AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Petitioners in WP 50708/2004 are said to be owners of sites and houses formed in Sy. No. 134 of Binnamangala Village, Bangalore North Taluk and state that they are in physical possession since more than 80 years as per the sale deeds which are produced by them. It is also stated, they have built houses by obtaining necessary plan and license from the competent authority and photographs have also been produced. Sy. No. 134 is a developed land, houses have come up over a period of 50 to 60 years indicating the transactions from the year 1940 to 1988 in respect of houses and plots. This Survey Number comes within the BBMP since more than thirty years and it is urban property. According to the petitioners, no one has right other than them. Joint application was filed by them before the Tahsidar, Bangalore North Taluk on 4.12.1959 in respect of the lands in Sy. No. 130, 134 and 135 totally measuring about 3.00 acres, claiming it to be inam land as per annexure C and to register them as owners. One of the applicant Dasappa is said to have given a statement - annexure C, stating that other applicants are Iris relatives and Sy. Nos. 130, 134 and 135 is not related to him and his claim may be rejected as he has built houses and sheds in Sy. No. 136. It is also stated one Venkataraju and B Muniraju in annexure C are the contesting respondents 3 and 4 in these writ petitions who claim to be the grandsons of Bodappa (4th applicant). In the application at annexure C, this Bodappa and Ramaraju are the applicants 4 and 5. They are brothers of applicants 2 and 3 (respondents are 3 and 4 herein). Respondents 3 & 4 filed writ petition before this Court in WP 7950/1997 for directing the Deputy Commissioner/Land Tribunal to consider their application at annexure C and to dispose of the applications alleged to have been dated 5.12.1970 on the ground that they are in occupation of Sy. No. 130, 134 and 135 and their grandfather Bodappa was in possession and after his death, their father Marappa @ Doddamarappa, Venkataraju and Muniraju were in possession and there was a lease deed dated 5.7.1902 in favour of Bodappa, grand father of respondents 3 and 4. The said lease deed is said to have been executed by one Arcot Narayanaswamy Mudaliar and that they have already filed an application. It is also stated, the application as per annexure C filed in the 1959 by them has not been considered. In WP 7950/1997, a direction was issued to consider the application. It is the petitioners'' case that respondents 3 and 4 never claimed right in respect of the properties under any Will. On the other hand, they claim that they are the occupants of the said land under the inamdar Arcot Narayanaswamy Mudaliar who had executed a lease deed in favour of Bodappa and that they are in possession of three acres of land in Sy. No. 130, 134 and 135. Pursuant to the direction of this court in the writ petition, case was registered before the Special Deputy Commissioner in INA CR 13/97-98 i.e., revision under S. 136(3) of the Land Revenue Act which is against the order of the Assistant Commissioner. However, according to the petitioners, the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 23.2.1998 is not forthcoming. One Lalithamma had filed impleading application claiming to be owner of house in Sy. No. 134 and the statement of 4th respondent Muniraju was recorded. For the first time, respondents 3 and 4 claimed their right before the Special Deputy Commissioner based on the Will alleged to have been executed by Bodappa in their favour on 1.9.1949 which was allowed as per annexure J According to the petitioners, it is without notice, without inquiry and spot inspection and without hearing them. According to the petitioner, no separate case was registered by the 2nd respondent or by the Land Tribunal or the Tahsildar of by the Assistant Commissioner pursuant to the direction in the said writ petition. It is stated, the Deputy Commissioner in case No. 16/1964-65 on 25.3.1978 - annexure K held that Sy. No. 134 is not the subject matter of lease deed in favour of Bodappa in the year 1902 and as a consequence of it, he ought to have rejected the claim of respondents 3 and 4. The application for grant of occupancy rights was filed as a joint application as such, question of considering the claim of respondents 3 and 4 separately and independently does not arise. Also, it cannot be held that the application of respondents 3 and 4 cannot be said to be pending as contended by them in the said writ petition and the 2nd respondent could not have initiated any further proceedings. It is also averred one Subramanya Mandadi had filed a suit against respondents 3 and 4 in OS 2660/1992 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore for injunction in respect of portion of Sy. No. 134 of New Binnamnagala village where the 3rd respondent has categorically admitted that they have no right, title or interest in Sy. No. 134 which came to be decreed and when the same was challenged by respondents 3 and 4 before this Court in RFA 815/1995, the said appeal came to be dismissed. As such, the order has become final and respondents 3 and 4 have no claim in respect of Sy. No. 134 of New Binnamangala Village. It is also contended that the father of respondents 3 and 4 Doddamarapa had purchased a site in Sy. No. 134 on 8.7.1960 from one Lokamma who derived title under a registered sale deed dated 7.5.1943. This indicates that respondents 3 and 4 or their the predecessor in title had no right, title or interest in Sy. No. 134. In the writ petitions filed before this Court by some of the petitioners against the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner at annexure J, this Court directed them to approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under S. 28 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Abolition Act. Pursuant to the same, petitioners have filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Since petitioners were not parties to the proceedings, they sought file an appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that petitioners are not aggrieved parties to approach the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal in Appeal 1315/2003 on 10.9.2004 - annexures Q and R. Since the application filed by some of the petitioners before the Appellate Tribunal was a futile exercise, they joined other petitioners to file this writ petition. Petitioners in WP 1912/2005 state that they are absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of 22 house sites in Sy. No. 134 of Binnamangala Village and the land measures 135 yards x 156 yards in Sy. No. 130 and 131. The sites were purchased by the father of petitioners one B.K. Sriramaiah under a registered sale deeds dated 26.9.1951 - annexure B and 9.5.1953 -annexure C. It is stated, after the commencement of Inams Abolition Act, B.K. Sriramaiah filed an application for registration of occupancy rights before the Special Deputy Commissioner who passed an order on 2.1.1962 - annexure E observing that adjudication of right and title to buildings or lands converted for building purposes is outside the scope and jurisdiction of the Special Deputy Commissioner acting under the Inams Abolition Act and as per S. 13 of the Act, the petitioners, if they are holders of such land, are entitled to keep the land provided that such conversion was not void or illegal under any law in force and if there is any dispute between the holders, they have to approach the competent authority and thus, rejected the application of the petitioners. It is also stated, there exists no dispute regarding possession of the said houses, house sites and land till the life time of B.K. Sriramaiah and he continued to be in possession till his death and after his death, petitioners continued to be in possession. When things stood thus, respondents 3 and 4, along with others jointly claimed occupancy rights by filing an application on 4.12.1959, in respect of lands in Sy. No. 130, 134 and 135 totally measuring 3 acres. The application was rejected on the statement of one Dasappa that the other applicants are his relatives and he has no claim over Sy. No. 130, 134 and 135. Against the said rejection, WP 7950/2007 was filed for a direction to consider the application which was allowed. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Special Deputy Commissioner registered a case and during pendency of the proceedings, petitioners on coming to know of the same, filed application to implead them as necessary parties. Later, the matter was adjourned to several dates and ultimately, when the petitioners did not get any notice or about the progress of the case and since their queries did not yield any result, approached this Court in WP 34956/1999. This Court directed the petitioners to file an appeal against the order of the 2nd respondent before the appropriate authority. The 2nd respondent, without giving any opportunity to the petitions to present their case, rejected the impleading application solely on me ground that the claim of B.K. Sreeramaiah was already disposed of in case No. INACR 7981/62-63 and INACR 16/64-65. It is the case of the petitioners that in the said cases, the order pertains to different parties and is with regard to Sy. No. 135 and 136 and the Special Deputy Commissioner without application of mind has rejected the impleading application of the petitioners and has also granted 4.34 guntas of land when the claim itself is for 3 acres and has also granted land in Sy. No. 131 for which there is no claim
Further, pursuant to the order in WP 34596/1999, petitioners filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which after hearing them and respondents 3 and 4 on the question of maintainability and limitation, held that the appeal is maintainable against which WP 12388/2000 by respondents 3 and 4 came to be rejected and further in writ appeal, the order in writ petition was set aside with a direction to reconsider the claim of respondents 3 and 4. Ultimately, in WA 1561/2004 by the petitioners the Division Bench dismissed the appeal with liberty to the parties to argue on merits. The 3rd respondent/Appellate Tribunal, after remand of the matter again, without considering the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in Appeal 601/1999 During pendency of the appeal, the mother of the petitioners Smt Lalithamma who was arrayed as a party had died and after her death, the present petitioners filed an application before the 3rd respondent to bring B S Sriprakash as necessary party being her legal heir. Without considering the said application, an order at annexure A came to be passed which is said to be against a dead person. Hence, they are before this Court.
Petitioners in WP 12584/2004 who are ten in number, are before this Court stating that they are the absolute owners in possession of houses and house sites bearing respective corporation numbers, formed in Sy. No. 134 of Binnamangala Village, Bangalore. The petitioners have purchased their respective houses/house sites under registered sale deeds and have been paying the taxes also. The bits of houses/house sites come under the BBMP limits. They are before this Court aggrieved by the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner conferring occupancy rights on respondents 3 and 4 on 12.7.1999 in case No. INA CR No. 13/97-98 - annexure J and confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal 1315/2003 on 30.9.2004 in respect of Sy. No. 134 of Binnamangala Village, raising several grounds.
The main grievance of these petitioners is, the order of the Appellate Tribunal that petitioners are not aggrieved is erroneous and the Tribunal has also erred in not noticing the provision of S. 28 which provides that any aggrieved person can file appeal under S. 10 and 11 and the Tribunal also failed to take note of the fact that several constructions have come up in Sy. No 134 for more than 50 to 60 years over which occupancy rights have been granted to respondents 3 and 4, without notice to the applicants and to other similarly situate persons and the 2nd respondent and the Tribunal ought to have rejected the claim of respondents 3 and 4 that too when they have categorically admitted that they have no right, title or interest over Sy. No. 134.
The 3rd and 4th respondents in their objections filed in WP 12584/2005, have stated that the petitions are not maintainable as remedy is provided for the petitions under S. 28 of the Inams Abolition Act. If they are aggrieved, they have to file appeal Except the 3rd petitioner, no one has filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal as per S. 28 of the Act and therefore, petition in respect of petitioners 1, 2 and 4 to 10 has to be rejected in limine as they have no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and the Special Deputy Commissioner at annexures J and K dated 12.7.1999 and 30.9.2004 respectively. It is stated, petitioners have not filed any application before the Special Deputy Commissioner under Ss. 4, 7, 8, and 9 of the Inams Abolition Act and therefore they cannot challenge the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
According to them, the entire village of Binnamangala vested in the government under the Inams Abolition Act and government is the owner of the entire village. Whoever got any right as tenant under the inamdar or purchased the property from inamdar will step into the shoes of the inamdar and such persons also can file an application under S. 7 and 9 of the Inams Abolition Act before the Deputy Commissioner. Petitioners case cannot come under any of the provisions of the said sections. It is also not their case that they have purchased the property from the original inamdar or from the tenants and the sale deeds produced by them are all illegal documents and they have not right or title to the property. The persons who have sold the property have no rights and such sale deeds are not valid and do not confer any right on the petitioners. The original inamdar Sri Arcot Narayanswamy Mudaliar has not sold any properties to the petitioners as such, petitioners have no right to file a petition before this Court and so also the 3rd petitioner.
Petitioner Sri Byrappa and his father Muniswamappa have filed application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for grant of occupancy rights and their claims have been rejected on 24.1.1962. Petitioners 3 to 7 who are claiming to be the owners of portion of property in Sy. No. 134 have purchased the same from one Sri Jayaram who in turn has purchased the land from one B.K. Sriramaiah who has no valid title to the property. He has lost the case before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The sons and daughters of B.K. Sriramaiah also claim that they are also owners in respect of the said property and have filed WP 1912/2005 and how two persons can be the owners of the property in question is not explained either by the sons and daughters of B.K. Sriramaiah or the present petitioners. Petitioners 3 to 7 are claiming to the owners of property bearing Conation No. 14/2 situate in Sy. No. 134 of Binnamangala having purchased the same from one Smt Radhamma on 15.7.1980 and it is not explained as to how Radhamma became the owner of the property. She has not purchased the land from Arcot Narayanaswamy Mudaliar as such, no importance can be attributed to the claim. It is also averred, the 8th petitioner has not given the survey number in the sale deed and only corporation receipts are produced and no document is produced to show how he became the owner. Similar is the case of the 9th petitioner. The 10th petitioner has also not produced any document except the tax paid receipt and B.R. Jayaram the father of the 10th petitioner has filed an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for grant of portion of property in Sy. No. 134 which has been dismissed on 22 1.1962 against which order, no appeal is filed before any authority Petitioners are not the applicants for grant of occupancy rights before the Special Deputy Commissioner and some of the predecessors in title of the petitioners have lost the case before the Special Deputy Commissioner as per annexure R1. Once they are not the applicants before the Special Deputy Commissioner, they have no right to question the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.7.1991 -annexure J and have also no locus standi to question the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner. Except the 3rd petitioner, other nine petitioners have not approached the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. If they are aggrieved parties, they have to file an appeal as per S. 28 of the Inams Abolition Act. The 3rd petitioner also filed WP 7315-30/2000 against the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner which came to be dismissed with an observation that alternate remedy is available under S. 28 of the Act. The same observation is applicable to all other nine petitioners. Without exhausting the remedy avoidable to them, it is stated, petitioners have no right to approach this court under Art. 226 of the constitution. It is their case that the nine petitioners without establishing their grievance before the Tribunal have approached this Court and on this ground itself, the petitions are liable to be rejected. So far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, it is stated, he is claiming right through one Jayaram who had filed an application for occupancy rights before the Spl. Deputy Commissioner which came to be dismissed on 22.1.1962 and therefore, had lost whatever right he had and there is no appeal filed against the said order. The said B.R. Jayaram had purchased the property from B.K. Sriramaiah and both have lost their cases before the Special Deputy Commissioner as per annexure R1. Only to harass these respondents, it is stated, the petitions have been filed. The Special Deputy Commissioner has visited the spot, verified the survey numbers and the buildings of Binnamangala Village and thereafter, has directed the Asst. Superintendent of Land Records by his letter dated 5.1.1978 to find out in which survey numbers the twelve persons houses are situate in the said village pursuant to which the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records by his letter dated 1.1.978 has given a sketch pointing out in which survey numbers the houses are built which are produced as annexure R4 and R5. From the said letter/sketch, it is clear that the houses were only in Sy. No. 135 and 136 i.e., five houses in Sy. No. 135 and eight houses in Sy. No. 136 but none in Sy. No. 134. The Revenue Appellate Tribunal has considered this aspect in detail while dismissing the appeal and has passed an order holding that petitioners have neither got a right in the property nor locus standi nor they are aggrieved persons to file an appeal before it. Production of sale deeds itself is not sufficient to show that they have got right in the property. They have to show how they got that right in the property. Further, the sale deeds must be from the inamdar only and except the inamdar no one has got any right to sell the property. It is not the petitioners'' case that they have purchased the property from the original inmadar Arcot Narayanaswamy Mudaliar and any one has purchased from the inamdar. Even if the property is purchased from the inamdar, they cannot keep the property for themselves unless the competent authority under the Act considered their right and grant them the property under S. 10 of the Inams Abolition Act. It is not even the case of the petitioners that they have filed any application at any point of time before any authority seeking such grant.
It is the further case of the respondents that the various decisions of civil court and other courts will not bind them as they were not parties to '' the above proceedings. The khata made by the Corporation in favour of the petitioners will not confirm any title to them. The Corporation has no power or authority to change the khata to their name since Binnamangala Village is an inam village and all lands are agricultural lands and no lands were converted for non-agricultural purpose as per the report of the Tahsildar dated 2.8.1960 - annexure R6 and all documents are concocted ones. The petitioners have relied upon Ss 12 and 13 of the Inams Abolition Act in support of their case and referring to both the sections, it is stated the report of the Tahsildar makes it clear that no land is converted for non-agricultural purpose and it is also not the case of the petitioners that the land in question is converted for non-agricultural purpose. Relying upon the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of M/s. M Raghavendra Pai & Son Vs Food Corporation of India - 1972(2) KLJ SN 42, it is stated that the fact that the land, an erstwhile inam village, has been used for non-agricultural purpose does not divest the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under S. 10 of the Act. It is the case of the respondents that they were in possession and occupation of Sy. No. 130, 131 and 134 of Binnamangala Village and the RTC records of the years 1959-60 produced as annexure R7, show they were cultivating the lands of inamdar as tenants. The order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal also confirms this fact. The lease deed executed on 5.7.1902 by Arcot Narayanaswamy Mudaliar in favour of the grandfather of these respondents was disputed in OS 111/1939. The District Civil Munsiff, Bangalore who visited the spot came to the conclusion that the boundaries given in the lease deed covers Sy. Nos. 130, 134, 135 and 136 in which the grand father of the petitioners in WP 1912/2005 and also one Sri Dhulraj from whom some of the petitioners predecessors have purchased the property and the petitioners cannot now say that the survey numbers 130, 131 and 134 are not included in the lease deed of the year 1902 executed in favour of Bodappa, the grandfather of these respondents and it is binding on them.
It is further stated, as per the order of this Court directing the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition to consider the applications of these respondents under the Act, these respondents made applications and the Special Deputy Commissioner issued notice to appear before him on 28.1.1998 i.e., annexure R8 and on appearance, after inquiry, the order is passed. Any wrong mention of the provision by the Special Deputy Commissioner will not in any way help the petitioners as it is clear from the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner that he has conducted the case under the Inams Abolition Act, on the basis of the application made by these respondents and there is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed. Thus, the respondents have prayed for rejecting the case of the petitioners.
Council representing the petitioners relied upon the decision in the case of H.K. Kathadru & Ors. Vs State of Mysore & Ors. - ILR 1974 KAR 250 wherein referring to S. 9 & 10 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act as to whether the executors under the Will are legal representatives of the Inamdar and when there is no provision under the Inams Abolition Act, the court has held that the test to be applied is to denote the legal representative. Further, it is held that ''an appellate court is concerned only with matters that have been put in issue before it in such an appeal. It is not open to it to interfere with the orders which are not appealed against, unless provision to that effect has been made in the law governing the matter by way of conferment of appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
In the case of BK Ramachandra Rao & Ors. Vs Kamalappa & Ors. - 1963(1) My.LJ 196, the Division Bench of this Court has observed referring to S. 28 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act that ''the words of S. 28 of the Act are so comprehensive as to include any person who is interested in the subject matter of the dispute, whether or not he is a party to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and hence a person interested though not party to the proceeding can appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner''.
Counsel has also relied upon the case of Maharaj Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, particularly paragraphs 20 and 21, as to a ''person aggrieved'' and legal grievance''. It is submitted the amplitude of legal grievance has broadened with social compulsions. The State undertakes today the activities whose beneficiaries may be the general community even though the legal right to the undertaking may not vest in the community.... class actions and representative litigation are the beginning and the horizon is expanding, with persons and organisations not personally injured but variously concerned being entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for redressal of actual or imminent wrongs.
Counsel has also relied upon the case of Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid and Co. Vs. State of Madras and Another, to the proposition, just because a substituted statutory rule is held invalid, the old rule does not get revived. The old rule ceases to exist on the new rule coming into force.
The case of M.B. Ramachandran Vs. Gowramma and Others, is relied by the counsel as regards the amendment of the Mysore (Religious & Charitable) Inams Abolition Act and also Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act wherein it is observed that court not to decide academic issues. The petition involved question relating to abolition of Religious and Charitable Inams covered under the Mysore Act. The Apex Court held the order of the High Court declaring the entire Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1979 to be invalid is erroneous.
Counsel has relied upon the Division Bench decision in the case of Sreekantiah Vs Moodlagiriah & Ors. - 1966 My.LJ 563 to contend, as per requirement of R 7(3) of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Rules, 1956, the inamdar should be made a respondent to an application for registration is imperative and a disobedience of that provision vitiates the proceedings. The fact that the inamdar was examined as a witness in the course of the proceedings does not amount to obedience to Rule 7(3).
Counsel for the contesting respondent has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishnamurthy Vs. Hemanna, to contend that there should be fraudulent or erroneous representation by the transferor so as to attract S. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act and its benefit cannot be extended in favour of purchasers of land already vested in the Government and estoppel does not arise against those not parties to the contract or transfer. Further, referring to S. 10 & 13 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, the Division Bench has held, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit for declaration of title and possession of lands vested in government. To attract S. 13, conversion of land before vesting not being void or illegal.
Counsel has relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Narasimha Vs Deputy Commissioner - WP 38894/2001 decided on 19.10.2001 to contend that the claim of the predecessor in title of the petitioner came to be rejected against which rejection, appeal was filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which also came to be rejected. In Writ Appeal 7574/2001 against the said order, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that order of the Appellate Tribunal having reached finality in view of the fact that till the death of the predecessor in title of the petitioner he had not challenged the same, the writ petition by the successor does not merit consideration at a belated stage.
In WP 50708/2004, petitioners are all owners of house/house sites bearing respective numbers formed in Sy. No. 134 of Binnamangala Village having purchased or inherited during the year 1940 up to 1998. It is their case, Sy. No. 134 was not the subject matter of grant of occupancy rights in favour of respondents 3 and 4 and this is evident from the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition on 25.3.1978 - annexure C. In the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in No. 272/1979, the claim in respect of Sy No. 134 was rejected. It is their contention that the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner on 12.7.1999 is totally without application of mind as also the order of the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner.
Similar is the case of the petitioners in WP 12584/2005 and in WP 1912/2005. It is also their contention that the observation of the Appellate Tribunal that they are not aggrieved persons under S. 28 of the Act is not proper. Before passing an order, the Tribunal ought to have issued notice to these petitioners as S. 28 specifies any person aggrieved by a decision under 10 and 11 is entitled to file an appeal. It is also their case, the Tribunal ought to have held an inquiry to know whether petitioners are interested persons or not to file an appeal under S. 28. But, there is no inquiry held before passing an order rejecting their application. It is their further case that land to an extent of 20 guntas in Sy. No. 130, 1.20 acres in Sy. No. 131 and 2.30 acres in Sy. No. 134, totally 4.30 acres has been granted whereas the claim itself was for 3.00 acres of land together in these three survey numbers, no extent was mentioned separately and land has been granted in excess of what was claimed, if the extent mentioned in the Will is taken into consideration without taking into consideration the extent mentioned in the lease deed of the year 1902. There is no reason assigned for granting an extent more than what has been claimed by the contesting respondents. The order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the Special Deputy Commissar is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
According to the petitioners'' counsel in these three petitions, nearly about nineteen sale deeds and transfers have taken place commencing from 1949 and also construction have come up. As per S. 12 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner has no right to deal with such matters. At a belated point of time, without impleading and without hearing these petitioners the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is by way of non-joinder of necessary parties. It is their case, most of the petitioners who have made developments pursuant to the purchase of the property from its erstwhile inamdar/vendor are successors of the purchasers and they have not been made party and have not been given an opportunity. Thus, relying upon the decisions cited supra, it is contended that the matter requires remand to the Special Deputy Commissioner. It is also their contention that the contesting respondents cannot claim as a matter of right to participate in the proceedings based on the Will as executors as there is no provision provided under the Act to represent themselves under the Will. Further, referring to the judgment of the Division Bench, it is argued while re-granting property, even to a person who is affected, notice has to be issued which has not been done in the present case.
According to the counsel representing respondents 3 and 4, tenancy right was bequeathed in 1949 in their favour and tenancy was created in favour of their predecessor in title in 1902. Even otherwise they have inherited the rights on the death of the original tenant. Up to 1978 time was extended to file application under the Act. The date of vesting of the land is in the year 1958 for re-grant or to contend that they are interested persons having purchased the property from the original inamdar and they ought to have filed application under S. 10 before the Special Deputy Commissioner. Since no such application is filed, the right if any is deemed to be extinguished even if they have purchased from the inamdar. During 1978, survey was conducted and report was called for from the Deputy Commissioner. There were no structures/construction on the property as claimed by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, there is no gain say in the case of the petitioners to contend that there were structures put up etc. Referring to the case of KT Thimmegowda Vs State of Karnataka - 1979(1) KLJ 416, it is contended that any such application filed in respect of any right, if any, is deemed to be extinguished even if they have purchased the property from the original inamdar. It is also argued on the point of limitation that petitioners have no locus standi to question at a belated stage the orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The original inamdar''s application filed for re-grant was rejected and no such appeal was filed. It is also contended, there was a grant in favour of the tenant on such filing of the application based on the lease deed by the then inamdar. In Kathadru''s case cited above, it is held as per S. 2(11), CPC the test prescribed in the first part of the definition for determining the question whether a person is a legal representative or not is whether or not he represents the estate of the deceased person. In the present case, respondents 3 and 4 being executors for all practical purposes are only accountable to the legatees and other heirs and therefore, they are legal representatives. It is argued, on the death of Bodappa even without there being a Will respondents 3 and 4 being the successors, they are representing him as legal representatives and they can duly contest the matter. Since there was a re-grant in favour of Bodappa while rejecting the claim of the inamdar, that order has not been challenged by the petitioners nor they have filed any application for re-grant though time was extended up to 1978 and accordingly, the petitioners have no locus standi to contest the matter. It was for the petitioners for their right, if any to have filed application as per S. 10(3)(b) of the Act. Since they have not filed the application, they have lost the right As per the sketch in respect of Sy. No. 134, there was no building, as per the report of the Surveyor.
Counsel for the respondents submit that the land vested with the government and there was no right to sell available. Petitioners have purchased the property subject to risk. Even in the suit filed by Bodappa before the Munsiff Court, the suit came to be decreed against one Dhulraj and the appeal filed against the order in the suit which came to be dismissed. The sales are void since parties have purchased them from one Dhulraj.
Government Advocate submits that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is during July 1999. After verifying the records, noting that the Jodidar had leased the property in favour of Bodappa in 1902, this Bodappa had executed a Will in favour of the respondents who are none other than his grand children. Accordingly, relying upon various judgments, it is argued that petitioners have no locus standi as the original order passed re-granting the property in favour of Bodappa had not been challenged. The petitioners predecessors or the petitioners have not filed claim petition as required under S. 10 of the Act.
Property in question is the subject matter of lease in favour of Bodappa in 1902. On coming into force of the Act in 1958, the land vested with the government. There was a provision provided for making an application for re-grant up to 1978 it appears though the inamdar filed application, it came to be rejected. It appears the inamdar also alienated several properties. Further, as an exception, normally the property would be dealt under S. 12 of the Act if there are structures raised before vesting. The persons who claim right through inamdar have not filed any application except the original inamdar though the inam lands changed several hands on alienation by the inamdar before or after the Act came into force. Ultimately, when the petitioners'' case has not been considered by the competent authority and also by the appellate Tribunal on the ground that no such application is filed and the application filed by the inamdar has also been rejected, then the question of petitioners claiming right on the basis that they are purchasers and they are affected parties and that they should be given an opportunity by remanding the matter, would not arise at this juncture. The respondents are shown to be not only legatees/executor claiming right under the Will, they are also legal representatives of the deceased Bodappa who was a grantee as a tenant. Even if any transaction has taken place by way of alienation of the property from the inamdar or his representative during the period of vesting with the government, till there is a re-grant all those transactions are void transactions. As per the report of the revenue authorities, as on 1978 no such construction had come up and necessarily the rights of the petitioners cannot be easily accepted. The claim of the petitioners that they are in possession and put up construction, in the absence of any such document produced to prove that before vesting of the land with the government they have put up construction does not stand to reason in view of the survey report submitting during 1978 which depicts the fact that no construction has taken place and they cannot claim an exception. Even though one of the petitioner has filed an application as per S. 10 of the Act, the application is rejected, there is no appeal preferred and he has lost the right. The land vested with the government during 1958 and up to 1978 time was extended to file an application for re-grant by the last holder or persons interested. Such an application was not made except the original inamdar whose application came to be dismissed.
Though it is submitted by the petitioners'' counsel (WP 1912/2005) that though there is no claim made in respect of Sy. No. 130 by the respondents'' predecessor Bodappa, it has been granted, counsel representing the respondents has replied that based on the survey report and also possession by virtue of lease by the inamdar, the Special Deputy Commissioner has granted occupancy rights. It is also the contention of the petitioners'' counsel that application is said to be filed by the petitioners'' predecessor however, the respondents'' counsel has argued that no such copy of the application is made available nor the rejection of the same by the Deputy Commissioner has been challenged before the Appellate Tribunal and as such, the case of these petitioners cannot be considered.
In so far as the claim of the petitioners in WP 50708/2004 that they are purchasers of bits of land in the form of sites, as per the report of the Surveyor which is filed along with the statement of objections filed by me respondents, there are no houses built on the relevant date. As such, petitioners claim would not be maintainable.
Further, the argument is that there is a finding by the Special Deputy Commissioner while rejecting the application that he lacks jurisdiction to deal in respect of houses built on the land and this would demonstrate that there existed houses on the land but counsel for the contesting respondents contend that against that rejection, there is no appeal preferred and he relies on the decision of this Court in Sundaram Vs Munithayamma -CRP 2835A/1973 decided on 18.12.1973 wherein this Court has observed that the mere fact that the land in an erstwhile inam village has been used for non-agricultural purposes, does not divest the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under S. 10 of the Mysore (Personal and Misc.) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and contended that against such finding of the Special Deputy Commissioner, no appeal has been filed as such, that order has become final and petitioners cannot claim relief. It is also his contention that there is no material produced that the land is converted for non-agricultural purpose so as to claim that petitioners are the persons who come within the purview of S. 12 of the Act.
Even though some of the petitioners claim to have purchased property prior to vesting and have put up construction, they were unable to produce any documents for the relevant years i.e., prior to vesting for having put up construction atleast before this Court except some photographs which are taken recently. In the circumstances, claiming protection under S. 12 and 13 of the Act may not arise. They may also not be entitled for an opportunity in the absence of documents being produced.
As per S. 10(3)(a) of the Act, no person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under Ss. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 unless the claimant makes an application to the Tribunal. Further, such application shall be made within the time stipulated as per the amended Act i.e., before 31.12.1979. But when no application is made, right of any person to be registered as an occupant shall stand extinguished and land shall vest in the State absolutely. This denotes that either a person who holds the property as inamdar is entitled to be registered as an occupant of all lands except as is provided under S. 9 of the Act.
Though as per the Division Bench decision of this Court in BK Ramachandra Rao''s case cited supra, under S. 28, a person not a party before the Deputy Commissioner, if interested, can file an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the fact remains in the case on hand that those who have purchased the property from the original inamdar before vesting are shown to have not made any application for re-grant. On the other hand, right of Bodappa has been recognised on the basis of the lease as tenant and respondents 3 and 4 are the grand children of Bodappa. Their right has been recognized by the order of the Deputy Commissioner not only on the basis of their claim even though there is a Will as Executors but as per relationship, they are legal representatives as such, order of re-grant made in favour of respondents 3 and 4 cannot be held to be invalid.
Further, in the case of Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others, the Apex Court has observed that though no limitation is prescribed for filing writ petitions, the High Court should not entertain the petition filed after long lapse of time because it may adversely affect the settled or crystallized right of the parties. The High Court should treat the delay as unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioners on merits. The delay should be viewed seriously and relief denied to the petitioners if petitioners fail to offer plausible explanation.
Petitioners herein claim to be purchasers of property not from the original inamdar directly and according to some of them, there are buildings in existence as such, they are saved under S. 12 of the Act. According to them, the Appellate Tribunal also has not considered their claim to exempt them from filing an application for re-grant.
On going through the records, most of the transactions appear to be during 1960s and 1970s i.e., after vesting of the land. Without filing an application as contemplated under S. 10, petitioners have sought to contest the matter. Those transactions which have taken place after vesting are all void transactions as such, they cannot claim right.
Several other decisions have been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners as regards the ratio laid down in the context, however, they are not fully applicable to the case on hand The requirement of S. 12 has not been met out by some of the petitioners, in view of the survey report of 1978 and they cannot avail the benefit of the said section. Section 12 applies to only those construction put up before the land vested with the government. The transactions between the original inamdar and the predecessors of the petitioners or the petitioners themselves regarding alienation of the inam property after the land vested with the government appears to be void transactions. Any successive interest created by the original inamdar in favour of the petitioners'' predecessors/claimants after vesting, for re-grant may not be accepted.
However, if any of the petitioners including one Chandrappa in WP 12584/2004 noted above, in view of B.K. Ramachandra Rao''s case cited supra, are able to demonstrate that they have put up construction prior to vesting and such of those who have filed application for re-grant as per S. 10 of the Act, on they approaching the Appellate Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of this order, and on causing notice on respondents 3 and 4, the Appellate Tribunal shall decide the matter according to law in three months thereafter However, it is for the petitioners herein to approach the 3rd and 4th respondents for settlement, if so advised. With the above observation, petitions are disposed of