The judgment establishes the principle that on the vesting of inam lands in the government, prior rights are extinguished, and sub-tenants acquire the status of protected tenants, entitled to apply for occupancy rights under the relevant Acts.

A. V. SRINIVASA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS petitioner has preferred this petition against the order passed by the Land Reforms appellate Authority, Bangalore in Appeal No. LRA 276/87 affirming the order dated 4. 11. 1986 passed by the Land Tribunal in LRF No. 342/74-75 and LRF No. 1253/75-76.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed the Form No. 7 in respect of lands measuring 4 acres and 24 guntas in sy. No. 2 and lands measuring 2 acres 24 guntas in Sy. No. 55 claiming to be a tenant under the petitioner declaring him to be the owner of the land. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of second respondent. The same was challenged by the petitioner in W. P. No. 2959/78 and by order dated 24. 10. 1993 this Court remanded the matter to the tribunal for fresh adjudication. After a fresh enquiry the tribunal again granted occupancy rights in favour of the second respondent by its order dated 14. 11. 1986. The said order was taken in appeal by the petitioner before the appellate authority which rejected the same and confirmed the order of the tribunal by its order dated 21. 7. 1990. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority has come up in this revision petition.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides at length.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner made a three submission questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order passed by the appellate authority. The points raised by him challenge to the order of the appellate authority on the ground of unsustainability in law are as follows:

i) The competent authority to decide Form No. 7 is the Spl. D. C. not the land tribunal because the land is an inam land. ii) If the land is converted prior to March 1, 1974 then, the Tribunal gets no jurisdiction to decide the tenancy right occupancy rights. iii) If the lands are inam lands, the respondent cannot claim lawful possession as required under section 4 of the Land Reforms unless he claimed and proved that he was inducted as a tenant subsequent to grant of occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act.

( 5 ) POINT Nos. 1 and 3:these two issues are inter connected and are, therefore, taken up together. On the coming into force of the Inams Abolition Act, 1954 ('act of 1954' for short) the lands in question lost the character of inam lands and the persons in whose favour occupancy rights were granted became superior holders or owners thereof of the said lands. All rights that existed prior to the Act of 1954 extinguished on the lands being vested in the Government, barring the right of certain tenants under the inamdar who were entitled to the limited right of continuing as tenants of the lands of which they were tenants immediately before the date of vesting. As respondent No. 2 was a sub-tenant under the inamdar and he was not entitled to present an application under Act of 1954 for conferment of occupancy rights, he had the right to continue in possession and cultivation of the lands under Section 9a of the Act of 1954 which reads: "9. A Other tenants of Inamdar - Every tenant of the inamdar other than the tenants entitled to be registered as occupants under Sections 4, 5 and 6, shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting and subject to the provisions of Chapter III A be entitled to continue as a tenant of the land in respect of which he was tenant immediately before the date of vesting. " the inam lands in possession and cultivation of the sub-tenant therefore, acquired the character of tenanted lands on the confirmed occupancy rights on the petitioner and the second respondent who were sub-tenant under the petitioner became the tenant of the land. As lands lost the character of inam lands and acquired the character of agricultural land which was under the personal cultivation of a tenant, it is the land tribunal alone which has the jurisdiction to go into question of occupancy rights. A Division Bench of this court in MUNIYALLAPPA v. KRISHNAMURTHY 1977 (1) KAR

Click Here to Read the rest of this document