The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

a.

Quash the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the

Karnataka

Appellate

Tribunal,

Bangalore

[Annexure-G] in Appeal No.1146/2012 and also the

order dated 19.1.2006 passed by the Assistant

Commissioner, Pandavapura, Mandya in Prakarana

No.LRF No.73:99-2000 [Annexure-E].

- 4 -

b.

Consequently direct the respondent to grant Land

Bearing Sy.No.15 measuring 99 guntas situated at

Bechanahalli Village, Chowdenahalli Post, Kikkeri

Hobli, KR Pet Taluk, Mandya District to the

petitioners;

c.

Pass such other orders as this Hon9ble Court deems

fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

The land bearing Sy.No.15 measuring about 99

guntas

situated

at

Bechanahalli

Village,

Chowdenahalli Post, Kikkeri Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk,

Mandya District is an inam land. The khathedar of

the said land being designated as 8Hanumantha

Devaru and Lakshmi Devaru9.

It is contended that the father of the petitioner

Kalaiah was the occupant of the said land and being

in possession of the same for a very long time, as

such, he became entitled to obtain occupancy rights

in terms of Section 48 of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Act. However, due to oversight and certain

other

reasons,

he

could

not

make

such

an

application. There being an amendment to the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act by introduction of

- 5 -

Section 77A in the year 1998, the father of the

petitioner (Kalaiah) made an application for grant of

occupancy rights, which came to be rejected on

19.01.2006 by the Assistant Commissioner on the

ground that the provisions of the Land Reforms Act

was inapplicable to the Inam lands. Aggrieved by

the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before

the

Karnataka

Appellate

Tribunal

in

Appeal

No.1146/2012 which also came to be dismissed on

the very same ground vide order dated 27.04.2018.

It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before

this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

Sri.Abhinay Y.T , learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that:

4.1. irrespective

of

the

land

being

inam

or

otherwise, an application under Section 77A of

the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Form No.7A

could have been filed by the petitioner on

- 6 -

account of he being a tenant in occupation of

the property.

4.2. There is no bar as such either under the Inams

Abolition Act, 1977 or under Karnataka Land

Reforms Act, 1961 disentitling consideration of

application under Form 7A in respect of inam

land.

4.3. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of

the Hon9ble Apex

Court

in the case of

MUNIYALLAPPA VS. B.M.KRISHNAMURTHY

AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1992 SC 212,

more particularly Paras 4 and 5 thereof, which

are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

<4. The learned single Judge in the instant

case has set aside the order of the Tribunal

on two grounds : (i) the respondent-landlord

was denied fair hearing and the entire

proceedings of the Tribunal were conducted

in gross violation of the rules of natural

justice; and (ii) the appellant was denied

registration of occupancy under the Inam's

Abolition Act and he has no right to claim

occupancy right under Section 45 of the

Tenancy Act.

5. It may be stated that the purpose and

scope of the two Acts are distinct. The Inams

- 7 -

Abolition Act was enacted for the purpose of

abolition of Inam tenures and conversion of

such tenures into Ryotwari tenure and in

that process grant of occupancy rights to the

Inamdars and the three classes of tenants

specified in that Act. The purpose of the

Land

Reforms

Act,

however,

is

quite

different. The main purpose was to abolish

the relationship of landlord and tenant in

respect of tenanted lands and to confer

occupancy

rights

on

tenants

who

are

personally cultivating the lands. Therefore,

the rejection of the claim of the appellant

under the Inam's Abolition Act does not lead

to the inference that he has no claim for

occupancy right under the Land Reforms Act.

The appellant claims that he is a deemed

tenant as