( 1 ) THE petitioner, Rangachar. son of Ramanujachar of Bangalore, has preferred these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the orders of the Land Tribunal Hoskote dated 26-10-1976, 28-10-1975 aad 31-10-1975 passed respectively in proceedings Nos. (i)LRF (I) VA-195/75-76, (ii) LRF/j/va-19/1875/74-75, and (iii) LRF (I) 3/455/74-75.

( 2 ) THE aforesaid three proceedings were initiated at the instance of Narayanappa (respondent-2) in W. P. No. 11969/76 ). Krishnappa (respondent No. 2 in W. P. No. 11970/76) and Sanjeevappa Bin Veerappa (respondent No. 2 in w. P. No. 11971/76) on each of them filing an application separately in form No. 7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (the Act) claiming occupancy rights re : he lands mentioned in their respective applications.

( 3 ) AFTER holding enquiries the Tribunal, by the impugned orders, allowed the claims of Narayanappa, Krishnappa and Sanjeevappa.

( 4 ) SINCE common questions of law and facts arise in all these petitions, they were clubbed, heard, and disposed of by a common order.

( 5 ) WHILE trying to assail the validity of the orders in question, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that (i) the Tribunal while holding these enquiries has not followed the procedure laid down in this regard (ii) the lauds in question being inam lands had vested in the State government by virtue of the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) inams Abolition Act, 1954 (the Act of 1954) and occupancy rights thereof were granted to the petitioner only during 1974 (after 1-3-74.) and hence cannot be said to have vested in the State Government on 1-3-1974 as provided under Sec. 44 of the Act, with the result the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with the claims made, by these respondents for occupancy rights ; (iii) even otherwise, as the petitioner had, earlier obtained a declaration in a competent forum that the lands \vere not non-resumable, these respondents should not have been construed as lawfully cultivating lessees and conferred with occupancy rights ; and (iv) since the respondents had failed to obtain occupancy rights under the provisions of the Act of 1954 they were not entitled to claim occupancy rights under the provisions of the Act, and the Tribunal had erred in treating them as tenants and allowing their applications.

( 6 ) THE contesting respondents, (Narayanappa and the two others) even though have been notified of these proceedings, have not entered appearance.

( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that these lands, situated as they were in an inam village called Vagata Agrahara, were inam lands. The inam tenure was abolished by the provisions of the Act of 1954, and the lands came to be vested in the State Government during the year 1959. The writ petitioner, Rangachar, claiming himself to be a permanent tenant of these lands sought for occupancy rights under S. 5 of that Act. This claim was enquired into by the authorities concerned under S. 10 of the said Act and Rangachar was held entitled to conferment of occupancy rights. Somewhere during the month of December, 1964 he received an endorsement (Ext. A) intimating him of the decision of the authorities in this -regard and was called upon to remit the premium fixed in this connection in ten annual instalments. His case is that he remitted the 10th the last-instalment in the month of March 1974 and subsequent to 1-3-19. 74. According to him it is only after he had paid the 10th instalment he had become the holder in occupancy of the lands and had acquired full title thereof: Until then, he says, the lands could not have been deemed to be of his ownership, and should, on the other hand, have been considered still vesting in the State Government. In this view of the matter, it was argued on his behalf, that the lands in question which were vested in the State Government as provided in S. 3 of the Act of 1954. could not be said to have been vested again iu the Stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document