( 1 ) THESE two petitions have been filed by one Mariyappa under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, mandya, in proceedings No. LRF. 48 of 1974-75 and No. LRF. 50 of 1974-75 dated 25-8-1976 respectively. He was the applicant before the Tribunal in both the proceedings. His applications were under Sec. 48a of the karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In his application, in proceeding No. MLR 48174-75 he had claimed occupancy rights in respect of Syno. 118 of Bellundagere village, measuring 1 acre 31 guntas. In the other proceeding he had claimed occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 46 of Hosaboodanur village, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas. Respondents 2 and 3 in WPNo. 8454/76 and respondents 2 to 4 in WP No. 8455/76 were opponents respectively in the two proceedings before the Tribunal. His claims in both the proceedings were rejected.

( 2 ) SINCE common questions of law and facts arise in these petitions, they were clubbed and heard together.

( 3 ) THE correctness of the findings of the Tribunal was assailed on several grounds. It is contended that the orders in question are not speaking orders; that the Tribunal had failed to follow the correct procedure in holding its enquiries; and that it had failed to correctly appreciate the legal aspect of the issues involved in the cases.

( 4 ) WHILE rejecting the claim of the petitioner to the land situated at Bellundagere villag,e the Tribunal has held that that land was a thoti service inam land; that it had vested in the Govt; that thereafter it was regranted in favour of the third respondent; and therefore no question of tenancy was involved in the case.

( 5 ) WHILE rejecting his claim to the land situated at Hosadoodanur village, the Tribunal has held that the land was a thoti service inam land and therefore it had no jurisdiction to deal with the said claim as provided under Sec. 141 of the Act.

( 6 ) THERE is enough substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal had dealt with these cases in a very casual and perfunctory manner without making any effort to understand the legal aspect of the issue involved.

( 7 ) SEC. 141 of the Act which is referred to by the Tribunal reads as follows :-" 141. Tenure Abolition Acts-Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of any of the Land Tenures Abolition Acts, specified in Schedule-II of this Act, in so far as such provisions relate, to the conferment of the right of an occupant or grant of ryotwari patta in favour of any inferior holder or tenant in respect of any land held by him. "but that provision has to be read along with Sec. 126 of the Act which reads as follows : -" 126. Application of Act to Inams : 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 landlords shall be applicable to tenants holding lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands, and to landlords and inamdars holding lands in such villages or lands. "it is true that the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) is one of the Acts specified in Schedule -II to the Act. Besides the Act of 1961, several other Acts including the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (Mysore Act I of 1955) and the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) inams Abolition Act, 1955 (Mysore Act XVIII of 1955) are also in the schedule.

( 8 ) SEC. 141 and 126 of the Act, if read together, will show that tenants and inferior holders who are entitled to get occupancy rights under the various Inam's Abolition Acts specified in Schedule II to the act will have to get their rights worked out only under those Acts and not under the provisions of the Act, Other tenants and inferior holders, though cultivating Inam lands, covered by the aforesaid enactments, will be entitled to seek appropriate reliefs un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document