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