( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition by a Mathadhipathi preferred under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, for a writ in the nature of Certiorari or other suitable writ or order quashing the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, t. Narasipur Taluk, Mysore District, initiated on the applications of respondents 3 to 7 under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act'.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 3 to 7, claiming that they are tenants of three agricultural lands in Survey Nos. 131, 133 and 134 of Vadayendahalli village, measuring in all about 14 acres, 1 gunta, applied to the Land Tribunal, t. Narasipur Taluk, for grant of occupancy under S. 45 of the Act. On receipt of the applications, the Land Tribunal issued notices to the petitioner -Mathadhipathi, in form No. 9, to appear before the Tribunal on 6-8-1975. On service of the said notice, the petiticner-Mathadhipathi has preferred the above writ petition.

( 3 ) TWO grounds have been urged in this writ petition. The first ground is that the notice in form No. 9 is not proper. This ground was not pressed by Shri Veerabhadrappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the hearing. The second ground, which is the only ground pressed at the hearing is that by virtue of S. 107 of the Act all other provisions of the Act, except s. 8, do not apply to the lands in question and, therefore, the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. The short question that arises for decision is, whether by virtue of s. 107 of the Act, all the provisions of the Act, except S. 8, are made inapplicable to the lands in question.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to state briefly the relevant facts. The management of the properties of the Mutt was taken over by the Govt of Mysore in the year 1937, under the provisions of S. 25 of the Mysore Religious and Charitable institutions Act. 1927. The management of the properties of the Mutt by the Govt continued from 1937 till 1970, when the Gcvt restored the management of the properties to the petitioner-Maihadhipathi.

( 5 ) DURING the period of management of the properties of the Mutt by the govt, the lands in question were leased to tenants by Officers of the Govt appointed as managers. The last such lease was made to respcndent-5 on 8-5-1958. That lease was lor a term of five years. It was submitted that although in the auction held by the managers appointed by the Govt the fifth respondent became the successful bidder, there was an agreement between respondents 3 to 7 inter se to cultivate the lands in separate shares and pay rent also separately. According to the case cf the petitioner, the tenants had surrendered the lands on the expiry of the term of the lease and petitioner was put in actual possession of the lands at the time of restoration of management. It is averred by petitioner that the tenants having obtained an order of injunction from the Civil Court, they are in possession of the lands. The contention of respondents 3 to 7 is that they are tenants personally cultivating the lands immediately prior to 1-3-1974. Sec. 44 of the Act, as substituted by Act 1 of 1974, vests all tenanted lands immediately prior to 1-3-1974 in the State Govt and S. 45 entitles tenants personally cultivating such lands to obtain registration of occupancy. The case of the petitioner is that by virtue of S. 107 of the Act, the whole of the Act except S. 8, is made inapplicable and that Ss. 44 and 45 being inapplicable to the lands in question, the lands have not vested in the state Govt; and that even assuming without conceding that the lands are tenanted lands and that Ss. 44 and 45 and other provisions of Chapter III are applicable, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the question of tenancy set up by respondents 3 to 7.

( 6 ) THE learned High Court Govt Advocate Shri Chandrakantharaj Urs appearing for the State, and the learned counsel appearing for respond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document