http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1867 of 2008

PETITIONER: Venkateshappa

RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT  & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.      1867            2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.25804 of 2004)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

1.      Leave granted.   

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Division  Bench of the of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ  appeal filed  under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.   Challenge in the writ appeal was to the order passed by a  learned Single Judge.   The dispute relates to applicability of  the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the ’Act’) in  the background of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam  Abolition Act, 1954 (in short ’Inam Act’) as amended by the  Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 (in  short ’Amendment Act’).   

3.      The factual controversy lies in a very narrow compass.  

       Appellant had filed the writ petition no.32930 of 1996  which was disposed of by orders dated August 4, 2000 and  August 24, 2000.  By the latter order the following directions  were given:   

"Even with regard to the question as to  whether the lands in question are Inam lands  or not, it is impossible for me to form a correct  impression because each of the learned  Advocates is making a different statement.   The Tribunal shall first ascertain whether, the  lands in question are imams lands and if the  answer is in the affirmative, then the Tribunal  shall forward the records to the Special Deputy  Commissioner who shall give notice to the  parties, hear them and decide the case. If  however, the Tribunal does have jurisdiction in  law to entertain the proceeding insofar as, if  the lands are not inam lands then the Tribunal  shall proceed to do so."   

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

4.      It is the case of the appellant that the Land Tribunal did  not consider this aspect and did not also record any finding  and came to an abrupt conclusion as follows:

"The Gattarlahally was the jodi village, after  abolition, it is vest to the Government and not  a Inam land."  

5.      Before the learned Single Judge the specific stand  relating to the jurisdiction was disposed of with the following  observations:

"After hearing the learned counsel for the  parties, I have examined the correctness of the  findings and reasons recorded in the impugned  order by the Land Tribunal on the contentious  points. In my considered view, none of the  contentions urged in this petition warrant  interference with the impugned order for the  reason that, the order passed by the Special  Deputy Commissioner under the Act of 1954  does not bind third respondent as he was not  party to the proceedings.  Further, in view of  sub-section (1) of Sec.44 of Act  notwithstanding the order of the Special  Deputy Commissioner, Act of 1/74 has come  into force, it is a tenanted land and therefore it  will statutorily vests with the State  Government.  Thereafter, consequences as  enumerated under sub-section (2) of Sec.44  will come into operation. Further, the  contention urged that Form No.7 application is  not maintainable as urged above in this  petition are wholly untenable in law for the  reason that submissions made on behalf of  third respondent is well founded in place  reliance upon the provisions of KLRF Act and  also in view of Muniyellapa vs. B.M. Krishna  Murthy reported in AIR 1992 SC 205 and the  same is accepted.  Therefore, contention urged  on behalf of petitioner in this regard placing  reliance upon the decisions of this Court are  wholly untenable in law and the same is  rejected.  Further the reliance placed upon  Rangaiah’s case is wholly in-applicable to the  fact situation and is misconceived.  Hence,  reliance placed upon the said Judgment are  misplaced and the contention in this regard is  rejected."                              

6.      Learned Single Judge only observed that since the  respondent was not party to the proceeding, the order passed  by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the 1954 Act was  of no consequence and even otherwise the consequences as  enumerated in Section 44(2) came into operation.  The  Division Bench did not analyse the issue in detail and upheld  the view of the learned Single Judge.

7.      The specific ground has been raised in this appeal that  question of jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal to reopen a case  and decide by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams

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

Abolition has not been dealt with.  Reference has been made to  Section 141 of the Act.    

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that  though it has not been specifically dealt with, the factual  scenario clearly shows that no relief has been granted to the  appellant.          9.      On the earlier occasion, the learned Single Judge has  specifically stated that the question of jurisdiction of the  Tribunal has to be dealt with as quoted above. This apparently  has not been done by the Land Tribunal, and learned Single  Judge and the Division Bench lost sight of these relevant  aspects.

10.     In the circumstances, the impugned orders of the learned  Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are  quashed and the matter is remitted to the learned Single  Judge to deal with the issue in accordance with law.   

11.     The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.