Back
2012 Supreme(Kar) 255
High Court of Karnataka
HULUVADI G. RAMESH
P. Narayanaswamy
Versus
The Land Tribunal & Others
Writ Petition No. 15121 of 2011 (LR-Res Form-7)
Decided on : 13-04-2012
For the Petitioner:Somasundara Dikshit, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3 -Shashidhar S. Karmadi, HCGP R4 -H.V. Subramanya, Advocate.
Headnote:MYSORE (RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE) INAMS ABOLITION RULES 1996 - Rule 7(4): [Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J] Claim made under - Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights in respect of lands in question - Held, At an undisputed point of time, the Land Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction, but by filing the writ petition before High Court, the legal position was brought to the notice of High Court by both the respondents. In that view of the matter, High Court has disposed off the matter directing the Land Tribunal which conferred occupancy rights straightaway in favour of the 4th respondent. It appears that the Apex Court has held that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction and the order passed by High Court due to oversight in the direction issued in the earlier writ petition may be for want of knowledge of jurisdiction or without there being knowledge of jurisdiction vesting with the Deputy Commissioner. In the circumstances, though the order is passed by the Land Tribunal, conferring occupancy rights in favour of both the respondent, in that context, the order is to be treated as an nonest one as it has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. The notification is issued by the State of Karnataka pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court way back on 30.01.2006. At the relevant point of time, the Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction at all to deal with the matter. Might be that initially the Land Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction but on verification, the Apex Court has specifically held that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction but it is the Deputy Commissioner who has power to exercise such jurisdiction. Pursuant to the direction issued by High Court, the order passed by the Land Tribunal is a nullity.
1. The petitioner has sought to issue a writ of certiorari, by quashing the order dated 14.06.2010, passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings No. LRM(A)(I) 50-3/83-84 in favour of the 4th respondent at Annexure – ‘A’ and to dismiss the application filed by the father of the 4th respondent under Rule 7(4) of Mysore (Religious & Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and the Rules 1966, dated 26.04.1983 or in the alternative, to remit the matter for considering the impleading application filed by the petitioner (dated 31.05.2010) before the 1st respondent.
2. According to the petitioner, who is said to be the grandson of Smt. Puttaparvathammanni W/o Late Chikka Papaiah, Smt. Puttaparvarthammanni has donated the property in question bearing Sy. Nos.36/1 measuring 38 guntas, Sy.No.36/3 measuring 01 acre 36 guntas and Sy.No.44 measuring 02 acres 36 guntas situate at Maganahalli Village, Kasaba Hoblik Chikkaballapura Taluk and District, for the benefit of 2nd respondent – Sri. Lakshminarayanswamy Temple. On an application filed by the father of the 4th respondent, the Land Tribunal in the final round of litigation, conferred occupancy rights in favour of the 4th respondent. Initially, the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the 4th respondent’s father and subsequently, after remand by this Court in writ petition, the Land Tribunal considered the case of the 4th respondent and granted occupancy rights.
3. The land in question is a devadaya inam land. The father of the 4th respondent also filed an application under Rule – 7(4) of the Mysore (Religious & Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for short, the ‘Act’) against the 2nd respondent, which was presented on 26.04.1983. The Land Tribunal, in the first round of litigation, rejected the claim of the 4th respondent. It appears that against the said order, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.34957/1993 and this Court while disposing of the writ petition noticing non-consideration of the material evidence on record by the Tribunal, straightaway issued a direction to the Tribunal to confer occupancy rights in favour of the 4th respondent while remanding the matter to the Tribunal. It appears that the petitioner challenged the order of the single Judge by filing a writ appeal in W.A.No.2891/2010. However, the said appeal has been dismissed as having become infructuous. Since by that time, the Land Tribunal pursuant to the order of the single Judge, had conferred the occupancy rights in favour of the 4th respondent. It appears that the petitioner reserved the right to file a writ petition to challenge the very order of the Land Tribunal on two grounds, one is in respect of the jurisdiction and another in respect of illegality and also that the order of the Land Tribunal does not survive as the said order is not signed by all the members except the Chairman and also raise other grounds.
4. According to the learned counsel for Respondent No.4, the order passed by the Land Tribunal is pursuant to the direction by this Court in the writ petition, conferring occupancy rights in favour of the 4th respondent and hence, there is no illegality in the said order. At the earliest point of time, the petitioner has not raised any objection nor he was party before the Land Tribunal. With regard to several contentions raised by him and even on the point of jurisdiction which he has raised at a belated state, the impugned order of the Land Tribunal cannot be called in question and also submitted that the petitioner is also litigating in Civil Court and unless his right is determined in the Civil Court, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition. Accordingly, he relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 1999(5) Kar.L.J.178 (Dhobi Ramaiah –vs-Dhobi Abbiga and others) and contended that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Land Tribunal. As such, the Land Tribunal can exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to the direction issued
