The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of

certiorari challenging the order dated 24.04.1986, passed by the

respondent No.2 in case No. LRM No.6/1984-85 and to quash the

From No.2, dated 30.05.1986 issued by the respondent No.2.

The petitioners claim to be the owners of the land bearing

Sy.No.193/B/2 of Devalapur Village, Siraguppa Taluka, Ballari

District measuring 1 acre 60 cents, which was granted to the

uncle of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 on 24.06.1965. In a family

understanding between the family members, the land bearing

Sy.No.193/B/2 fell to the share of the husband of the petitioner

No.1. It is claimed that the names of the petitioners were

entered in the revenue records and that they are in possession of

the land . It is contended that the respondent No.4 lodged a

complaint on 21.08.2008 with the jurisdictional Police alleging

interference with his possession of the property bearing

Sy.No.193/B/2 and later interfered with the possession of the

: 3 :

petitioners. The petitioners then came to know that the land was

granted to the respondent No.4 by the respondent No.2. It is

alleged that the respondent No.4 had stated that in Form No.1

filed before the respondent No.2 that she had purchased the land

bearing Sy.No.193/B/2 in terms of an agreement of sale

executed in the year 1972. It is contended that the respondent

No.4 colluded with the respondent No.2 and obtained an order

dated 24.04.1986 by which she was granted patta in respect of

the aforesaid land.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 24.04.1986,

the present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

impugned order was passed without notice and knowledge of the

petitioners and they came to know of the same only when their

names were deleted from the revenue records and the name of

the respondent No.4 was inserted followed by a complaint lodged

against them. He contended that the respondent No.4 had not

purchased the property as claimed by her and therefore, she

could not have claimed to be in possession of the property as a

tenant. However, by misrepresenting to the revenue authorities,

she managed to obtain an order in her favour followed by

: 4 :

issuance of Form No.2 by the respondent No.2. Learned counsel

further contended that the land in question was illegally granted

under Mysore Personal and Miscellaneous Inams as the land lay

in Ballari District and hence an application for grant was not

maintainable under the provisions of Mysore (personal and

Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short “the Act,

1954”). Therefore, the application had to be filed under the

provisions of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (for

short “the Act, 1977”). It was the Land Tribunal that had to

consider the application. He therefore submitted that the entire

procedure adopted by the respondent No.2 is illegal and the

order in question is non est in the eye of law.

5.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4

submitted that the application in Form No.1 was filed before the

Land Tribunal but the order was passed by the respondent No.2

as a Secretary of the Land Tribunal in terms of Rule 4-A of the

Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Rules, 1979 (for short “the

Rule, 1979”) as the land was an enfranchised inam and

therefore, it was the Tahasildar, who was competent to grant the

land.

: 5 :

6.

It is not in dispute that the land in question lies within

Ballari District. Hence, the provisions of the Act, 1954 was not

applicable. If that be so, the only statute that governed the

vesting and divesting of such Inam land is under the Act, 1977.

An application in Form No.1 had to be filed before the Land

Tribunal in view of the express language found in Section 11 of

the Act, 1977. It is the Land Tribunal alone, which had the

jurisdiction to decide such application in accordance with the

Rules, 1979. In the present case, the application filed by the

respondent No.4 is taken up for adjudication by the res