Judgement Key Points

( 1 ) THESE petitions under Art. 226 of the constn. have been referred to Division bench. As they involve many common questions of law, they were heard together and we are deciding them by this common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 7659 of 1979 had purchased a land which formed an emolument attached to a village office (hereinafter referred to as Service Inam Land) after the karnataka Village Offices Abolition act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) came into force. He has alleged that he had made an application under S. 7 of the Principal act for grant of that land and that his application has not been disposed of. His grievance is that under S. 7a of the Principal Act his application would abate. He has assailed the constitutionality of the Karnataka village Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act ).

( 3 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 2613 of 1979 claims to be in possession of a Service Inam Land since the year 1964. He has alleged that that land was regranted by the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 29-5-1973 to the holder of the village office who had, agreed to sell it and that he (the petitioner) had constructed a house in that land. He has impugned the notice issued to him by the Assistant Commissioner asking him to show cause why action should not be taken against him under amended S. 7 of the Principal Act to nullify his purchase and to resume the land.

( 4 ) PETITIONERS in W-P. Nos. 2842 and 2948 of 1979 have alleged that they purchased Service Inam Lands from the erstwhile holders of village offices after the Principal Act came into force, that they thereafter made applications for regrant of those lands, that they had received notices from the Assistant commissioner for enquiry regarding those lands and that their vendors) were seeking to disturb their possession taking advantage of the provisions of the Amendment Act ). Hence, they have impugned the notices of the assistant Commissioner.

( 5 ) PETITIONERS in WPs Nos. 3178 6464 to 6468, 6796 6797 and 8864 of 1979 have alleged that they had purchased service Inam lands after the principal Act came into force, and they had made applications for regrant of those lands. They have impugned the frotices issued to them under amended s. 7 of the Principal Act intimating that they had been in unauthorised possession of those lands and asking them to show cause why they should not be evicted from those lands.

( 6 ) PETITIONERS in WP Nos, 14283 to 14288 of 1979 have alleged that they have been in possession of Service inam Lands even prior to the coming into force of the, Principal Act, that the holders of the village offices concerned, had entered into agreements to sell those lands in their favour, that subsequent to those agreements they had made applications under S. 7 of the Principal Act for regrant of those lands, that those applications had not been disposed of that they haye been issued notices under a,mended s. 7 of the Principal Act intimating them that they had been in unauthorised possession of those lands and asking them to show cause why they should nqt be evicted from those lands. They have impugned those notices.

( 7 ) PETITIONERS in WP Nos. 4836 and 14300 of 1979 had purchased Service inam lands after the Principal Act came into force and after the regrant of those lands to the erstwhile holders of the village offices. After issuing show cause notices to the petitioners and hearing them, the Assistant Commissioner, by his orders dt. 31-3-78, held that those lands could not have been alienated to them, that those lands vested in the State and directed the Tahsildar to take possession of those lands. They have impugned those orders.

( 8 ) PETITIONERS in WPs. Nos. 4077, 6248, 8753 9003 to 9006 and 12190 of 1979 have alleged that they had purchased Service Inam lands after the principal Act came into, force from erstwhile holders of village offices who had been regranted those lands

Click Here to Read the rest of this document