Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 11264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

WRIT APPEAL NO. 823 OF 2025 (LR-SEC 48)

BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O. LATE CHOKKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HORAKERE VILLAGE,
VAKKALERI HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT 563 101.
2. SMT. BAGYAMMA,
D/O. LATE CHOKKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHILENGIRI VILLAGE,
UTTUR HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.MURALIDHAR.B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
KOLAR TALUK,
AT THE OFFICE OF
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
KOLAR - 563 101.
2. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA,
W/O. SAMPANGIRAMAIAHA.
3. SRI. RAMAPPA,
S/O. SAMPANGIRAMAIAHA,
R2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT
MATANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SUGUTUR HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR INAM ABOLITION,
KOLAR - 563 101.
5. PARVATHARAJU,
S/O. VENKATASWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHOKKAPURA VILLAGE,
NARASAPURA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1 & 4;
SRI.D.S.RAMACHANDRA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP NO.11510/2012 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.11510/2012 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED/ PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Muralidhar.B.N.
For the Respondents: Mohammad Jaffar Shah, D.S. Ramachandra Reddy

An order declaring an individual as an ordinary tenant under the Inams Abolition Act, 1954, once attained finality, cannot be nullified by subsequent administrative re-grant proceedings, particularly when conducted behind the back of the interested parties without notice.

Headnote:(A) Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 - Section 9A - Ordinary tenant - Registration of occupancy - Finality of initial order - A subsequent order by an administrative authority cannot undo a final order of tenancy registration issued by a competent authority without notice or legal justification.

Facts of the case:
The father of the respondent/petitioner was registered as an ordinary tenant (Vara tenant) under Section 9A of the Inams Abolition Act, 1954 in 1963. Subsequently, in 1978, a Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order re-granting the land to the predecessor of the appellants while declaring the earlier registration incorrect. The respondent challenged these proceedings through various rounds inclusive of the Land Tribunal, culminating in a Writ Petition where the learned Single Judge held the 1978 order void as it violated due process and sought to reopen settled final rights.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the order dated 22.09.1963 declaring the respondent's predecessor as a tenant had attained finality. The subsequent 1978 order was passed behind the back of the petitioner (minor at the time) without serving notice. Consequently, the 1978 order was void. The respondent, having timely filed Form No.7 under the Land Reforms Act, was rightfully entitled to occupancy rights.

Issues: Whether the Special Deputy Commissioner could reopen a concluded order of registration under the Inams Abolition Act, and whether a lack of notice renders a subsequent administrative order void.

Ratio Decidendi: A settled judicial or quasi-judicial order of tenancy cannot be unilaterally set aside by subsequent administrative action, especially when the latter violates the principles of natural justice by proceeding without notice to the impacted party.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

This intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is by respondent Nos.4 and 5 calling in question the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11510/2012.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the learned Single Judge.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to filing of this appeal is as under:

The father of the petitioner by name Venkataswamappa filed an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner seeking to grant occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.41 measuring 01 Acre 32 Guntas, 47 measuring 01 Acre, 47 measuring 16 Guntas and 49 measuring 01 Acre 20 Guntas minus Phot Kharab 05 Guntas, so also claimed rights over the land bearing Sy.No.17 measuring 02 Acre 02 Guntas and Sy.No.89 measuring 20 Guntas, immediately after coming into force of Inams Abolition Act, 1954 i.e., the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'), under Section 10 of the said Act.

4. The Special Deputy Commissioner, after hearing the rival submissions, registered Venkataswamappa - the father of the petitioner as Occupant under Section 5 of the Act in respect of Sy.Nos.41, 47, 47 and 49. In so far as Sy.No.17 and 89 are concerned, in view of the admission given by the Jodidhar that Venkataswamappa was cultivating the land as Vara tenant, he was registered as ordinary vara tenant under Section 9A of the Act. So far as Sy.No.87 measuring 30 Guntas is concerned, since the said Venkataswamappa has submitted that he was not cultivating the land for last three years, the claim on the said land has been rejected. This order was passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Kolar Circle, Kolar on 22.09.1963. So far, this order has not been challenged by anybody including the Inamdar and father of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and has attained finality.

5. Subsequent to passing the order in 1963, stating that Venkataswamappa is an Ordinary vara tenant under Section 9A of the Act, an endorsement came to be issued on 17.12.1963 by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition. In this endorsement, it has clearly been mentioned that Venkataswamappa has been registered as an ordinary tenant under Section 9A in respect of two lands stated supra i.e. No. 89 and No.17 (Annexure-B1).

6. It seems that one Chokkappa - father of respondent Nos.4 and 5, said to have purchased the property in Sy.No.17, measuring 02 Acres 02 Guntas from the Inamdar, filed an application for re-grant of the said land. The Special Deputy Commissioner considered the application and proceeded to re-grant the land in favour of Chokkappa. In the said order, the Special Deputy Commissioner without there being any notice on the father of the petitioner, has held that Venkataswamappa could not have been treated as a Tenant under Section 9A of the Act. This order came to be passed on 21.08.1978.

7. Venkataswamappa who was continuing as a tenant under Section 9A of the Act, after coming into force of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights. During the proceedings the Land Tribunal taking note of the fact that in respect of the two properties wherein he was stated as vara tenant under Section 9A and in respect of other properties, the Land Tribunal, passed an order registering him as an occupant and confirmed the tenancy rights on 23.03.1976.

8. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Venkataswamappa expired and his wife Muniyamma and the petitioner herein who was minor, were brought on record as applicants representing the estate of Venkataswamappa. The Tribunal having considered the fact that the claimant Venkataswamappa is cultivating the land as on the date of coming into force of the Act, so also the fact that he has already been registered as an ordinary tenant under Section 9A, granted occupancy rights in their favour in respect of land bearing S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document