2005 Supreme(SC) 746

2005(4) Supreme 116
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
B.P. Singh & Arun Kumar, JJ.
M.B. Ramachandran —Appellant
versus
Gowramma & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5684-5686 of 1999
With
Civil Appeal No. 5687 of 1999
Decided on 28-4-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate, H.R. Ananthakrishnamurthy, Ms. Pallavi, Shantha Kr. V. Mahale, Rajesh Mahale, S. Manjunath, K.K. Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P. Krishnan Murthy, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil K. Mishra, A. Rohen Singh, S. Nanda Kumar, Anuj Kr. Chauhan, L.K. Pandey, R. Jaganath Gonley, P. Narasimhan, S.K. Kulkarni, N. Gireesh Kumar, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, N. Ganpathy and P.P. Singh, Advocate.

Headnote:Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (Act 1 of 1955)—Section 2—Abolition of personal Inams—Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (Act No. 18 of 1955)—Section 3—Abolition of religious and charitable Inams—By the Karnataka Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1979 jurisdiction to determine occupancy rights was conferred on “Tribunal” which earlier was conferred on “Deputy Commissioner”—Appellants claimed occupancy right in suit land and Tribunal by its order dated 8.6.1994 granted occupancy right—Single Judge upheld the order of Tribunal—Appellate Bench of High Court in view of High Court judgment in a writ dated 24.4.1992 invalidating the Amendment Act set aside the order of Tribunal holding that Tribunal had no jurisdiction and matter was remitted to be heard by Deputy Commissioner—Appeal—Writ challenging the Amendment Act was confined to Act No. 18 of 1955—High Court in that writ was in error in granting relief in such wide term declaring entire Karnataka Inam Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1979 to be invalid—Declaration in the judgment was liable to be confined to provisions of amendment Act, 1979 only to Amended Mysore Act 18 of 1955—Doctrine of stare decisis—Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.

       Held : 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) by Lrs. 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 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. (Paras 9 to 13)