Back
2006 Supreme(Kar) 674
Karnataka High Court
P.RAMAIAH SETTY (DEAD) BY L.Rs - Appellant
Versus
R.NANJUNDAIAH (DEAD) BY L.Rs - Respondent
Decided On : 09-05-06
Regular Second Appeal No. 188 of 2000.
Sri A. Mohan Ram,Sri S. Krishna Kumar
Headnote:Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 -Section 87 -Sale of inam land for land revenue arrears from inamdars -Effect on Kadim tenants and validity of such sale. [Mohan Shantana Goudar, J.]: Even if the land is sold for recovery of arrears of land revenue, such sale will not affect the rights of Kadim tenants or permanent tenants in alienated holdings/rights in respect of such occupancy or holding.
Cases Referred: 1985 (2) Kar. L.J. 483; 1985 (5) Kar. L.J. 459; 1983 (1) Kar. L.J. 328; ILR 1985 Kar 1469; 1996 (SCC) 2 225; (1996) 1 JT (SC) 234; 1996 AIR SCW 408.
Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 -Section 3 -Vesting of inam land - Arrears of land revenue prior to vesting -Sale for -Legality. Held, sub-section(f) of Section-3 (1) of the "Inams Abolition Act" further makes it clear that such Inams shall not be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or other process of any Court and any attachment existing on the date of vesting or any order for attachment passed before such date in respect of such Inam, shall, and such debt in respect of the Inam shall, cease to be in force. Thus, it is clear that the existing attachments for non payment of land revenue by the Inamdars as on the date of vesting shall have to be recovered from the Inamdars by deducting the said amount from out of the compensation to be payable to inamdars by the State Government as per Section. 3(1) (c) of Inams Abolition Act. Consequently, the land Vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. In other words, the property in question would be the property of the State Government from the date of vesting free from all encumbrances. Consequently, the State Government could not have sold the land in question in public auction for recovery of the arrears of land revenue after the date of vesting. Thus, the auction sale conducted by the State Government, in which, the 1st defendant had purchased the land in question is ab-into void. Since the defendant No. 1 himself did not get any right over the property in question in pursuance of the sale, subsequent sale made in favour of defendants-3 to 22 by the 1st defendant is also void and therefore, the defendants-3 to 22 also have got no right, title or interest over the property in question.
Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 -Section 3 -Vesting of inam land - Arrears of land revenue prior to vesting -Sale for -Legality. Held, sub-section(f) of Section-3 (1) of the "Inams Abolition Act" further makes it clear that such Inams shall not be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or other process of any Court and any attachment existing on the date of vesting or any order for attachment passed before such date in respect of such Inam, shall, and such debt in respect of the Inam shall, cease to be in force. Thus, it is clear that the existing attachments for non payment of land revenue by the Inamdars as on the date of vesting shall have to be recovered from the Inamdars by deducting the said amount from out of the compensation to be payable to inamdars by the State Government as per Section. 3(1) (c) of Inams Abolition Act. Consequently, the land Vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. In other words, the property in question would be the property of the State Government from the date of vesting free from all encumbrances. Consequently, the State Government could not have sold the land in question in public auction for recovery of the arrears of land revenue after the date of vesting. Thus, the auction sale conducted by the State Government, in which, the 1st defendant had purchased the land in question is ab-into void. Since the defendant No. 1 himself did not get any right over the property in question in pursuance of the sale, subsequent sale made in favour of defendants-3 to 22 by the 1st defendant is also void and therefore, the defendants-3 to 22 also have got no right, title or interest over the property in question.
Cases Referred: 1985 (2) Kar. L.J. 483; 1985 (5) Kar. L.J. 459; 1983 (1) Kar. L.J. 328; ILR 1985 Kar 1469; 1996 (SCC) 2 225; (1996) 1 JT (SC) 234; 1996 AIR SCW 408.
This appeal is filed by defendants 1, 3 to 6, 8 to 15 and 17 to 21 assailing the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 13-12-1999 passed in R.A. No. 12 of 1979, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), KG.F., by which the judgment and decree dated 15-11-1977 passed in O.S. No. 26 of 1970, by the Munsiff, now Civil Judge (Junior Division), KG.F., is reversed and consequently decreed the suit filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein.
Heard Sri A. Mohan Ram, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants-appellants, Sri S.R. Krishnakumar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1(a)(i) to 1(a)(vi), 1(c), 3(a) and 4 and perused the material on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court.
2. The plaintiffs-respondents 1 to 4 herein filed the suit for declaration and possession of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Narasappa was a permanent tenant over the suit schedule property under the Inamdar (Jodidar) namely, Sri Subbarao; plaintiff 1 is the elder brother of said Narasappa, plaintiff 2 is daughter of said Narasappa, plaintiff 3 is the son-in-law of Narasappa and plaintiff 4 is the daughter of plaintiff 1; that Narasappa bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs through registered Will dated 16-7-1964; that entire Krishnarajapuram Village, Bangarpet Taluk was a Khayamgutta Village i.e., Inam Village (Jodi Village); that the total extent of land of the village is 103 acres out of which, to the extent of half portion, Raja Manikyavelu was the inamdar and Sri K Subbarao (defendant 2) was the inamdar (Jodidar) to the extent of another half portion; that Raja Manikyavelu was also the proprietor of Mahalakshmi Wool and Cotton Mills, Bangalore; that defendant 2-K Subbarao was inamdar to the extent of 55 acres; that after coming into force of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 ("Inams Abolition Act" for short), the entire extent of 103 acres of land came to be vested in the Government and in view of the same, the permanent tenant namely, Narasappa filed application for grant of occupancy rights in his favour under the provisions of the "Inams Abolition Act" to an extent of 55 acres of which K Subbarao was the inamdar. The same was registered in Case No. 4997/1961-62 on the file of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Kolar (hereinafter referred to as 'Spi. D.C.', for short) and at the first instance, the same came to be rejected on 18-6-1962; thereafter said Narasappa filed Appeal No. 871 of 1962 before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal ('MRAT for short), Bangalore which came to be allowed and the matter was remanded back to the original authority on 30-4-1964; that on 16-7-1994, Narasappa bequeathed the property in question in favour of the plaintiffs ,and thereafter, he died on 30-7-1964; that on 16-1-1965, the Spl. D.C., rejected the application filed by plaintiffs (legal representatives of deceased Narasappa) to implead themselves as parties to the proceedings solely on the ground that the death certificate of Narasappa was not produced along with the application. Against the said order of rejection of application to come on record, the legal representatives of Narasappa filed appeal before the 'MRAT Bangalore in Appeal No. 176 of 1966 (I.A.K). The said appeal came to be allowed by the Tribunal on 31-1-1967, the copy of the order is marked at Ex. P.2; that the Tribunal directed the Spl. D.C. to issue occupancy rights in favour of Narasappa's legal representatives i.e., plaintiffs. Thereafter, the Spl. D.C., granted occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiffs by his order dated 24-7-1967 as per Ex. P. 3 which is followed by grant certificate/endorsement Ex. P. 4 issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar on 25-8-1967 to the effect that the plaintiffs are the occupants of the land in question. As no further appeal was filed b
