Back
Karnataka High Court
Syed Bhasheer Ahamed - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Decided On : 12-20-93
W.A. : 89 of 1991
The Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was enacted to abolish the Village Offices which were held hereditarily before the commencement of the Constitution and the emoluments appertaining thereto in the State and to provide for matters consequential and incidental thereto. The appointed date on which the said Act came into force is 1-2-1963. The Act was amended by the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1978. For convenience the Act as originally enacted will hereinafter be referred to as the 'principal Act' and Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1978 by which it was amended extensively will be referred to as the 'amendment Act'. The Act was also amended by Acts 8 of 1968, 27 of 1984 and 47 of 1986. The historical background leading to the said enactment can be found in the exhaustive Division Bench Decision of this Court in Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (1981) 1 Kant LJ 1.
Fact of the Case:
None
Finding of the Court:
None
Issues: (I) Whether the alinee from a 'holder of Village Office' of 'authorised holder' under an alienation which took place after the appointed date on which the Principal Act came into force (1-2-1963) and before the Amendment Act came into force (7-8-1978), would acquire title even if the re-grant under Section 5 or 6, as the case may be, is after 7-8-1978? (ii) Alternatively, whether the alienation of a service inam land by the Holder or authorised holder, in favour of an alienee, made between 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978, would become null and void, if the re-grant under S. 5 or 6 was not made in favour of the alienor before 7-8-1978? (iii) Whether the above questions are decided in Lakshmana Gowda's case?
Ratio Decidendi: The decision on question No. (iii) in Lakshmana Gowda's case applies to all alienations between 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978, irrespective of whether the re-grant is prior to 7-8-1978 or after 7-8-1978. The decisions in Hanumaiah and Chikkanarasaiah which proceed on the basis that re-grant should also be prior to 7-8-1978, to validate alienation made between 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978, do not lay down the correct law. The decisions in Adiveppa, Amruth and Ramachandraiah are fully consistent with the decision in Lakshmana Gowda and correctly lay down the law.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed in part on the following terms: (A) The order dated 9-11-1990 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. 16164/1984 is hereby set aside and W. P. 16164/1984 is allowed to the extent of quashing Annexures-'c' and 'd'. (b) The Writ Petition is rejected in regard to prayers (b) and (c ). (c) The matter is remitted to the second respondent for fresh enquiry and disposal in accordance with law and in accordance with our decision, in the following manner : he shall: (i) determine the extent of service inam land alienated prior to 1-2-1963 and after 1-2-1963. (ii) In regard to the land alienated prior to 1-2-1963 if such alienations are null and void under the Mysore Village Office Act, 1908 then consider the prayer for re-grant by the holders under S. 7 (3); (iii) In regard to land alienated after 1-2-1963, consider the prayer of the holders for re-grant under S. 5 (1); (iv) determine whether the appellant's land forms part of the land alienated prior to 1-2-1963 or after 1-2-1963, and if it is part of land alienated after 1-2-1963 and if re-grant is made in respect of such land, then regularise the sale in accordance with law; (v) if the re-grant is not made to the alienor or his family but to any one else on the ground that the alienor was not the holder of the village office, then such grantee will be entitled to take possession from the alienee in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs throughout.
( 1 ) A Division Bench of this Court consisting of the Acting Chief Justice and N. D. V. Bhat, J. while considering W. A. 89 /1991 arising out of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') entertained a doubt whether the two Division Bench Decisions of this Court in Hanumaiah v. State of Karnataka (ILR 1987 Kant 550) and Chikkanarasaiah v. Tirupathaiah (ILR 1989 Kant 1520) lay down the law correctly in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. G. Seenappa (AIR 1992 SC 1531) and G. M. Harkuni v. Tahsildar (AIR 1993 SC 98 ). The Division Bench also felt that it was necessary to determine whether there was any conflict between the decisions in the cases of Hanumaiah and Chikkanarasaiah on the one hand and the two decisions of another Division Bench of this Court in Adivappa Shivappa Mattur v. Tahsildar (ILR 1990 Kant 879) and G. M. Harkuni v. Tahsildar (ILR 1990 Kant 3020 ). As the said four decisions of this Court were being interpreted in different ways, the Division Bench was of the view that the matter required consideration by a larger bench. That is how the matter is placed before us.
( 2 ) THE Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 was enacted to abolish the Village Offices which were held hereditarily before the commencement of the Constitution and the emoluments appertaining thereto in the State and to provide for matters consequential and incidental thereto. The appointed date on which the said Act came into force is 1-2-1963. The Act was amended by the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1978. The Amendment Act came into force on 7-8-1978. For convenience the Act as originally enacted will hereinafter be referred to as the 'principal Act' and Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1978 by which it was amended extensively will be referred to as the 'amendment Act'. The Act was also amended by Acts 8 of 1968, 27 of 1984 and 47 of 1986. The historical background leading to the said enactment can be found in the exhaustive Division Bench Decision of this Court in Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (1981) 1 Kant LJ 1.
( 3 ) REFERENCE to a few of the relevant provisions of the said Act will be necessary and useful. Section 2 (n): "village Office" means every village office to which emoluments have been attached and which was held hereditarily before the commencement of the Constitution under an existing law relating to a village office, for the performance of duties connected with the administration or collection of the revenue/with the maintenance of order or with the settlement of boundaries or other matter of civil administration of a village, whether the services originally appertaining to the office continue or have ceased to be performed or demanded and by whatsoever designation the office may be locally known. Section 2 (h): 'inferior village office' means every village office of lower degree than that of a Patel or Village Accountant; section 2 (e): "emoluments" means (i) lands, (ii) assignments of revenue payable in respect of lands, (iii) fees in money or agricultural produce; (iv) money, salaries and all other kinds of remuneration, granted or continued in respect of, or annexed to, any village office, by the State : section 2 (f) "existing law relating to a village office" includes any enactment, ordinance, rule, bye-law, regulation, order, notification, firman, hukum, vat hukum or any other instrument or any custom or usage having the force of law, relating to a village office, which may be in force immediately before the appointed date; section 2 (c): "code" means the Karnataka Land Revenue Act", 1964; section 2 (q): "holder of a village office" or 'holder' means a person having an interest in a village office under an existing law relating to such office: provided that where any village office has been entered in a register or record under an existing law relating to such village office, as held by the whole body
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
