( 1 ) THE petitioners in these Writ Petitions had claimed before the Land reforms Tribunal, Mudigere, that they be registered as occupants of the lands concerned. The Tribunal has rejected their claims by its order dated 6. 6. 1976 passed in No. LRE (i) 404, 402, 1915, 1959, 1668|74-75. In these Writ Petitions the petitioners have prayed that the said order be quashed.

( 2 ) THE main contention of the petitioners is that the Tribunal has, in view of Ss. 126 and 138 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), jurisdiction to go into the claims of the petitioners and it has failed in its duty by rejecting their claims and directing them to approach the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams abolition, Hassan.

( 3 ) BY the impugned order the Tribunal has stated that the lands being classified as devadaya inam as per R. R. No. 239, the issue lies outside the purview of the Act and therefore, the parties were to approach the Special Deputy Commissioner, for Inams Abolition, Hassan.

( 4 ) SRI J. M. Riazuddin, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, relied on the decision of this Court in Ramakrishnaiah vs. Land Reforms Tribunal, Ramanagaram 1977 (1) Karlj. 334. wherein in regard to a similar matter, this Court has held that in view of section 126 of the Act the 'land Reforms Tribunal, Ramanagaram,, was not right in directing the parties to approach the Special deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, for conferment of occupancy rights and has directed the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ramanagaram, to dispose of the claims afresh.

( 5 ) SRI M. S. Gopal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents urged that the special Deputy Commissioner for inams Abolition, Hassan, has, as narrated by his clients in the statement of objections, granted occupancy rights on them and as such, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to reopen that question in the guise of acting under S. 45 of the Act. In support of this proposition he relied on a bench decision of this Court ir Muniyellappa vs. B. M. Krishna Murthy air. 1977 Karlj. 137= (1977) 1 Karlj. 389. where in it has been laid down that S. 141 of the Karnataka Act 10 of 1962 prohibits the Tribunal from reopening or annulling the decision of the Special Deputy Commissioner under the Inams Abolition Act con- lerring right of occupancy. It has been further observed that under the pretext of granting occupancy right under S. 45 of the Act the Tribunal indirectly cannot reopen the questions already settled in the proceedings under Chapter-II of the Inams Abolition Act. In this decision the Inams abolition Act concerned was the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) inams Abolation Act, 1954.

( 6 ) NO other decision was cited before me. It is plain that it is laid down by this court that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in such matters to confer occupancy rights. This Court has also held that under the guise , of exercising such power the Tribunal is prohibited from reopening the questions already settled under the Inams Abolition Act in view of s. 141 of the Act.

( 7 ) IN this connection, it is, in my opinion, pertinent to notice ss. 126, 138 and 141 of the Act. They read as follows :"126. Application of Act to mams-For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the provisions of this Act in so far as they confer any rights and impose obligations on tenants and land-lords shall be applicable to tenants holding lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands and to landlords and inamdars holding in such villages or lands. 138. Act to prevail over other enactments-This Act and any rule, order or notification made or issued thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment with respect to matters enumerated in List II and list III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such other enactment. 141. Tenure Abolition Acts-N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document