http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5684-5686 of 1999

PETITIONER: M.B.RAMACHANDRAN

RESPONDENT: GOWRAMMA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/04/2005

BENCH: B.P. SINGH & ARUN KUMAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL  No.5687/1999

B.P.SINGH, J.

       Civil Appeal Nos.5684-5686 of 1999 by special leave are directed  against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore  dated 4.11.1998 in Writ Appeal Nos.5678, 5580 and 5622 of 1996.  By the  impugned judgment and order, the High Court quashed the order of the  Tribunal and the learned Single Judge and remitted the matters to the Special  Deputy Commissioner on a finding that the Land Tribunal ceased to have  jurisdiction after the Amending Act, 1979 was declared ultra vires by the  High Court by its judgment dated 24.4.1992.  The order in the instant case  was passed by the Tribunal on 8.6.1994, much after the Amending Act of   1979 ,was declared to be ultra vires.         Civil Appeal No.5687 of 1999 is directed against the judgment and  order of the High Court dated 24.4.1992 in which Petition No.7230 of 1979,  whereby the Amending Act of 1979 was declared ultra vires in its entirety.               The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.  There were two Acts in  the State of Karnataka namely Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous ) Inams  Abolition Act, 1954 (Act 1 of 1955) which related to abolition of personal  Inams and  Mysore (Religious and Charitable ) Inams Abolition Act., 1955  (Act No.18 of 1955) which related to the abolition of religious and charitable  Inams..  The Karnataka Inams Abolition  (Amendment) Act, 1979 (Act 26 of  1979) was enacted by the Karnataka Legislature,  Section 2 whereof amended  some provisions of the Mysore Act 1 of 1955 relating to personal Inams.   Section 3 thereof amended some of the provisions of the Mysore Act 18 of  1955 which related to abolition of religious and charitable Inams.   It is not in   dispute before us that in view of the amendments brought about, inter-alia,  the jurisdiction to determine occupancy rights was conferred on the  "Tribunal" which was earlier conferred on the "Deputy Commissioner"under  the unamended Acts.         Before adverting to the facts of this case, we may notice that  Writ  Petitions were filed by Sri Kudil Sringeri Maha Samsthanam  being Writ  Petition Nos.7230 and 2590/1979 challenging the validity of the Amending  Act.  The High Court disposed of the said Writ Petitions by its judgment and  order of 24.4.1992.  The judgment is reported in ILR 1992 Karnataka 1827.   The High Court declared the entire Amendment  Act of 1979 as ultra vires for  the reasons given in the judgment.  The State preferred appeals before this  Court being Civil Appeal Nos.10229-30/1996 arising out of SLP Nos.3246- 47/1993.  The State appeals were dismissed by the judgment and order of  8.8.1996 of this Court without expressing any opinion on the validity of the  Amendment Act of 1979.  The Civil Appeals were disposed of only  considering the compensation payable to the Kudil Sringeri Maha  Samsthanam, and the question as to the validity of the Amendment Act was  left open to be considered in an appropriate case.    Thus, the Amendment Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

of 1979 which was declared to be ultra vires by the High Court of Karnataka  continued to be so since this Court did not set aside the said declaration of the  Karnataka High Court.         The appellant before us in both the appeals claimed occupancy  right in respect of lands situated in village K.G.Byaderahalli.  It is not  necessary to narrate the detailed facts relating to the various disputes that  arose, and we may only notice that ultimately when the matter came up  before the Land Tribunal, the Tribunal by its order of June 8, 1994 granted  occupancy right in favour of the appellant and his brother.           The order of the Land Tribunal was challenged by way of writ  petitions filed by persons aggrieved thereby, namely, Writ Petition Nos.  26681, 24831 and 25501 of 1994.  The aforesaid Writ Petitions were  dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court by judgment and order dated  19.4.1996.   The said judgment and order of the Single Judge was challenged  in Writ Appeals filed by the contesting respondent  which were allowed by  the Division Bench which quashed the order of the Single Judge as well as  that of the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Spl.Deputy  Commissioner  for adjudicaiton.  The Appellate Bench of the High Court held  that in view of the earlier judgment  dated 24.4.1992 invalidating the  Amendment Act of 1979, the Land Tribunal was denuded of the jurisdiction  conferred upon it by the said Amendment Act.  However, applying the de  facto doctrine, it was directed that the  orders passed by the Tribunal till the  date the Amending Act was declared ultra vires, were saved.  In the instant  case, since the Tribunal passed the order on 8.6.1994, i.e., much after the  Amendment Act was declared ultra vires on 24.4.1992,  the order passed by it  was held to be without jurisdiction. On this finding, the High Court set aside  the order of the learned Single Judge and the  Land Tribunal and remitted the  matters to the Deputy Commissioner to be heard and decided in accordance  with law.          Shri M.S.Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of  the appellant submitted before us that the dispute before the High Court in the  Writ Petitions preferred by the Kudil Sringeri Maha Samsthanam, related to  religious and charitable Inams and, therefore, in that context, the provisions  of the Amendment Act of 1979 relating to the amendment of Mysore Act 18  of 1955, relating to abolition of religious and charitable Inams were  challenged.  In the Writ Petitions filed by the aforesaid Kudil Sringeri Maha  Samsthanam, the validity of Mysore Act 1 of 1955 which was amended by  Section 2 of the Amendment Act of 1979 was not in question. Yet, the High  Court declared the entire Amendment  Act to be ultra vires which was wholly  unnecessary.  In this context, he relied upon the decisions of this Court to the  effect that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, while dealing with the vires of  statutory provisions the Court must not decide issues which are merely  academic.  He has drawn our attention to the Judgment of this Court in State  of Bihar vs. Rai Bahadur Hurdut Roy Moti Lall Jute Mills and Another,  1960 (2) SCR 331 wherein this Court observed :-         "In cases, where the vires of the statutory provisions are  challenged on constitutional grounds, it is essential that the  material facts should first be clarified and ascertained with a view  to determine whether the impugned statutory provisions are  attracted; if they are, the constitutional challenge to their validity  must be examined and decided.  If, however, the facts admitted or  proved do not attract the impugned provisions there is no  occasion to decide the issue about the vires of the said provisions.   Any decision on the said question would in such a case be purely  academic.  Courts are and should be reluctant to decide  constitutional points merely as matters of academic importance."

       It is not disputed before us by the respondents that in the  aforesaid Writ Petitions preferred by the Kudil Sringeri Maha Samsthanam,  the issues involved related only to the amendments to Mysore Act 18 of  1955 which dealt with religious and charitable Inams and not with Mysore  Act 1 of 1955 which dealt with abolition of personal Inams.  There was,  therefore, really no justification for the High Court to quash the entire  Amendment Act.  It was further submitted by Shri Ganesh that even though  the State came up in appeal before this Court, the appeal was disposed of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

without going into the question of the validity of the Amendment Act of  1979.  That was left open to be considered in an appropriate case.  He  further submits that in these appeals that question may be gone into and  decided.  He, however, submitted that the appellant is not interested in  challenging the validity of the Amendment Act in so far as it amends the  Mysore Act 18 of 1955 because his appeals do not relate to religious or  charitable Inams. His case being one relating to personal Inam, is governed  by Mysore Act 1 of 1955 as amended by the Amendment Act of 1979.   Since the validity of Mysore Act of 1 of 1955 was not in issue in the Writ  Petitions filed by the Kudil Sringeri Maha Samsthanam, the High Court  really exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the entire Amendment Act of  1979.  The High Court ought to have confined its declaration to the  amendment of the Mysore Act 18 of 1955 which was amended by Section 3  of the Amendment Act.           Counsel for the respondents do not dispute the factual position  that the aforesaid Writ Petitions filed by Kudil Sringeri Maha Samsthanam  did not concern personal Inams and related only to religious and charitable  Inams.  In this view of the matter, we must hold that the High Court was in  error in granting relief in such  wide terms declaring the  entire  Karnataka  Inams Abolition  (Amendment) Act, 1979 to be invalid.  We therefore set  aside that part of the judgment and confine the declaration to the provisions  of the amendment Act of 1979 only to the extent it amended Mysore Act 18  of 1955.         It was contended before us by counsel for the respondents that  the Amendment Act was struck down as invalid as early as in the year 1992.   In view of the Amendment Act being struck down by the High Court and  not interfered with by the Supreme Court, many matters must have in the  meantime come up for consideration before the Deputy Commissioner.   Under the Amendment Act of 1979, the jurisdiction had been vested in the  Land Tribunal.  In view of the Act being struck down as ultra vires, the  jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner was restored as from the date on  which the said Act was invalidated.  While the orders passed by the  Tribunal, after the Amending Act of 1979 came into force and till the same  was struck down by the High Court, were saved by applying the de facto  doctrine, if the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside today, it  may unsettle the settled position.  Many claimants may have acted on the  basis that the Amendment Act was invalid and, therefore, the jurisdiction  was retained by the Deputy Commissioner.  We are aware of the  consequences that may follow, but we feel that in a case of this nature the  doctrine of stare decisis be invoked to avoid unsettling the settled position.  This principle has been invoked by this Court in several decisions including   Mishra Lal (Dead) byLrs. vs.Dhirendra Nath (Dead) by Lrts. and others,  (1999) 4 SCC 11 and Raj Narain Pandey and Others vs. Sant Prasad Tewari  and Others, (1973) 2 SCC 35.         In these appeals, the only question which fell for consideration of  the High Court was whether the application filed by the appellant before the  Deputy Commissioner for grant of occupancy rights could be dealt with by  the Land Tribunal in view of the provisions of the Amendment Act of 1979.   In other words, whether the Land Tribunal had jurisdiction to dispose of the  said application.  We therefore wish to say nothing in this judgment which  may be construed as our considered opinion on any other question relating  to the provisions of the Amendment Act.  In the facts and circumstances of  these cases, we dispose of these appeals in the following terms :-         We hold that the judgment of the High Court in  Sri Kudil  Sringeri Maha Samsthanam in so far as it declared the  Karnataka Inams  Abolition  (Amendment) Act, 1979 (Act 26 of  1979) void in its entirety is  not correct.  At best, the High Court could have declared the amendments  brought about by Section 3 of the aforesaid Act to the Mysore Act 18 of  1955 as ultra vires, since the question of validity of the amendments to the  Mysore Act 1 of 1955 was not in issue.  We order accordingly.  Civil  Appeal No.5687/99 is allowed to the extent indicated above.         However, notwithstanding the fact that the said judgment is  modified, we direct that if after 24.4.1992 the Deputy Commissioner has  disposed of matters under the Mysore Act 1 of 1955  which fell within his  jurisdiction, the said orders will not be affected by this judgment and are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

saved.  But from today onwards, the jurisdiction shall be exercised by the  Land Tribunal, including the matters pending before the Deputy  Commissioner.  This, however, will not prevent the parties from  challenging the vires of the Amendment Act of 1979 in so far as it relates to  Mysore Act 1 of 1955.  However, we should not be understood to have  expressed any opinion on the merit of the cases, nor on the validity or  invalidity of the other provisions of the Amendment Act 1979 (Act 26 of  1979) or Mysore Act 1 of 1955.         The appeals are accordingly allowed and  the impugned judgment  and order  in Writ Appeal Nos.5678, 5580 and 5622 of 1996 is set aside and  the matters remitted to the High Court for disposal on merit in accordance  with law.          Since these matters have remained pending before us for quite  some time, we request the High Court to dispose of the aforesaid appeals as  expeditiously as possible.