The court emphasized that all interested parties must be included in property disputes to ensure a legally valid decision, particularly under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act and related provisions.

CAV ORDER

The petitioner in W.P.No.226091/2020 has challenged an order dated 18.05.2020 passed by the respondent No.1 in appeal/CR-7/2019-20 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.230 of Kolhar village measuring 1 acre 20 guntas out of 1 acre 36 guntas.

2. (i) The petitioner contends that the land bearing erstwhile Sy.Nos.95, 95/Aa, 95/A, 95/I, 95/Aa, 95/E, 95/A, 95/I, 95/I, 95/AA are presently bearing Sy.Nos.230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238 and 239 respectively all situate at Kolhar village were endowed to madiga inam and khasra pahani in respect of the above lands for the year - 1954-1955, the inam patrika and the record of rights establish the above fact.

(ii) The petitioner contends that the above lands were held by the inamdar Sri. Laxya son of Narsya. The revenue records stood the test of time and therefore are binding upon the revenue authorities. He contends that the inamdar expired long back leaving behind his wife Smt. Sharnamma and his daughter Smt. Gouramma, whose names were entered in the revenue records. Later Smt. Sharnamma died and the name of Smt. Gouramma appears in the revenue records. The petitioner contends that during her life time, Smt. Sharnamma had executed a Will in his favour and in favour of her grand son. Based on the Will, the petitioner filed an application to enter his name in the record of rights and that the said application is pending consideration.

(iii) When things stood thus, Sri. Prabhakar son of Laxya, Sri. Laxman son of Siddappa and Sri. Prabhu son of Narsappa claimed that they succeeded to the above properties and executed a deed of absolute sale in the year 1979 in favour of Sri. Ishwarappa son of Bakkappa. The petitioner contends that the above sale is unconscionable and unenforceable, as Sri. Prabhakar and others were not the legal representatives of Sri. Laxya son of Narsya and none of them had any right, title or interest over the property. He contends that the above properties being inam lands, could not have been alienated. He contends that Sri. Ishwarappa son of Bakkappa thereafter alienated the properties in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein, which too did not confer any right, title and interest upon the respondent Nos.5 to 8. The respondent Nos.5 to 8 then tried to interfere with the possession of Smt. Gouramma and Smt. Sharnamma in the year 2004 which compelled them to file O.S.No.158/2004 for perpetual injunction.

(iv) A complaint was also filed before the Assistant Commissioner, Bidar contending that the lands in question were endowed to madiga inam and that Sri. Ishwarappa son of Bakkappa had no right or authority to alienate the land in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8. Therefore, action was sought against the respondent Nos.5 to 8 under the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1977' for short) and the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (henceforth referred to as 'PTCL Act' for short).

(v) The respondent No.2 passed an order dated07.07.2007 holding that the transaction between the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and their predecessor in title as well as the transaction between Sri. Prabhakar and others in favour of Sri. Ishwarappa were in violation of the provisions of Act, 1977 and also PTCL Act and declared the said transactions as null and void. The respondent No.2 clearly observed in his order that Smt. Gouramma was the only successor of the inamdar -Sri. Laxya.

(vi) The respondent Nos.5 to 8 then challenged the order passed by the respondent