1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated this the 6th day of September, 2013

Before

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

Writ Petitions 50708 / 2004 c/w 1912 / 2005 & 12584 / 2005 (LR)

Between

In WP 50708/2004

1 Smt Lakshmi W/o V Sundaraiah41 yrs, R/a 18/2 (Part of Sy.No.134)

2 Sri Jani S/o late Shaik Mahamood70 yrs, # 14/1 (Part of Sy.No.134)

3 Sri K Shamanna S/o late Krishnappa65 yrs, # 17/2 (Part of Sy.No.134)

4 Sri R Muniswamy S/o late Rajagopal Naidu60 yrs, R/a # 18/1 (Part of Sy.No.134)

5 Sri R Venkatesh Yadav S/o late R Rajagopal Naidu43 yrs, R/a # 18 (Part of Sy.No.134)

6 Sri R Ramachandra S/o lateMunipoovappa50 yrs, R/a # 16 (Part of Sy.No.134)

7 Sri J Murali S/o lateD Jayaram35 yrs, R/a # 12/3 (Part of Sy.No.134)

2

8 Smt Sarojamma W/o late V Narayan60 yrs, R/a # 17, (Part of Sy.No.134)

9 Smt Ramakka W/o NagarajSince dead – by Lrs

a Sri Nagaraj S/o Seenappa, 63 yrs

b Sri Shivakumara S/o Nagaraj, 38 yrs

c Sri Chandra S/o Nagaraj, 36 yrs

d Sri Shekar S/o Nagaraj, 34 yrs

e Sri Prabhu S/o Nagaraj, 30 yrs

f Smt Roopa D/o Nagaraj, 28 yrs

a-f are r/a # 16/2, 16/3

10 Sri Nawab S/o Ghouse, 55 yrsR/a # 85 (Part of Sy.No.134)

11 SriBAbu S/o late Md. Ghouse46 yrs, R/a # 85/1 (Part of Sy.No.134)

12 Smt Narayanamma W/o late Annayappa55 yrs, R/a # 14 V(Part of Sy.No.134)

13 Smt Lakshmamma W/o late Thammaiah60 yrs, R/a # 17/1 (Part of Sy.No.134)

14 Sri Shankar S/o late Chinnappa46 yrs, R/a # 14 (Part of Sy.No.134)

3

15 Smt Lakshmakka W/o late Ramakrishna45 yrs, R.a # 76/1 (Part of Sy.No.134)

16 Smt Rajamma W/o late RajappaSince dead by LRs

a Sri R Shekar S/oRajappa, 44 yrs

b Sri R Balakrishna S/o Rajappa, 50 yrs

c Sri R Venkatesh S/o Rajappa, 48 yrs

d Sri R Vijayakumar S/o Rajappa, 44 yrs

e Sri R Aswath S/o Rajappa, 40 yrs

f Sri R Sridhar S/o Rajappa, 38 yrs

g Sri R Damodar S/o Rajappa, 36 yrs

h Sri R Sathyanarayana S/o Rajappa, 32 yrs

j Smt R Gajalakshmi D/o Rajappa, 56 yrs

k Smt R Vijayalakshmi D/o Rajappa, 52 yrs

l Smt R Jayanthi D/o Rajappa, 42 yrs

a-l are r/a # 12/1 (Part of Sy.No.134)

17 Sri Jagannath S/o late N Raju50 yrs, R/a # 12/4 (Part of Sy.No.134)

18 Sri P Raju S/o late PapaiahSince dead by his LRs

4

a Smt M Jayamma W/o late P Raju, 64 yrs

b R Srinivas S/o late P Raju, 47 yrsc R Venkatesh S/o late P Raju, 45 yrs

d R Shamanna S/o late P Raju, 43 yrs

e R Umesh S/o late P Raju, 41 yrs

f R Manjunath S/o late P Raju, 39 yrs

a-f are R/a # 13/3 (Part of Sy.No.134)

g R Padmavathi W/o P Rajmurthy36 yrs, D/o late P Raju, R/a # 55/1Rama Temple Street, DoopanahalliHAL II Stage, Bangalore

19 Sri M Muniraju S/o Muniswamy65 y4s, R/a # 13/4 (Part of Sy.No.134)

All at New BinnamangalaIndiranagar, Bangalore 38 Petitioners

(By Sri T N Raghupathy, Adv. ForSri S V Bhat, M/s lawyers Inc.)

And

1 State of Karnataka – by its SecretaryRevenue Department, M S BuildingDr Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore

2 Spl. Deputy CommissionerBangalore District

5

3 Sri Venkataraju S/o late Doddamarappa

a Smt Nagamma, 65 yrs

b Sri Doddamarappa, 40 yrs

c Sri Chikkamarappa, 35 yrs

d Smt Maramma, 38 yrs

e Smt Mahadevi, 28 yrs

f Bojaraju, 33 yrs

g Rajesh, 28 yrs

h Ravi Kumar, 27 yrs

I Srinivasa, 33 yrs

j Nagaraju, 37 yrs

k Sampath, 33 yrs

l Murthy, 22 yrs

m Ganesh, 20 yrs

n Smt Venkatamma, 67 yrs

o Narasimha Murthy, 38 yrs

p Lakshmi, 38 yrs

q Smt Radha, 35 yrs

6

r Smt Rathna, 33 yrs

a-r are the wife and children oflate Venkataraju and all are R/a# 19/3, New BinnamangalaIndiranagar, Bangalore

4 Sri Muniraju S/o late DoddamarappaR/a # 19/3, Binnamangala VillageIndiranagar, Bangalore 38 Respondents

(By Sri G Gangi Reddy, Adv. for R4 &R3(a-r); T P Srinivasa, AGA for R1-2)

In WP 1912 / 2005

1 B S Srilatha D/o late B K Sriramaiahsince dead by LR – B N KrishnamurhtyS/o Naranappa, 66 yrs, R/a # 17/5Old Madras Road, BinnamangalaBangalore 38

2 Smt B Srishaila D/o late B K Sriramaiahsince dead by LRs

a H Jagan Mohan Reddy, 40 yrsh/o B Srishaila

b J Samruthasree, 6 yrsD/o late B Srishailareptd. By her father Jagan Mohan Reddy

3 *Sri B S Srinath S/o late B K Sriramaiah

Both are r/a # 17/5, Old Madras RoadBinnamangala, Bangalore Petitioners

(By Sri T A Karumbaiah, Adv.)* Added vide order dated 9.10.2013

7

And

1 State of Karnataka – by its SecretaryRevenue Department, M S BuildingDr Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore

2 Spl. Deputy CommissionerBangalore District

3 Karnataka Appellate TribunalBangalore

4 Sri Venkataraju S/olate Doddamarappasince dead by LRs

a Smt Nagamma, 65 yrs

b Sri Bhojaraju @ Doddamarappa, 45 yrs

c Mahadevi, 42 yrs

d Maramma, 38 yrs

e Umesh @ Chikkamarappa, 33 yrs

f Rajesh, 28 yrs

g Ravi Kumar, 27 yrs

h Srinivasa, 33 yrs

I Nagaraju, 37 yrs

j Sampath, 24 yrs

k Murthy, 22 yrs

8

l Ganesh, 20 yrs

m Venkatamma

n Narasimhamurthy

o Lakshmi

p Radha

q Rathna

a-q are wife & children of Late Venkataraju and are r/a # 19/3Binnamangala, IndiranagarBangalore 38

5 Sri Muniraju S/o late DoddamarappaR/a # 19/3, Binnamangala VillageIndiranagar, Bangalore

6 Srinivasa S/o Munivenkatappa30 yrs, R/o New BinnamangalaIndiranagar, Bangalore

7 Smt Kasturamma @ KasturiBai56 yrs, W/o R BalakrishnaD/o Doddamarapa, R/a # 19/6New Binnamangala, Indiranagar PostBangalore

8 Smt Susheelamma W/o MunimylarappaD/o Doddamarappa, 58 yrsR/a # 384, Behind Church

9

Kithaganur Colony, KR Puram HobliBangalore Respondents

(By Sri T P Srinivasa, AGA forR1-3; Sri K SSreekanth & Assts., Adv. For R6;Sri G Gangi Reddy, Adv. For R5 & R4(a-r)Sri Jose Sebastian Assts. For R7 & 8)

In WP 12584 / 2005

1 Sri Byrappa S/o B Muniswamappa76 yrs, R/a # 24, New BinnamangalaOld Madras Road, IndiranagarBangalore

2 Sri B C N Prakash S/o late B M Chandrappa33 yrs, # 23, New BinnamangalaOld Madras Road, IndiranagarBangalore

3 Sri B R Chandrappa S/o late Ramaiah67 yrs, # 570/A, 17th CrossIndiranagar 2nd Cross,Bangalore

4 Sri R Ramu S/o late Ramaiah55 yrs, R/a # 14/1, New BinnamangalaOld Madras Road, IndiranagarBangalore

5 Sri R Lakshman S/o late Ramaiah55 yrs, R/a # 14/1, New BinnamangalaOld Madras Road, IndiranagarBangalore

10

6 Sri R Vasu S/o late Ramaiah50 yrs, R/a # 14/1, New BinnamangalaOld Madras Road, IndiranagarBangalore

7 Sri Rramakrishna S/o late Ramaiah59 yrs, # 16, New BinnamangalaOld Madras Road, IndiranagarBangalore

8 T Lakshmaiah S/o late Thimmaiah60 yrs, # 564, 17th Cross, IndiranagarII Stage, Bangalore

9 Y V Prasad S/o late Y Dasanna55 yrs, # 55, I Cross, I MainIndiranagar I Stage, Bangalore

10 SriJ Prabhakar S/o late B R Jairam40 yrs, # 514, 16th CrossIndiranagar II Stage, Bangalore Petitioners

(By Sri M V Vedachala, Adv.)

And

1 State of Karnataka – by its SecretaryRevenue Department, M S BuildingDr Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore

2 Spl. Deputy CommissionerBangalore District

3 Sri Venkat Raju

4 Sri Muniraju

11

3-4 are s/o lateMarappa, R/a # 19/3Binnamangala Village, IndiranagarBangalore Respondents

(By Sri G Gangi Reddy, Adv. For R3(a-c);Sri T P Srinivasa, AGA for R1-2)

Writ Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order dated 12.7.1999 – annexure J (common in all petitions) by the 2nd respondent and also the order dated 30.9.2004 in Appeal 1315/2003; order dated 30.9.2004 in Appeal 601/1999

Petitions having been reserved for Orders on 18th June, 2013, the Court made the following:

ORDER

Petitioners in WP 50708/2004 are said to be owners of sites and

houses formed in Sy.No.134 of Binnamangala Village, Bangalore North

Taluk and state that they are in physical possession since more than 80

years as per the sale deeds which are produced by them. It is also stated,

they have built houses by obtaining necessary plan and license from the

competent authority and photographs have also been produced. Sy.No.134

is a developed land, houses have come up over a period of 50 to 60 years

indicating the transactions from the year 1940 to 1988 in respect of houses

and plots . This Survey Number comes within the BBMP since more than

12

thirty years and it is urban property. According to the petitioners, no one

has right other than them. Joint application was filed by them before the

Tahsidar, Bangalore North Taluk on 4.12.1959 in respect of the lands in

Sy.No.130, 134 and 135 totally measuring about 3.00 acres, claiming it to

be inam land as per annexure C and to register them as owners. One of the

applicant Dasappa is said to have given a statement – annexure C, stating

that other applicants are his relatives and Sy.Nos.130, 134 and 135 is not

related to him and his claim may be rejected as he has built houses and

sheds in Sy.No.136. It is also stated one Venkataraju and B Muniraju in

annexure C are the contesting respondents 3 and 4 in these writ petitions

who claim to be the grandsons of Bodappa (4 th applicant). In the

application at annexure C, this Bodappa and Ramaraju are the applicants 4

and 5. They are brothers of applicants 2 and 3 (respondents are 3 and 4

herein). Respondents 3 & 4 filed writ petition before this Court in WP

7950/1997 for directing the Deputy Commissioner/Land Tribunal to

consider their application at annexure C and to dispose of the applications

alleged to have been dated 5.12.1970 on the ground that they are in

occupation of Sy. No.130, 134 and 135 and their grandfather Bodappa was

13

in possession and after his death, their father Marappa @ Doddamarappa,

Venkataraju and Muniraju were in possession and there was a lease deed

dated 5.7.1902 in favour of Bodappa, grand father of respondents 3 and 4.

The said lease deed is said to have been executed by one Arcot

Narayanaswamy Mudaliar and that they have already filed an application.

It is also stated, the application as per annexure C filed in the 1959 by them

has not been considered. In WP 7950/1997, a direction was issued to

consider the application. It is the petitioners' case that respondents 3 and 4

never claimed right in respect of the properties under any Will. On the

other hand, they claim that they are the occupants of the said land under the

inamdar Arcot Narayanaswamy Mudaliar who had executed a lease deed in

favour of Bodappa and that they are in possession of three acres of land in

Sy.No.130, 134 and 135. Pursuant to the direction of this court in the writ

petition, case was registered before the Special Deputy Commissioner in

INA CR 13/97-98 i.e., revision under S.136(3) of the Land Revenue Act

which is against the order of the Assistant Commissioner. However,

according to the petitioners, the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated

23.2.1998 is not forthcoming. One Lalithamma had filed impleading

14

application claiming to be owner of house in Sy.No.134 and the statement

of 4th respondent Muniraju was recorded. For the first time, respondents 3

and 4 claimed their right before the Special Deputy Commissioner based on

the Will alleged to have been executed by Bodappa in their favour on

1.9.1949 which was allowed as per annexure J. According to the

petitioners, it is without notice, without inquiry and spot inspection and

without hearing them. According to the petitioner, no separate case was

registered by the 2nd respondent or by the Land Tribunal or the Tahsildar of

by the Assistant Commissioner pursuant to the direction in the said writ

petition. It is stated, the Deputy Commissioner in case No.16/1964-65 on

25.3.1978 - annexure K held that Sy.No.134 is not the subject matter of

lease deed in favour of Bodappa in the year 1902 and as a consequence of

it, he ought to have rejected the claim of respondents 3 and 4. The

application for grant of occupancy rights was filed as a joint application as

such, question of considering the claim of respondents 3 and 4 separately

and independently does not arise. Also, it cannot be held that the

application of respondents 3 and 4 cannot be said to be pending as

contended by them in the said writ petition and the 2nd respondent could not

15

have initiated any further proceedings. It is also averred one Subramanya

Mandadi had filed a suit against respondents 3 and 4 in OS 2660/1992

before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore for injunction in respect of portion

of Sy.No.134 of New Binnamnagala villagewherein the 3rd respondent has

categorically admitted that they have no right, title or interest in Sy.No.134

which came to be decreed and when the same was challenged by

respondents 3 and 4 before this Court in RFA 815/1995, the said appeal

came to be dismissed. As such, the order has become final and respondents

3 and 4 have no claim in respect of Sy.No.134 of New Binnamangala

Village. It is also contended that the father of respondents 3 and 4

Doddamarapa had purchased a site in Sy.No.134 on 8.7.1960 from one

Lokamma who derived title under a registered sale deed dated 7.5.1943.

This indicates that respondents 3 and 4 or their the predecessor in title had

no right, title or interest in Sy.No.134 . In the writ petitions filed before

this Court by some of the petitioners against the order of the Special Deputy

Commissioner at annexure J, this Court directed them to approach the

Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under S.28 of the Mysore (Personal &

Miscellaneous) Abolition Act. Pursuant to the same, petitioners have filed

16

appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Since petitioners were not parties to

the proceedings, they sought file an appeal which was dismissed by the

Tribunal holding that petitioners are not aggrieved parties to approach the

Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal in Appeal 1315/2003 on 10.9.2004 –

annexures Q and R. Since the application filed by some of the petitioners

before the Appellate Tribunal was a futile exercise, they joined other

petitioners to file this writ petition.

Petitioners in WP 1912/2005 state that they are absolute owners in

possession and enjoyment of 22 house sites in Sy.No.134 of Binnamangala

Village and the land measures 135 yards x 156 yards in Sy.No.130 and 131.

The sites were purchased by the father of petitioners one B K Sriramaiah

under a registered sale deeds dated 26.9.1951 – annexure B and 9.5.1953 –

annexure C. It is stated, after the commencement of Inams Abolition Act, B

K Sriramaiah filed an application for registration of occupancy rights

before the Special Deputy Commissioner who passed an order on 2.1.1962

– annexure E observing that adjudication of right and title to buildings or

lands converted for building purposes is outside the scope and jurisdiction

17

of the Special Deputy Commissioner acting under the Inams Abolition Act

and as per S.13 of the Act, the petitioners, if they are holders of such land,

are entitled to keep the land provided that such conversion was not void or

illegal under any law in force and if there is any dispute between the

holders, they have to approach the competent authority and thus, rejected

the application of the petitioners. It is also stated, there exists no dispute

regarding possession of the said houses, house sites and land till the life

time of B K Sriramaiah and he continued to be in possession till his death

and after his death, petitioners continued to be in possession. When things

stood thus, respondents 3 and 4, along with others jointly claimed

occupancy rights by filing an application on 4.12.1959, in respect of lands

in Sy.No.130, 134 and 135 totally measuring 3 acres. The application was

rejected on the statement of one Dasappa that the other applicants are his

relatives and he has no claim over Sy.No.130, 134 and 135. Against the

said rejection, WP 7950/2007 was filed for a direction to consider the

application which was allowed. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the

Special Deputy Commissioner registered a case and during pendency of the

proceedings, petitioners on coming to know of the same, filed application to

18

implead them as necessary parties. Later, the matter was adjourned to

several dates and ultimately, when the petitioners did not get any notice or

about the progress of the case and since their queries did not yield any

result, approached this Court in WP 34956/1999. This Court directed the

petitioners to file an appeal against the order of the 2nd respondent before

the appropriate authority. The 2nd respondent, without giving any

opportunity to the petitioners to present their case, rejected the impleading

application solely on the ground that the claim of B K Sreeramaiah was

already disposed of in case No. INACR 7981/62-63 and INACR 16/64-65.

It is the case of the petitioners that in the said cases, the order pertains to

different parties and is with regard to Sy.No.135 and 136 and the Special

Deputy Commissioner without application of mind has rejected the

impleading application of the petitioners and has also granted 4.34 guntas

of land when the claim itself is for 3 acres and has also granted land in

Sy.No.131 for which there is no claim.

Further, pursuant to the order in WP 34596/1999, petitioners filed

appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which after hearing them and

19

respondents 3 and 4 on the question of maintainability and limitation, held

that the appeal is maintainable against which WP 12388/2000 by

respondents 3 and 4 came to be rejected and further in writ appeal, the order

in writ petition was set aside with a direction to reconsider the claim of

respondents 3 and 4. Ultimately, in WA 1561/2004 by the petitioners the

Division Bench dismissed the appeal with liberty to the parties to argue on

merits. The 3rd respondent / Appellate Tribunal, after remand of the matter

again, without considering the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal of

the petitioner in Appeal 601/1999. During pendency of the appeal, the

mother of the petitioners Smt Lalithamma who was arrayed as a party had

died and after her death, the present petitioners filed an application before

the 3rd respondent to bring B S Sriprakash as necessary party being her legal

heir. Without considering the said application, an order at annexure A came

to be passed which is said to be against a dead person. Hence, they are

before this Court.

Petitioners in WP 12584/2004 who are ten in number, are before this

Court stating that they are the absolute owners in possession of houses and

20

house sites bearing respective corporation numbers, formed in Sy.No.134 of

Binnamangala Village, Bangalore. The petitioners have purchased their

respective houses/house sites under registered sale deeds and have been

paying the taxes also. The bits of houses/house sites come under the BBMP

limits. They are before this Court aggrieved by the order of the Special

Deputy Commissioner conferring occupancy rights on respondents 3 and 4

on 12.7.1999 in case No. INA CR No.13/97-98 - annexure J and confirmed

by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal 1315/2003 on 30.9.2004 in respect of

Sy.No./134 of Binnamangala Village, raising several grounds.

The main grievance of these petitioners is, the order of the Appellate

Tribunal that petitioners are not aggrieved is erroneous and the Tribunal has

also erred in not noticing the provision of S.28 which provides that any

aggrieved person can file appeal under S.10 and 11 and the Tribunal also

failed to take note of the fact that several constructions have come up in

Sy.No.134 for more than 50 to 60 years over which occupancy rights have

been granted to respondents 3 and 4, without notice to the applicants and to

other similarly situate persons and the 2nd respondent and the Tribunal

21

ought to have rejected the claim of respondents 3 and 4 that too when they

have categorically admitted that they have no right, title or interest over

Sy.No.134.

The 3rd and 4th respondents in their objections filed in WP

12584/2005, have stated that the petitions are not maintainable as remedy

is provided for the petitioners under S.28 of the Inams Abolition Act. If they

are aggrieved, they have to file appeal. Except the 3rd petitioner, no one has

filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal as per S.28 of the Act

and therefore, petition in respect of petitioners 1, 2 and 4 to 10 has to be

rejected in limine as they have no locus standi to challenge the order passed

by the Appellate Tribunal and the Special Deputy Commissioner at

annexures J and K dated 12.7.1999 and 30.9.2004 respectively. It is stated,

petitioners have not filed any application before the Special Deputy

Commissioner under Ss. 4,7,8, and 9 of the Inams Abolition Act and

therefore they cannot challenge the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner.

22

According to them, the entire village of Binnamangala vested in the

government under the Inams Abolition Act and government is the owner of

the entire village. Whoever got any right as tenant under the inamdar or

purchased the property from inamdar will step into the shoes of the inamdar

and such persons also can file an application under S.7 and 9 of the Inams

Abolition Act before the Deputy Commissioner. Petitioners case cannot

come under any of the provisions of the said sections. It is also not their

case that they have purchased the property from the original inamdar or

from the tenants and the sale deeds produced by them are all illegal

documents and they have not right or title to the property. The persons who

have sold the property have no rights and such sale deeds are not valid and

do not confer any right on the petitioners. The original inamdar Sri Arcot

Narayanswamy Mudaliar has not sold any properties to the petitioners as

such, petitioners have no right to file a petition before this Court and so also

the 3rd petitioner.

Petitioner Sri Byrappa and his father Muniswamappa have filed

application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for grant of

23

occupancy rights and their claims have been rejected on 24.1.1962.

Petitioners 3 to 7 who are claiming to be the owners of portion of property

in Sy.No.134 have purchased the same from one Sri Jayaram who in turn

has purchased the land from one B K Sriramaiah who has no valid title to

the property. He has lost the case before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal.

The sons and daughters of B K Sriramaiah also claim that they are also

owners in respect of the said property and have filed WP 1912/2005 and

how two persons can be the owners of the property in question is not

explained either by the sons and daughters of B K Sriramaiah or the present

petitioners. Petitioners 3 to 7 are claiming to the owners of property

bearing Corporation No.14/2 situate in Sy.No.134 of Binnamangala having

purchased the same from one Smt Radhamma on 15.7.1980 and it is not

explained as to how Radhamma became the owner of the property. She has

not purchased the land from Arcot Narayanaswamy Mudaliar as such, no

importance can be attributed to the claim. It is also averred, the 8 th

petitioner has not given the survey number in the sale deed and only

corporation receipts are produced and no document is produced to show

how he became the owner. Similar is the case of the 9th petitioner. The 10th

24

petitioner has also not produced any document except the tax paid receipt

and B R Jayaram the father of the 10th petitioner has filed an application

before the Special Deputy Commissioner for grant of portion of property in

Sy.No.134 which has been dismissed on 22.1.1962 against which order, no

appeal is filed before any authority. Petitioners are not the applicants for

grant of occupancy rights before the Special Deputy Commissioner and

some of the predecessors in title of the petitioners have lost the case before

the Special Deputy Commissioner as per annexure R1 . Once they are not

the applicants before the Special Deputy Commissioner, they have no right

to question the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.7.1991 –

annexure J and have also no locus standi to question the order of the

Special Deputy Commissioner. Except the 3rd petitioner, other nine

petitioners have not approached the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. If they

are aggrieved parties, they have to file an appeal as per S.28 of the Inams

Abolition Act. The 3rd petitioner also filed WP 7315-30/2000 against the

order of the Special Deputy Commissioner which came to be dismissed

with an observation that alternate remedy is available under S.28 of the Act.

The same observation is applicable to all other nine petitioners. Without

25

exhausting the remedy avoidable to them, it is stated, petitioners have no

right to approach this court under Art.226 of the constitution. It is their

case that the nine petitioners without establishing their grievance before the

Tribunal have approached this Court and on this ground itself, the petitions

are liable to be rejected. So far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, it is

stated, he is claiming right through one Jayaram who had filed an

application for occupancy rights before the Spl. Deputy Commissioner

which came to be dismissed on 22.1.1962 and therefore, had lost whatever

right he had and there is no appeal filed against the said order. The said B

R Jayaram had purchased the property from B K Sriramaiah and both have

lost their cases before the Special Deputy Commissioner as per annexure

R1. Only to harass these respondents, it is stated, the petitions have been

filed. The Special Deputy Commissioner has visited the spot, verified the

survey numbers and the buildings of Binnamangala Village and thereafter,

has directed the Asst. Superintendent of Land Records by his letter dated

5.1.1978 to find out in which survey numbers the twelve persons houses are

situate in the said village pursuant to which the Assistant Superintendent of

Land Records by his letter dated 1.1.978 has given a sketch pointing out in

26

which survey numbers the houses are built which are produced as annexure

R4 and R5. From the said letter/sketch, it is clear that the houses were only

in Sy.No.135 and 136 i.e., five houses in Sy.No.135 and eight houses in

Sy.No.136 but none in Sy.No.134. The Revenue Appellate Tribunal has

considered this aspect in detail while dismissing the appeal and has passed

an order holding that petitioners have neither got a right in the property nor

locus standi nor they are aggrieved persons to file an appeal before it.

Production of sale deeds itself is not sufficient to show that they have got

right in the property. They have to show how they got that right in the

property. Further, the sale deeds must be from the inamdar only and except

the inamdar no one has got any right to sell the property. It is not the

petitioners' case that they have purchased the property from the original

inmadar Arcot Narayanaswamy Mudaliar and any one has purchased from

the inamdar. Even if the property is purchased from the inamdar, they

cannot keep the property for themselves unless the competent authority

under the Act considered their right and grant them the property under S.10

of the Inams Abolition Act. It is not even the case of the petitioners that

they have filed any application at any point of time before any authority

27

seeking such grant.

It is the further case of the respondents that the various decisions of

civil court and other courts will not bind them as they were not parties to

the above proceedings. The khata made by the Corporation in favour of the

petitioners will not confirm any title to them. The Corporation has no power

or authority to change the khata to their name since Binnamangala Village

is an inam village and all lands are agricultural lands and no lands were

converted for non-agricultural purpose as per the report of the Tahsildar

dated 2.8.1960 – annexure R6 and all documents are concocted ones. The

petitioners have relied upon Ss.12 and 13 of the Inams Abolition Act in

support of their case and referring to both the sections, it is stated the report

of the Tahsildar makes it clear that no land is converted for non-agricultural

purpose and it is also not the case of the petitioners that the land in question

is converted for non-agricultural purpose. Relying upon the ratio laid

down by this Court in the case of M/s M Raghavendra Pai & Son Vs

Food Corporation of India - 1972(2) KLJ SN 42, it is stated that the fact

that the land, an erstwhile inam village, has been used for non-agricultural

28

purpose does not divest the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under

S.10 of the Act. It is the case of the respondents that they were in

possession and occupation of Sy.No.130, 131 and 134 of Binnamangala

Village and the RTC records of the years 1959-60 produced as annexure

R7, show they were cultivating the lands of inamdar as tenants. The order

of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal also confirms this fact. The lease deed

executed on 5.7.1902 by Arcot Narayanaswamy Mudaliar in favour of the

grandfather of these respondents was disputed in OS 111/1939. The

District Civil Munsiff, Bangalore who visited the spot came to the

conclusion that the boundaries given in the lease deed covers Sy.Nos.130,

134,135 and 136 in which the grand father of the petitioners in WP

1912/2005 and also one Sri Dhulraj from whom some of the petitioners

predecessors have purchased the property and the petitioners cannot now

say that the survey numbers 130, 131 and 134 are not included in the lease

deed of the year 1902 executed in favour of Bodappa, the grandfather of

these respondents and it is binding on them.

It is further stated, as per the order of this Court directing the Special

29

Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition to consider the applications of

these respondents under the Act, these respondents made applications and

the Special Deputy Commissioner issued notice to appear before him on

28.1.1998 i.e., annexure R8 and on appearance, after inquiry, the order is

passed. Any wrong mention of the provision by the Special Deputy

Commissioner will not in any way help the petitioners as it is clear from the

order of the Special Deputy Commissioner that he has conducted the case

under the Inams Abolition Act, on the basis of the application made by

these respondents and there is no irregularity or illegality in the order

passed. Thus, the respondents have prayed for rejecting the case of the

petitioners.

Counsel representing the petitioners relied upon the decision in the

case of H K Kathadru & Ors Vs State of Mysore & Ors – ILR 1974 KAR

250 wherein referring to S.9 & 10 of the Mysore (Personal &

Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act as to whether the executors under the

Will are legal representatives of the Inamdar and when there is no provision

under the Inams Abolition Act, the court has held that the test to be applied

30

is to denote the legal representative. Further, it is held that 'an appellate

court is concerned only with matters that have been put in issue before it in

such an appeal. It is not open to it to interfere with the orders which are not

appealed against,unless provision to that effect has been made in the law

governing the matter by way of conferment of appellate or revisional

jurisdiction'.

In the case of B K Ramachandra Rao & Ors Vs Kamalappa & Ors

– 1963(1) My.LJ 196, the Division Bench of this Court has observed

referring to S.28 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams

Abolition Act that 'the words of S.28 of the Act are so comprehensive as to

include any person who is interested in the subject matter of the dispute,

whether or not he is a party to the proceedings before the Deputy

Commissioner and hence a person interested though not party to the

proceeding can appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner'.

Counsel has also relied upon the case of Maharaj Singh Vs State of

Uttar Pradesh & Ors – (1977) 1 SCC 155, particularly paragraphs 20 and

31

21, as to a 'person aggrieved' and 'legal grievance'. It is submitted the

amplitude of legal grievance has broadened with social compulsions. The

State undertakes today the activities whose benefeciaries may be the

general community even though the legal right to the undertaking may not

vest in the community.... class actions and representative litigation are the

beginning and the horizon is expanding, with persons and organisations not

personally injured but vicariously concerned being entitled to invoke the

jurisdiction of the court for redressal of actual or imminent wrongs.

Counsel has also relied upon the case of Firm ATB Mehtab Majid &

Co., Vs State of Madras & Anr – AIR 1963 SC 928 to the proposition, just

because a substituted statutory rule is held invalid, the old rule does not get

revived. The old rule ceases to exist on the new rule coming into force.

The case of M B Ramachandran Vs Gowramma & Ors – AIR 2005

SC 2671 is relied by the counsel as regards the amendment of the Mysore

(Religious & Charitable) Inams Abolition Act and also Mysore (Personal &

Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act wherein it is observed that court not to

32

decide academic issues. The petition involved question relating to abolition

of Religious and Charitable Inams covered under the Mysore Act. The

Apex Court held the order of the High Court declaring the entire Inams

Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1979 to be invalid is erroneous.

Counsel has relied upon the Division Bench decision in the case of

Sreekantiah Vs Moodlagiriah & Ors – 1966 My.LJ 563 to contend, as per

requirement of R 7(3) of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams

Abolition Rules, 1956, the inamdar should be made a respondent to an

application for registration is imperative and a disobedience of that

provision vitiates the proceedings. The fact that the inamdar was examined

as a witness in the course of the proceedings does not amount to obedience

to Rule 7(3).

Counsel for the contesting respondent has relied upon the judgment

of this Court in the case of Krishnamurthy Vs Hemanna – ILR 1987 KAR

1466 to contend that there should be fraudulent or erroneous representation

by the transferor so as to attractS.43 of the Transfer of Property Act and its

33

benefit cannot be extended in favour of purchasers of land already vested in

the Government and estoppel does not arise against those not parties to the

contract or transfer. Further, referring to S.10 & 13 of the Mysore

(Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, the Division Bench has

held, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit for declaration of

title and possession of lands vested in government. To attract S.13,

conversion of land before vesting not being void or illegal.

Counsel has relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in the

case of Narasimha Vs Deputy Commissioner – WP 38894/2001 decided on

19.10.2001 to contend that the claim of the predecessor in title of the

petitioner came to be rejected against which rejection, appeal was filed

before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which also came to be rejected. In

Writ Appeal 7574/2001 against the said order, the Division Bench of this

Court has observed that order of the Appellate Tribunal having reached

finality in view of the fact that till the death of the predecessor in title of the

petitioner he had not challenged the same, the writ petition by the successor

does not merit consideration at a belated stage.

34

In WP 50708/2004, petitioners are all owners of house/house sites

bearing respective numbers formed in Sy.No.134 of Binnamangala Village

having purchased or inherited during the the year 1940 up to 1998. It is

their case, Sy.No.134 was not the subject matter of grant of occupancy

rights in favour of respondents 3 and 4 and this is evident from the order of

the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition on 25.3.1978 –

annexure C. In the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in No.272/1979,

the claim in respect of Sy.No.134 was rejected. It is their contention that the

order of the Special Deputy Commissioner on 12.7.1999 is totally without

application of mind as also the order of the Appellate Tribunal dismissing

the appeal filed against the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner.

Similar is the case of the petitioners in WP 12584/2005 and in WP

1912/2005. It is also their contention that the observation of the Appellate

Tribunal that they are not aggrieved persons under S.28 of the Act is not

proper. Before passing an order, the Tribunal ought to have issued notice to

these petitioners as S.28 specifies any person aggrieved by a decision under

S.10 and 11 is entitled to file an appeal. It is also their case, the Tribunal

35

ought to have held an inquiry to know whether petitioners are interested

persons or not to file an appeal under S.28. But, there is no inquiry held

before passing an order rejecting their application. It is their further case

that land to an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.130, 1.20 acres in Sy.No.131

and 2.30 acres in Sy.No.134, totally 4.30 acres has been granted whereas

the claim itself was for 3.00 acres of land together in these three survey

numbers, no extent was mentioned separately and land has been granted in

excess of what was claimed, if the extent mentioned in the Will is taken into

consideration without taking into consideration the extent mentioned in the

lease deed of the year 1902. There is no reason assigned for granting an

extent more than what has been claimed by the contesting respondents.

The order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the Special

Deputy Commissioner is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

According to the petitioners' counsel in these three petitions, nearly

about nineteen sale deeds and transfers have taken place commencing from

1949 and also construction have come up. As per S.12 of the Act, the

Deputy Commissioner has no right to deal with such matters. At a belated

36

point of time, without impleading and without hearing these petitioners the

order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal is by way of non-joinder of necessary parties. It is their

case, most of the petitioners who have made developments pursuant to the

purchase of the property from its erstwhile inamdar/vendor are successors

of the purchasers and they have not been made party and have not been

given an opportunity. Thus, relying upon the decisions cited supra, it is

contended that the matter requires remand to the Special Deputy

Commissioner. It is also their contention that the contesting respondents

cannot claim as a matter of right to participate in the proceedings based on

the Will as executors as there is no provision provided under the Act to

represent themselves under the Will. Further, referring to the judgment of

the Division Bench, it is argued while re-granting property, even to a person

who is affected, notice has to be issued which has not been done in the

present case.

According to the counsel representing respondents 3 and 4, tenancy

right was bequeathed in 1949 in their favour and tenancy was created in

37

favour of their predecessor intitle in 1902. Even otherwise they have

inherited the rights on the death of the original tenant. Up to 1978 time was

extended to file application under the Act. The date of vesting of the land is

in the year 1958 for re-grant or to contend that they are interested persons

having purchased the property from the original inamdar and they ought to

have filed application under S.10 before the Special Deputy Commissioner.

Since no such application is filed, the right if any, is deemed to be

extinguished even if they have purchased from the inamdar. During 1978,

survey was conducted and report was called for from the Deputy

Commissioner. There were no structures/construction on the property as

claimed by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, there is no gain say

in the case of the petitioners to contend that there were structures put up etc.

Referring to the case of K T Thimmegowda Vs State of Karnataka -

1979(1) KLJ 416, it is contended that any such application filed in respect

of any right, if any, is deemed to be extinguished even if they have

purchased the property from the original inamdar. It is also argued on the

point of limitation that petitioners have no locus standi to question at a

belated stage the orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner and the

38

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The original inamdar's application filed for

re-grant was rejected and no such appeal was filed. It is also contended,

there was a grant in favour of the tenant on such filing of the application

based on the lease deed by the then inamdar. In Kathadru's case cited

above, it is held as per S.2(11), CPC the test prescribed in the first part of

the definition for determining the question whether a person is a legal

representative or not, is whether or not he represents the estate of the

deceased person. In the present case, respondents 3 and 4 being executors

for all practical purposes are only accountable to the legatees and other

heirs and therefore, they are legal representatives. It is argued, on the

death of Bodappa even without there being a Will respondents 3 and 4

being the successors, they are representing him as legal representatives and

they can duly contest the matter. Since there was a re-grant in favour of

Bodappa while rejecting the claim of the inamdar, that order has not been

challenged by the petitioners nor they have filed any application for re-

grant though time was extended up to 1978 and accordingly, the petitioners

have no locus standi to contest the matter. It was for the petitioners for their

right, if any to have filed application as per S.10(3)(b) of the Act. Since

39

they have not filed the application, they have lost the right. As per the

sketch in respect of Sy.No.134, there was no building, as per the report of

the Surveyor.

Counsel for the respondents submit that the land vested with the

government and there was no right to sell available. Petitioners have

purchased the property subject to risk. Even in the suit filed by Bodappa

before the Munsiff Court, the suit came to be decreed against one Dhulraj

and the appeal filed against the order in the suit which came to be

dismissed. The sales are void since parties have purchased them from one

Dhulraj.

Government Advocate submits that the order of the Deputy

Commissioner is during July 1999. After verifying the records, noting that

the Jodidar had leased the property in favour of Bodappa in 1902, this

Bodappa had executed a Will in favour of the respondents who are none

other than his grand children. Accordingly, relying upon various

judgments, it is argued that petitioners have no locus standi as the original

40

order passed re-granting the property in favour of Bodappa had not been

challenged. The petitioners predecessors or the petitioners have not filed

claim petition as required under S.10 of the Act.

Property in question is the subject matter of lease in favour of

Bodappa in 1902. On coming into force of the Act in 1958, the land vested

with the government. There was a provision provided for making an

application for re-grant up to 1978. It appears though the inamdar filed

application, it came to be rejected. It appears the inamdar also alienated

several properties. Further, as an exception, normally the property would

be dealt under S.12 of the Act if there are structures raised before vesting.

The persons who claim right through inamdar have not filed any application

except the original inamdar though the inam lands changed several hands

on alienation by the inamdar before or after the Act came into force.

Ultimately, when the petitioners' case has not been considered by the

competent authority and also by the appellate Tribunal on the ground that

no such application is filed and the application filed by the inamdar has

also been rejected, then the question of petitioners claiming right on the

41

basis that they are purchasers and they are affected parties and that they

should be given an opportunity by remanding the matter, would not arise at

this juncture. The respondents are shown to be not only legatees/executor

claiming right under the Will, they are also legal representatives of the

deceased Bodappa who was a grantee as a tenant. Even if any transaction

has taken place by way of alienation of the property from the inamdar or his

representative during the period of vesting with the government, till there is

a re-grant all those transactions are void transactions. As per the report of

the revenue authorities, as on 1978 no such construction had come up and

necessarily the rights of the petitioners cannot be easily accepted. The claim

of the petitioners that they are in possession and put up construction, in the

absence of any such document produced to prove that before vesting of the

land with the government they have put up construction does not stand to

reason in view of the survey report submitting during 1978 which depicts

the fact that no construction has taken place and they cannot claim an

exception. Even though one of the petitioner has filed an application as per

S.10 of the Act, the application is rejected, there is no appeal preferred and

he has lost the right. The land vested with the government during 1958 and

42

up to 1978 time was extended to file an application for re-grant by the last

holder or persons interested. Such an application was not made except the

original inamdar whose application came to be dismissed.

Though it is submitted by the petitioners' counsel (WP 1912/2005)

that though there is no claim made in respect of *Sy.No.131 by the

respondents' predecessor Bodappa, it has been granted, counsel

representing the respondents has replied that based on the survey report and

also possession by virtue of lease by the inamdar, the Special Deputy

Commissioner has granted occupancy rights. It is also the contention of

the petitioners' counsel that application is said to be filed by the petitioners'

predecessor however, the respondents' counsel has argued that no such copy

of the application is made available nor the rejection of the same by the

Deputy Commissioner has been challenged before the Appellate Tribunal

and as such, the case of these petitioners cannot be considered.

In so far as the claim of the petitioners in WP 50708/2004 that they

are purchasers of bits of land in the form of sites, as per the report of the

* Corrected vide order dated 9.10.2013

43

Surveyor which is filed along with the statement of objections filed by the

respondents, there are no houses built on the relevant date. As such,

petitioners claim would not be maintainable.

Further, the argument is that there is a finding by the Special Deputy

Commissioner while rejecting the application that he lacks jurisdiction to

deal in respect of houses built on the land and this would demonstrate that

there existed houses on the land but counsel for the contesting respondents

contend that against that rejection, there is no appeal preferred and he

relies on the decision of this Court in Sundaram Vs Munithayamma –

CRP 2835A/1973 decided on 18.12.1973 wherein this Court has observed

that the mere fact that the land in an erstwhile inam village has been used

for non-agricultural purposes, does not divest the jurisdiction of the Deputy

Commissioner under S.10 of the Mysore (Personal and Misc.) Inams

Abolition Act, 1954 and contended that against such finding of the Special

Deputy Commissioner, no appeal has been filed as such, that order has

become final and petitioners cannot claim relief. It is also his contention

that there is no material produced that the land is converted for non-

44

agricultural purpose so as to claim that petitioners are the persons who

come within the purview of S.12 of the Act.

Even though some of the petitioners claim to have purchased

property prior to vesting and have put up construction, they were unable to

produce any documents for the relevant years i.e., prior to vesting for

having put up construction atleast before this Court except some

photographs which are taken recently. In the circumstances, claiming

protection under S.12 and 13 of the Act may not arise. They may also not

be entitled for an opportunity in the absence of documents being produced.

As per S.10(3)(a) of the Act, no person shall be entitled to be

registered as an occupant under Ss.4,5,6,7 and 9 unless the claimant makes

an application to the Tribunal. Further, such application shall be made

within the time stipulated as per the amended Act i.e., before 31.12.1979.

But when no application is made, right of any person to be registered as an

occupant shall stand extinguished and land shall vest in the State absolutely.

This denotes that either a person who holds the property as inamdar is

45

entitled to be registered as an occupant of all lands except as is provided

under S.9 of the Act.

Though as per the Division Bench decision of this Court in B K

Ramachandra Rao's case cited supra, under S.28, a person not a party

before the Deputy Commissioner, if interested, can file an appeal against

the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the fact remains in the case on hand

that those who have purchased the property from the original inamdar

before vesting are shown to have not made any application for re-grant.

On the other hand, right of Bodappa has been recognised on the basis of the

lease as tenant and respondents 3 and 4 are the grand children of Bodappa.

Their right has been recognized by the order of the Deputy Commissioner

not only on the basis of their claim even though there is a Will as Executors

but as per relationship, they are legal representatives as such, order of re-

grant made in favour of respondents 3 and 4 cannot be held to be invalid.

Further, in the case of Banda Development Authority Vs Motilal

Agarwal – (2011) 5 SCC 394, the Apex Court has observed that though no

46

limitation is prescribed for filing writ petitions, the High Court should not

entertain the petition filed after long lapse of time because it may adversely

affect the settled or crystallized right of the parties. The High Court should

treat the delay as unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the

petitioners on merits. The delay should be viewed seriously and relief

denied to the petitioners if petitioners fail to offer plausible explanation.

Petitioners herein claim to be purchasers of property not from the

original inamdar directly and, according to some of them, there are

buildings in existence as such, they are saved under S.12 of the Act.

According to them, the Appellate Tribunal also has not considered their

claim to exempt them from filing an application for re-grant.

On going through the records, most of the transactions appear to be

during 1960s and 1970s i.e., after vesting of the land. Without filing an

application as contemplated under S.10, petitioners have sought to contest

the matter. Those transactions which have taken place after vesting are all

void transactions as such, they cannot claim right.

47

Several other decisions have been relied upon by the counsel for the

petitioners as regards the ratio laid down in the context, however, they are

not fully applicable to the case on hand. The requirement of S.12 has not

been met out by some of the petitioners, in view of the survey report of

1978 and they cannot avail the benefit of the said section. Section 12

applies to only those construction put up before the land vested with the

government. The transactions between the original inamdar and the

predecessors of the petitioners or the petitioners themselves regarding

alienation of the inam property after the land vested with the government

appears to be void transactions. Any successive interest created by the

original inamdar in favour of the petitioners' predecessors/claimants after

vesting, for re-grant may not be accepted.

However, if any of the petitioners including one Chandrappa in WP

12584/2004 noted above, in view of B K Ramachandra Rao's case cited

supra, are able to demonstrate that they have put up construction prior to

vesting and such of those who have filed application for re-grant as per

S.10 of the Act, on they approaching the Appellate Tribunal within one

48

month from the date of receipt of this order, and on causing notice on

respondents 3 and 4, the Appellate Tribunal shall decide the matter

according to law in three months thereafter. However, it is for the

petitioners herein to approach the 3rd and 4th respondents for settlement, if

so advised.

With the above observation, petitions are disposed of.

Sd/- Judge

an