration of occupancy and yet, such lands vest in the State Government under Section 44.
Whether or not a person who cultivates and belonging to another is a tenant, is not always a simple question of fact; sometimes the question raises complex questions of law and fact. The word 'tenant' has been defined in Section 2(34) of the Act thus:
" 'tenant' means an agriculturist who cultivates personally the land he holds on lease from a landlord and includes -
(i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 4;
(ii) a person who was protected from eviction from any land by the Karnataka Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961;
(iii) a person who is a permanent tenant, and
(iv) a person who is a protected tenant, (Explanation omitted as unnecessary)."
Section 4 reads:-
"4. Persons to be deemed tenants:- A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not -
(a) a member of the owner's family, or
(b) a servant or a hired labourer on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the owner or any member of the owner's family, or
(c) a mortgagee in possession:
Provided that if upon an application made by the owner within one year from the appointed day -
(i) the Tribunal declares that such person is not a tenant and its decision is not reversed on appeal, or
(ii) the Tribunal refuses to make such declaration but its decision is reversed on appeal, such person shall not be deemed to be a tenant."
A person who unlawfully enters on the land of another and cultivates the same cannot claim the status of a 'deemed tenant' under Section 4, Ordinarily, the concept of tenancy requires proof of grant of a lease by a landlord to the person claiming to be tenant; in such a case the tenant is put in possession of the land leased in consideration of payment of rent. Section 4, by fiction of law, extends the meaning of 'tenant' to a person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person."
xxx xxx xxx "It is unnecessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, to lay down as to who are the persons entitled to the status of 'deemed tenant'. Relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in Dahya Lala's case , Sri Narayana Rau, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that a licensee comes within the class of 'deemed tenants' and Chat his case is that the appellant is a licensee. We asked Sri Narayana Rau whether the appellant claims to be a contractual tenant; Sri Narayana Rau submitted that it is not the case of the appellant that he was cultivating the lands in question under any contract subsequent to the grant of occupancy to the father of respondents 1 and 2 under the Inams Abolition Act. If the appellant was cultivating the lands subsequent to 1958 on crop-share basis then he would be a contractual tenant. Sri Rau gave up before this Court any case of contractual tenancy and made it clear that his client was a licensee under the respondents since 1958.
Sri B.P. Holla, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, contended that the observation in Dahya Lala's case, that a licensee may come within the class of 'deemed tenants' is a mere obiter as that question did not arise for determination in that case, and that, in his submission, a licensee cannot claim the status of a tenant. Assuming, without deciding, that a licensee comes within the class of 'deemed tenants', Sri Holla submitted that in view of the categorical statement made by the appellant in this Court in response to the three questions put to him, the appellant cannot even claim to be a licensee. Sri Holla pointed out that the appellant, in answer to Query No.3, has clearly stated that his claim is not based on any grant made by the landlord subsequent to 1958 arid since licence can only be the result of a grant by one person to another, there cannot be a licence without any grant. Vide Section 52 of the Easements Act.
When the appellant has made clear before this Court that he does not claim the status of a contractual tenant or any grant made by the landlord subsequent to 19-4-1958, he cannot come within the definition of 'tenant' under the Act even assuming that he was personally cultivating the lands immediately prior to 1-3-1974. In order to hold that the lands were held by the appellant as a tenant immediately prior to 1st March, 1974, it has to be pleaded and shown that he was in possession of lands either under a construct of lease or at least that he was originally inducted under a contract of lease or licence granted by the landlord and that his possession continued thereafter undisturbed. In the instant case, there is no such plea pleaded by the appellant. Therefore, in our Judgment, there is no case to go before the Tribunal for adjudication. If the appellant has been unauthorisedly cultivating the lands and has perfected his title by prescription, then his remedy is to have that right decided in a competent Civil Court and not by making an application to the Land Tribunal. We would have remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for adjudication if the appellant had pleaded at least before this Court that he was inducted as a tenant or licensee after 1958 either by Muniswamappa or his successors and that he was cultivating the lands under a contract of crop-sharing; but that is not his case asserted before us."
(Underlined by us) From the above portions of the Judgment it may be seen that the following principles are clearly laid down:-
(1) The provisions of the Act do not anull and do not provide for abatement of orders under the repealed enactments as expressly provided in Section 142 of the Land Reforms Act.
(2) The Land Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide whether a claimant before it was a tenant of the land in respect of which he claims occupancy rights as defined in Section 2(34) of the Act read with Section 4 which defines who can be deemed to be a tenant.
(3) A person who had unlawfully entered upon an agricultural land cannot claim the status of a deemed tenant.
(4) Unless a person who was held to be not a tenant under the Inams Abolition Act, claims to have become a tenant after the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the Inamdar under the Inams Abolition Act, such person claiming to be a tenant of such land for purposes of Land Reforms Act does not arise for consideration.
Therefore, there can be no doubt that the mere fact that occupancy rights claimed by a person on the ground that he was a Kadim tenant or a permanent tenant was rejected or his claim that he was entitled at least to continue as an ordinary tenant of an Inamdar under any of the enactments, repealed by the Land Reforms Act was rejected constitutes no bar for a claim for grant of occupancy rights by the same person on the ground that he was a person lawfully cultivating the land immediately prior to and on 1-3-1974 and therefore a tenant under Section 2(34) read with Section 4 of the Act. If such a claim is made by any one, undoubtedly the Land Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider such application on merits and decide the same. This position in law is not even contradicted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that according to the ratio in Muniyallappa's case, the Land Tribunal cannot set at naught the findings recorded in the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act, that a person was not a tenant but was in unlawful possession of the land.
12. From the above portions of the Division Bench Judgment, it is clear that the Land Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon an application presented in Form No.7 read with Section 48A of the Act for grant of occupancy rights even if the claim for grant of occupancy rights for the same land by the same person had been rejected and the occupancy rights had been granted in favour of an Inamdar under any of the enactments repealed by the Land Reforms Act. It is also equally clear that the Land Tribunal in such cases could grant occupancy rights if only such person claims to have become a tenant on and after the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the Inamdar under any of the repealed enactments. Further, it is also clear from the Division Bench decision that a person who is found to have been in unlawful possession cannot claim the status of deemed tenant and further the Land Tribunal cannot, in view of Section 141 of the Land Reforms Act, in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under the Land Reforms Act for, granting occupancy rights reopen the questions concluded by the findings recorded in the proceedings arising under any of the enactments repealed by the Land Reforms Act, one of which is the Mysore Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act, 1955.
13. In the light of the above legal position, it is necessary for us to see as to the nature of the findings recorded in the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act. As stated earlier, the Mysore Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act, 1955 came into force with effect from 1-4-1959. Under the provisions of the said Act all the lands which had constituted religious Inams in the State stood vested in the State Government. As stated earlier in detail. Section 4 of the Act provided for conferment of occupancy rights on certain categories of tenants called Kadim tenants. Section 5 of the Act made provision for grant of occupancy rights in respect of permanent tenants. Section 6 of the Act is of very material importance to this case. It provided that every tenant, other than tenants under Sections 4 and 5 who alone could claim occupancy rights, would become tenants under the Government. Section 8 of the Act provided for conferment of occupancy rights on the Inamdar only in respect of lands in respect of which there were no tenants, falling under Section 4, Section 5 or Section 6. Therefore, from these provisions, it is clear if any one was a Kadim tenant of an erstwhile inam land belonging to a religious Institution he was entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 4, and a permanent tenant of an erstwhile religious inam land was entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 5. Every tenant other than a Kadim tenant or a permanent tenant was to continue as a tenant under the Government with effect from the date of vesting. The Inamdar; in the present case the petitioner-temple; was entitled to be registered as an occupant of the land if only in respect of such lands there were no tenants either falling under Section 4 or Section 5 or Section 6 of the Act.
14. In the proceedings under the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act, the respondents claimed occupancy rights on the ground they were permanent tenants. The petitioner-temple claimed occupancy rights under Section 8. The claim of the respondents was rejected and that of the petitioner-temple was granted. However, what is crucial is that the respondents made an alternative claim that even if they were not permanent tenants they were persons lawfully cultivating the lands and therefore they were deemed to be tenants in view of Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act and therefore they were entitled to continue as tenants of Government under Section 6 of the Inams Abolition Act and therefore the granting of occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner-temple was illegal. A clear finding was recorded to the effect that respondents were not tenants of any description, but their possession was unlawful. Relevant portion of the Judgment reads:-
"It was next contended by Sri Manjappa that as the petitioners were lawfully in possession of the lands, they must be regarded as deemed tenants within the meaning of Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) and that their tenancy could not be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act.
What Section 4 of the Tenancy Act provides is that a person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person, shall be deemed to be a tenant if such person is not a member of the owners family or a servant of the owner or a mortgagee in possession. Thus, it is only a person who is lawfully cultivating the land belonging to another person, that can be registered as deemed tenant under this Section. But the petitioners have not established that they were lawfully in possession of the lands. It may be, that they believed that their vendor, Chikkaveerappa had good title to these lands and they in turn had acquired good title from him. But such belief, by itself is not sufficient to make their possession lawful when it has not been established that Chikkaveerappa had title to these lands. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had taken these lands on lease from the said temple. As stated earlier, the Deputy Commissioner made an order of eviction of the petitioners on the ground that they were in unlawful possession of the lands endowed to the temple. As their possession was not lawful, they cannot be registered as deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act.
Sri Manjappa next relied on Section 6 of the Act which provides that every tenant of the Inamdar other than a kadim tenant or a permanent tenant shall with effect on ,and from the date of vesting be entitled to be continued as tenant under the Government in respect of the land of which he was a tenant under the Inamdar immediately before the date of vesting.
As the petitioners were not tenants of these lands under the Inamdar i.e., the temple before the date of vesting, they cannot claim the benefit of Section 6 of the Act which is available only to tennats of the Inamdar before the date of vesting."
In view of this decision of the Division Bench of this Court, it was not open to the respondents to have claimed in their application before the Land Tribunal that they were tenants as defined under Section 2(34) of the Act read with Section 4 of the Act on the ground that they were deemed tenants. Both Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act on which respondents now rely and Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act which was similarly worded provided, that every person who was lawfully cultivating the agricultural land except as a member of the owner's family or as a servant, or as a mortgagee in possession shall be deemed to be a tenant. Under both the provisions only a person lawfully cultivating lands has to be regarded as a tenant. The alternative claim made by the respondents in the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act was on that basis and the said claim was rejected by this Court on the ground that the respondents were in unlawful possession of the lands. In view of the finding as above recorded in the proceeding under the Inams Abolition Act, the respondents cannot be heard to contend that they were tenants of any kind or deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act as the possession of their vendors as well as that of the respondents of the lands in question were found to be unlawful. The length of unlawful possession, whatever it is, does not convert, their possession lawful, so as to treat them as deemed tenants, but only shows to what length they are prepared to go notwithstanding the finality of the verdict of this Court, confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petitions. The Tribunal referred to the length of possession but overlooked the finding recorded in the proceedings under the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act that the respondents were not even deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act which was word to word similar to Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act and the finding that their possession was unlawful. Therefore the order of the Tribunal suffers from a patent error of law in holding that the respondents were deemed tenants and were entitled to be registered as occupant of the land on question.
15. Still the learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that according to the ratio in Muniyallappa's case the rejection of conferment of occupancy rights claimed by a tenant and conferment of occupancy rights on an Inamdar under the repealed enactment, does not preclude an actual lawful tiller of the soil, as on 1-3-1974 claiming occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act, for, under the Inams Abolition Act occupancy right could be claimed by Kadim tenants and permanent tenants and not by ordinary tenants, whereas under the Land Reforms Act, even a person who was an ordinary tenant of the land in respect of which occupancy rights was conferred on the Inamdar could claim occupancy right. This submission, in our opinion, holds good only in respect of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and not in respect of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. The distinction between the provisions of the two enactments makes this aspect clear and we proceed to indicate it.
(i) Under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, after the vesting of Inam lands in the State, the persons who could claim occupancy rights were, Kadim tenants under Section 4; permanent tenants under Section 5 and quasi permanent tenants under Section 6. As far as Inamdar is concerned, he was entitled to get occupancy rights under Section 9 in respect of lands other than those in respect of which, Kadim tenants, permanent tenants and quasi permanent tenants were entitled to occupancy rights. As a result an Inamdar was also entitled to occupancy rights in respect of lands of which there were other category of tenants, who were entitled to continue as tenants even after grant of occupancy rights on an Inamdar as expressly provided in Section 9A of that Act. Therefore, in a case falling under that Act there was the possibility of an Inamdar securing occupancy rights in respect of lands under cultivation by ordinary tenants falling under Section 9A of that Act i.e., other than Kadim, Permanent and Quasi-permanent tenants. Such a tenant, if any, in respect of a land in respect of which occupancy rights was conferred on an Inamdar, could claim occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal, if he has been continued to cultivate the land. In such a case the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide the claim and to grant occupancy rights if the applicant concerned was found to have been a tenant of any other category of land and continued to be cultivating the land in respect of land in respect of which the Inamdar had secured occupancy rights under the Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act. In the case of Muniyellappa, he was not recognised as a tenant under Section 9A of the Inams (Removal and Miscellaneous) Abolition Act and even so he claimed to be a deemed tenant under the Land Reforms Act. This is evident from the following portion of the Judgment of this Court in the case of Muniyallappa:
NOW the case of the appellant has been made clear. He was not recognised as a 'tenant' within the scope of Section 9A of the Inams Abolition Act; late Muniswamappa, father of respondents 1 and 2, was registered as an occupant by the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner made on 19-4-1958 and the application of the appellant for registration of occupancy under the Inams Abolition Act was rejected. His further case is that he and his predecessors-in-interest have been cultivating the lands under late Muniswamappa on half crop-share basis both before and after the date of vesting of the lands under the Inams Abolition Act, and that after Muniswamappa's death, he has been cultivating the lands on crop-share basis under respondents 1 and 2. The definite stand of the appellant now is that he is a person coming within the meaning of the term ' deemed tenant' under Section 4 of the Act."
In the said case the Division Bench pointed out in respect of lands in respect of which an erstwhile Inamdar had secured occupancy rights under that Inam Abolition Act only two categories of persons could claim occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act. They are:-
(1) Those who were recongised as ordinary tenants under Section 9A; (2) Those who became tenants after the grant of occupancy rights to the Inamdar.
(ii) From that decision it follows that there could be claim of occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act by a person, in respect of lands in respect of which occupancy rights had been granted in favour of an Inamdar under the Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, on the ground that he had become tenant subsequent to the date of vesting/grant of occupancy rights on the Inamdar under the Inams Abolition Act. The Land Tribunal has also the jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights if such a claim is found to be true. This is the ratio of the decision in Muniyallappa's case in which the effect of an occupancy right granted to an Inamdar under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act in the context of a claim for occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act was considered.
(iii) Between the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 which was considered in Muniyallappa's case and the provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, under which the petitioner secured occupancy rights, there is one material difference. In respect of lands vested in the State under this Act, Section 4 of the Act provides for conferment of occupancy rights on the Kadim tenants and Section 5 confers similar rights on permanent tenants and Section 6 of the Act provides that all other tenants to continue as tenants of the Government, as distinct from Section 9A of the Personal and Miscellaneous Act under which the other tenants were to continue to be the tenants of Inamdar. Further, Section 8 of the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act provided for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of lands not falling under Section 4, Section 5 and Section 6. In other words, under this Act Inamdar could get occupancy rights only in respect of lands not under cultivation of any tenants including deemed tenants as defined under Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act. Thus, it is not only on a finding that there were no Kadim tenants or permanent tenants, who could get occupancy rights in respect of an erstwhile Inam land but also on a finding that there were no tenants of any kind to continue as tenants of the Government under Section 6, occupancy rights could be granted to the Inamdar under Section 8 of the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act. Therefore once an occupancy right is granted under Section 8 of this Act on the Inamdar, in a proceedings under the Land Reforms Act, no question of any existence of any tenant before the date of vesting under that Act arises, whereas in the case of occupancy right granted to an Inamdar under the Personal and Miscellaneous Abolition, a question might arise as to whether a person claiming occupancy right under the Land Reforms Act was a tenant under Section 9A of the Act.
(iv) In the present case, which was under the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act, it is on a finding that there were no tenants at all, and the respondents were in unlawful possession of the lands, in respect of lands in question the occupancy right was granted to the petitioner. Therefore, on the ratio of Muniyallappa's case, the only question which the Land Tribunal had the jurisdiction to consider, was whether the respondents have claimed to have become tenants subsequently and have proved such claim. There was neither such a claim nor proof. They again repeated their old case, that they were tenants from 30 to 40 years, which claim was rejected and their possession was found to be unlawful, as can be seen from the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court extracted earlier.
16. Original records have been produced. We have gone through the applications filed by each one of the respondents in the prescribed Form No.7 under Section 48A of the Land Reforms Act. In the applications, the claim made is that they were tenants from 30 to 40 years of the land under the petitioner-temple which was the same claim made before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition and it was found to be untenable and rejected. In the evidence given on behalf of the respondents also the statement made is that they were tenants of the land for over 30 to 40 years which was the same claim made in the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act and it was found to be untrue and rejected. In none of the applications of the respondents they stated that on and after the date of vesting with effect from 1-4-1959 under the Inams Abolition Act or after grant of occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner-temple, under the Inams Abolition Act, respondents again became tenants of the land in question, under the temple. If any such subsequent relationship of tenancy had come into existence certainly they could claim occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act. But that is not the position. But the same old plea that they were tenants for over 30 to 40 years, which was considered and rejected by the Special Deputy Commissioner by the Tribunal and by a Division Bench of this Court was again taken before the Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal without correctly appreciating the nature of the findings recorded in the proceedings under the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act, proceeded to grant occupancy rights though it was impermissible in law to do so as held by this Court in Muniyallappa's case.
17. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in the evidence of the 4th respondent Muniyappa at least he had stated that he became the tenant after the grant of occupancy rights and this holds good for others also. We have gone through his deposition. In his deposition given on 28-12-1988 after having stated that he has been, a tenant of the land in question for the last 45 years, he added that he continued to be a tenant even after the grant of occupancy right to the petitioner-temple. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel that the 4th respondent, if not in the application for occupancy rights, at least in his deposition, had stated that he had become a tenant after the grant of occupancy rights to the petitioner-temple is factually incorrect. On the other hand, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the claims of all the other respondents including that of Muniyappa had been that they were tenants since 30 to 40 years before the Land Reforms Act came into force which claim had been rejected in the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act and they were held to be in unlawful possession of the land. Therefore, their claim that they became deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act, is patently untenable. For the reasons aforesaid, we hold that the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights to respondents-1, 3, 4 and 6 to 10 suffers from patent error of law and is liable to be set aside.
18. Now we come to the cases of respondents 2 and 5. Their claim for occupancy right has been joint though applications have been made either by respondent-2 or respondent-5. The facts as stated in their statement of objections are these;- Respondent-2 had filed two applications for grant of occupancy rights before the Special Deputy Commissioner. They were registered as Case No. 6 of 1958-59 and Case No. 12 of 1959-60. The lands in respect of which occupancy right was claimed in these two cases are as below:-
Application No. Sy.No. Extent Case No. 6/1958-59 79 A. G. 0-23 Case No. 12/1959-60 79(1) 0 - 22 ½ 79(2) 0-15 2/3 60(1) 0-16 60(3) 0 - 5 77(1) 0-15 73(4) 0-4 The Special Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 10th July 1964 rejected both the applications. Against that order, respondent-2 preferred appeals before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed. Against these orders the 2nd respondent preferred W.P.No. 1675/1967. This petition along with the Writ Petitions preferred by other respondents were dismissed by a common order dated 14-5-1970. It is this order which we have extracted earlier. Therefore, our decision in respect of other respondents as above holds good to respondents-2 and 5 also. But, there have been further orders of this Court on review filed by the 2nd respondent as also Writ petitions and also an order in a Writ Petition filed by respondent-5. The question is, whether those orders make any difference to their cases, as contended by their learned Counsel. The additional facts of their case are as follows:-
(i) After the common order dated 14-5-1970 dismissing W.P.No. 1515 to 1567 of 1967 and other petitions including W.P.No. 1675/1967 presented by the 2nd respondent, he filed W.P.No. 3342 of 1970, seeking modification of the order made in W.P.No. 1675/1967. That Writ Petition was held to be not maintainable but the 2nd respondent was permitted to convert it into a Review Petition and it was numbered as C.P. No.5 of 1975. In this petition the grievance of the 2nd respondent was that though he had made two applications before the Special Deputy Commissioner for grant of occupancy rights and they were numbered as Case No. 6 of 1958-59 and 12 of 1959-60, Case No. 6 of 1958-59 alone was considered both in the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner and of the Appellate Tribunal, whereas both the cases were dismissed. This mistake was found to be true. Accordingly, disposing of C.P.No. 5 of 1975 on 8-1-1975 (Annexure-H), this Court made an order. Relevant portion of which reads:-
"4. The petitioner, M. Venkataswamy Gowda, had made two applications before the Special Deputy Commissioner. Those two applications were registered as Case No. 6 of 1958-59 and Case No. 12 of 1959-60. In the former case he had prayed for being registered as occupant of 23 guntas of land in Survey No. 79 of Neelasandra village. In the latter case, he had prayed for being registered as occupant of the following lands:
Sl. No. Particulars A.Gs.
1.
Land bearing S.No.60 0-17 1/2
2. Land bearing S.No.77 0-14
3. Land bearing S.No.79 0-14 1/6
4. Land bearing S.No.79 0-22
5. Land bearing S.No.73 0-01 The Special Tahsildar for Abolition of Inams, recorded separate statements of the petitioner on his two applications. However, the Special Deputy Commissioner recorded his common evidence in respect of his claims in both those applications to lands in Survey No.79. On 10-7-1964 the Special Deputy Commissioner made a common order in a number of cases. In the cause title of that order, the Case Nos. stated are 12, 2+59, 5, 1, 3, 4, 7 and 20 of 1959-60. Against the name of M. Venkataswamy Gowda, Case No. 12 of 1959-60 has been mentioned."
xxx xxx xxx "6. We have perused the aforesaid common order of the Special Deputy Commissioner and also the common Judgment of the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 28-3-1970 in Appeals Nos. 512 to 519 of 1965 and Appeal No. 1806 of 1965. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner was the appellant in Appeal No. 517 of 1965. It appears to us that both the Special Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal considered the claim of the petitioner to 23 guntas of land in Survey No. 79 but not his claim for 141/2 guntas and 22 guntas of land in the same survey number. The petitioner's s claim for 23 guntas of land was on the footing that he had purchased the same from one Dasappa, while his claim for 141/2 guntas and 22 guntas of land in the same survey number, was on the basis of his having inherited the same from his ancestors.
7. Thus, the contention of Mr. Ullal that neither the Special Deputy Commissioner nor the Tribunal had considered the claim of the petitioner in Case No, 12 of 1959-60, is well founded. In Writ Petition No. 1675 of 1967 this Court declined to interfere with the aforesaid common Judgment of the Tribunal and dismissed that petition. It is obvious that the dismissal of that petition cannot preclude the Special Deputy Commissioner from considering and disposing of Case No. 12 of 1959-60 which had not been disposed of by him. Hence, we accede to the petitioner's prayer for clarification of the order in Writ Petition No. 1675 of 1967. But, we should not be understood as having expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim in Case No. 12 of 1959-60.
8. In the result, we allow this petition and review the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1675 of 1967 and clarify the order therein dated 4-5-1970 by stating that the dismissal of that Writ Petition does not affect Case No. 12 of 1959-60 on the file of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bangalore, and that case has to be disposed of on merits by the Special Deputy Commissioner. As that case has been pending for a long time, the Special Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose of it very expeditiously.
From the above order, it is clear that this Court found that while the claim of the 2nd respondent in respect of 23 guntas of land in Sy. No. 79, which was the subject matter of Case No. 6 of 1958-59 had been considered and rejected his claim for two other bits of land 14 1/6 guntas and 22 guntas in the same survey number, which was the subject matter of Case No. 12 of 1959-60 was not considered and therefore direction was issued to the Special Deputy Commissioner to dispose of that case i.e., Case No. 12 of 1959-60.
(ii) Now coming to W.P.No. 1778/1967, it was filed by the 5th respondent. That Writ Petition was against the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 6-2-1963 rejecting his Case No.13 of 1961-62, in respect of lands in Sy. No. 79(1) and (2) to an extent of 14 1/6 and 22 guntas and the order of the Tribunal dismissing his appeal. The subject matter of Case No. 12 of 1961-62 of the 2nd respondent was also the same. Actually both of them claimed occupancy rights in respect of the same items of land jointly. The Writ Petition was allowed and the matter was remanded. Relevant portion of that order reads:-
"The petitioner has made an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Special Deputy Commissioner) for being registered as occupant of certain lands in S.Nos. 60/2, 70/2, 73/4 and 79 of Sarvamanya Neelasandra village. By his order dated 6-2-1963, the Special Deputy Commissioner directed that the petitioner should be registered as occupant of certain lands in the first three of the above said survey numbers, but rejected his claim to be registered as occupant of 14 1/6 and 22 guntas of lands in S.No. 79. His appeal to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) was unsuccessful. Feeling aggrieved, he has come up in this Writ Petition, xxx xxx xxx By its common order dated 28-3-1967, the Tribunal rejected the present petitioner's appeal on the ground that the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner had, by his order dated 10-7-1964, registered the lands in dispute in favour of Shree Dharmarayaswamy Temple (hereinafter referred to as the Temple) under Section 8 of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Tribunal observed that although he was aware of the aforesaid order dated 10-7-1964, he had neither filed an appeal therefrom nor had he impleaded the Temple as a party to the appeal (from the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 6-2-1963). The Tribunal further observed that the order of the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner dated 10-7-1964 had become final as the petitioner had failed to file an appeal therefrom within 30 days from the date of his knowledge of that order and that therefore there was no point in examining his claim afresh on 'the ground that he was not able to produce before the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner all the evidence available with him.
xxx xxx xxx As stated earlier, the rival claims of the petitioner and the Temple to the said two pieces of lands in S.No. 79, should have been considered together. The order passed by the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner on 10-7-1964 without considering the merits of the claim of the petitioner, inspite of the fact that he was a rival claimant to portions of S.No. 79 claimed by the Temple, has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence that order should be quashed.
In the result, we allow this petition, set aside the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 6-2-1963 in Case No. 13/61-62 and the common order of the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner dated 10-7-1964 in Cases Nos. 1 to 5, 7, 20 and 57 of 1959-60 only in so far as that order relates to registration of 14 1/6 guntas and 22 guntas of lands in S.No. 79, in favour of the temple, and we direct the Special Deputy Commissioner to consider together the claims of both the petitioner and the temple, to these two pieces of lands (i.e., 14 1/6 and 22 guntas of lands in S.No, 79 of Sarvamanya Neelasandra village) in accordance with law. We make it clear that the aforesaid common order of the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner dated 10-7-1964 shall remain undisturbed in regard to the rest of S.No. 79 i.e., except in regard to the 14 1/6 and 22 guntas claimed by the petitioner."
Thus it may be seen the claim which was remitted to be reconsidered was only in respect of 14 1/6 guntas and 22 guntas of land in S.No. 79 which was the subject matter in Case No. 13 of 1961-62 before the Special Deputy Commissioner. In respect of other items the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal remained undisturbed.
(iii) It may also be seen from paragraph-1 of the order in W.P.No. 1778/1967 filed by the 5th respondent, the claim for occupancy rights made by the 5th respondent and which formed the subject matter of Case No. 13 of 61-62 before the Special Deputy Commissioner is the same as the one made by the 2nd respondent, which was the subject matter of Case No. 12 of 1959-60. It may also be seen that the direction issued in C.P.No. 5 of 1975, filed by the 2nd respondent and the direction issued in W.P.No. 1778 of 1967 was for reconsidering their claim for occupancy rights in respect of only two items namely 14 1/6 guntas and 22 guntas of land in S.No. 79 (i.e. Sy. No. 79(1) and Sy. No. 79(2)), which formed the subject matter of Case No. 12 of 59-60 of the 2nd respondent and Case No. 13/61-62 of the 5th respondent. Thus, it is clear as far as 23 guntas of land in Sy. No. 79, which was the subject matter of Case No. 6 of 58-59 filed by the 2nd respondent is concerned, it was concluded by the order in W.P.No. 1675/1967 as far as the claim of respondents 2 and 5 under the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act. Their possession was held to be unlawful in respect of that item of land is concerned as was the finding in respect of the other respondents.
(iv) After the remand as above, the jurisdiction to decide the claim of occupancy rights under Inams Abolition Act also, by an amendment to the Act, was conferred on the Land Tribunal constituted under the Land Reforms Act. When the two remitted cases of respondents 2 and 5 came up before the Land Tribunal on the sole ground that certified copies of the orders of this Court were not produced the Tribunal closed the file. The relevant portion of the order reads:-
"Before the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.
No.LRF.INA. 699/713/79-80 Applicant Respondent Shri M. Ramachandrappa Dharmaraya Swamy Temple Shri M. Venkataswamy Gowda v. by its Convenor.
Sub: Grant of occupancy right in respect of Sy. Nos. 79, 60/1, 60/3, 77/1, 73/4, 79/1, 72/2, 77/2, 79/2 etc. of Neelasandra village, Bangalore North Taluk.
In this case, two applications filed by one Shri M. Venkataswamy Gowda and Shri M. Ramachandrappa are pending. The applications were filed before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition, Bangalore and they have been transferred to Land Tribunal, Bangalore North consequent on the amendment to the Inam Abolition Act in the year 1979. The enquiry was taken up by the Land Tribunal and the deposition of both the persons was recorded."
xxx xxx xxx ORDER The Tribunal has gone into the records that are available. It is evident that the issue of occupancy right in respect of the above S.Nos. has been dealt with by the Special Deputy Commissioners Inam Abolition, Bangalore, Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and also the Court of Karnataka during the last 15 years and the original records in which the matter has been dealt with are not available before the Land Tribunal. The Tribunal is unable to take final decision based on the uncertified copies produced by the parties. Unless and until the Tribunal gets the original orders of the High Court in which the case has been remanded it will not be in a position to pass any final orders in the matter.
These applications cannot be treated as fresh one and no further enquiry can be held as several orders have already been passed by the High Court in the matter. With this observations the file pending before the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North is closed."
It may be seen that the two transferred cases of respondents 2 and 5 to the Land Tribunal were renumbered as L.R.F. INA 699 and 713 of 1979-80.
(v) Aggrieved by the above orders, respondents 2 and 5 presented W.P.Nos. 18304 and 18305 of 1983. These Writ Petitions were allowed by this Court on 28-10-1983 by a common order. The operative portion of the order reads :-
"3. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has declined to examine the merit of the claim of the petitioner stating that it cannot rely on the uncertified copy of the order of the High Court. Original order made by the High Court will not be sent to Tribunal as original orders are retained by the High Court as a Court of record. The Tribunal instead of insisting on the production of certified copies has erroneously declined to examine the merit of the claim itself. It is a case of total failure of exercise of its jurisdiction. Hence the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and the same is liable to be quashed.
4. Writ Petition succeeds. Impugned order quashed. Matter remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in case the petitioner produces certified copies of orders relied on in support of his claim, if not already produced. Rule made absolute."
Thus the matter was required to be disposed of on merits by the Land Tribunal.
(vi) At this stage, it should be stated that after the Land Reforms Act came into force, respondents 2 and 5 filed two applications in which they claimed occupancy rights in respect of various items of land including 23 guntas in Sy. No. 79 regarding which occupancy right had been claimed under the Inam Abolition Act in Case No. 6 of 58-59 which was rejected by the Special Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 6-2-1974, which was confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal and by this Court in W.P.No. 1675/1967 holding that 2nd respondent was not a tenant of any category of that piece of land but his possession was unlawful. On this ground occupancy right granted to the petitioner-temple was confirmed. In the impugned order of the Tribunal that is the only piece of land in respect of which occupancy right has been granted to respondents 2 and 5 jointly. Therefore the order is liable to be quashed for the same reasons, which we have given in respect of the case of the other respondents.
(vii) From the order of the Tribunal it may be seen that it is a common order both in respect of the remitted matter i.e., Case No. 12 of 59-60 of the 2nd respondent and Case No. 13 of 61-62 of the 5th respondent which were renumbered as LRF.INA 699 & 713 before the Tribunal, arising under the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act and in cases Nos. LRF 1286/74-75 and 1268(2)/74-75 which are the case numbers given to the two applications filed by respondents 2 and 5 under the Land Reforms Act. The only item of land in respect of which occupancy right is granted in favour of respondents 2 and 5 is 23 guntas in Sy. No. 79 of Neelasandra village. As seen earlier occupancy right in respect of this land claimed by respondents and which was the only item claimed in Case No. 6 of 1959-60 was rejected, and the occupancy right in respect of that item was conferred on the petitioner-temple under Section 8 of the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act and the order was upheld by this Court in W.P.No. 1675/1967, holding that the possession of 2nd respondent was unlawful. In the applications filed by respondents 2 and 5 under the Land Reforms Act, as is the case of other respondents, their claim was again on the same basis which was rejected by this Court under the Inam Abolition Act and there was no claim of any fresh tenancy after the date of vesting and/or after the grant of occupancy rights to the petitioner-temple under Section 8 of the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act. Therefore every one of the reasons given by us in respect of the case of other respondents holds good to these respondents also.
19. We now proceed to deal with a preliminary objection raised by the respondents, which of course no longer survives. The objection was that, against the order of the Land Tribunal an appeal lies to the Appellate Authority under Section 118 of the Land Reforms Act and therefore in view of that alternative remedy the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. All that we need to say in this behalf is that the existence of an alternative remedy has only relevance to consider the entertainability of a Writ Petition, and not maintainability. However, even the considering of that aspect has become unnecessary as during the pendency of these petitions, by an amendment to the Land Reforms Act the Appellate Authority is abolished. Therefore, the preliminary objection does not survive for consideration.
20. To sum up our conclusions on questions arising for consideration in these cases are:-
(1) The Land Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider the claim for grant of occupancy right under the Land Reforms Act in respect of lands in respect of which occupancy right had been granted to an Inamdar under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. But the granting of occupancy right could be only on the basis that the claimant had become a tenant of such land of the Inamdar on and after the date of vesting of the land in the Government under that Act and/or after the grant of occupancy right to the Inamdar under the said 1955 Act; for, under Section 8 of that Act occupancy right could be and would have been granted to an Inamdar only in respect of lands which were not under cultivation of Kadim tenants or permanent tenants who were entitled to occupancy right under Sections 4 and 5 thereof or in respect of which there were no other category of tenants, who were entitled to continue as tenants under the Government as provided in Section 6 of that Act.
(2) In the present case, in respect of the lands in respect of which occupancy right has been claimed and granted in favour of the respondents by the Land Tribunal, occupancy right had been granted in favour of the temple under Section 8 of the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act. This had also been upheld by this Court in the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos. 1515 to 1516, 1675, 1697, 2989, 1729 and 1732 of 1967 dated 4-5-1970. In that order the claims of the respondents that they were permanent tenants of the lands and their alternative claim that they were deemed tenants as defined under Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act 1954 and therefore entitled to continue as tenants under the Government, as other tenants under Section 6 of the Act were rejected. Further their possession was held to be unlawful. The respondents had not claimed before the Land Tribunal that they had become tenants of the petitioner on and after the date of vesting of the lands in the Government under the Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act and/or after the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the temple. On the other hand their plea was the same which had been rejected by this Court. The lands therefore were not tenanted lands and the respondents were not tenants as on 1-3-1974; the appointed day under the Land Reforms Act; and therefore the Tribunal could not have granted the occupancy right for the lands in question in favour of the respondents.
(3) Both Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act 1954 which was in force on which the plea of the respondents that they were tenants of the land in question was based and considered in the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act, and was rejected and Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act; on which they rely to say that they were tenants of the said lands are similarly worded. Under both these provisions only a person lawfully cultivating an agricultural land could claim the status of a deemed tenant and not a person who has been in unlawful possession of the land.
(4) In the present case, the claim of the respondents that they were deemed tenants of the land in question in view of Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act was rejected by this Court in W.P.Nos. 1515 to 1517 to 1967 and connected Writ Petitions by an order dated 4-5-1970, holding that they were in unlawful possession of the land. From this it follows, the view taken by the Tribunal that they were deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act, which is exactly similarly worded as Section 4 of the Mysore Tenancy Act, is patently erroneous.
21. Before concluding, it is necessary to observe that though the order of the Land Tribunal was a common order, it was made on as many as 8 applications and therefore it was necessary for the petitioner to have filed eight separate Writ Petitions, though under the Rules it could be filed on common Memorandum, as the question of facts and law are similar, by paying separate Court fee. When this was pointed out, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Writ Petition may be treated as common memorandum of Writ Petitions consisting of 8 Writ Petitions and the petitioner would pay the deficit Court fee and accordingly the petitioner has to pay the deficit Court fee.
22. In the result, we make the following order:
(i) The petitioner shall pay deficit Court fee of Rs. 700/- within a week and the office is directed to give 7 additional numbers to the Writ petition as Writ Petitions Nos. 12850-A to 12850-G and incorporate the same in the Writ;
(ii) The Writ Petitions are allowed with costs;
(iii) The order of the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk, dated 25-1-1989, produced as Annexure-B is quashed;
(iv) Advocate's fee is consolidated at Rs. 5,000/-.
After the pronouncement of the order in the petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the order of this Court, the revenue authorities are required to and be directed to take possession of the land in question and deliver it to the temple.
As far as this matter is concerned, the petitioner in the first instance should demand the authorities to take such action as are necessary to implement the decision of this Court and if they fail to do so, the petitioner, is at liberty to take such proceeding as are open to it in law.