H Kempaiah Since Deceased Rep By Lrs Smt ... vs T Kemparaju
2025 Latest Caselaw 5950 Kant

Karnataka High Court

H Kempaiah Since Deceased Rep By Lrs Smt ... vs T Kemparaju on 28 May, 2025

                         -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2025

                     PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                        AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND


          WRIT APPEAL NO. 1678 OF 2024 (LR)



BETWEEN:


1.    H. KEMPAIAH
      SINCE DECEASED REP BY LR'S
      SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
      W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
      AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
      RESIDING AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE
      SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK
      BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

2.    SMT. K VIMALAMMA
      W/O JAYARAMAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
      RESIDING AT KALIDASA MARG
      GANDHINAGAR
      BENGALURU - 560 009.

3.    SRI K. NARAYANAGOWDA
      S/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
      RESIDING AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
      JALA HOBLI
      BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
      BENGALURU DISTRICT.
                          -2-


4.     SMT K. RADHA
       W/O G. NARAYANAGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
       RESIDING AT MATHUGADAHALLI VILLAGE,
       KAIWARA HOBLI,
       CHINTAMANI TALUK,
       CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

5.     RAMCHANDRA GOWDA
       (SINCE DECEASED REP BY LR'S)
       SMT. MAMATHA
       W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA GOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
       RESIDING AT NO 22,
       2ND 'A' MAIN
       AJJAMALLAPPA, KACHARKANAHALLI
       BENGALURU - 560 084.

6.     SMT K. CHANDRIKA
       W/O V. SRINIVAS GOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
       RESIDING AT KANIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
       CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

7.     SMT. B.K. RENUKA
       W/O CHANDRASHEKAR
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
       RESIDING AT KALLUKATTA
       SRINGERI TALUK
       CHIKKAMAGALURU DITRICT - 562 101.

                                      ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
MS. NIKITA GANESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.V. SUNDARA RAMAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.     T. KEMPARAJU
       SINCE DECEASED REP BY LR'S
       SMT. SHANTHAMMA
                        -3-



     W/O M. MOHANRAM
     D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

2.   SMT. MANJULA
     W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA
     D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

3.   SHRI THYAGARAJA G.K.
     S/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

4.   SMT. GEETHA
     W/O LATE G DEVARAJ
     D/O LATE T KEMPARAJU
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

5.   NALINA
     D/O LATE T KEMPARAJU
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

6.   SUJATHA
     W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

7.   SRI NAVEEN
     S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

8.   SRI MANOHAR
     S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

9.   MS. SOUMYA
     D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

     RESPONDENT No.2 TO 9 ARE

R/AT GANGALOUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI

HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

10 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, V FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

11 . THE LAND TRIBUNAL BENGALURU NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK BANGALORE BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

12 . SRI M RAMANNA S/O LATE MUNIBYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

12(a). SHRI GANESH S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY

12(b). SHRI B.R MUNIRAJU S/O LATE RAMANNA

12(c) SHRI LAKSHMANAGOWDA S/O LATE RAMANNA

12(d) SHRI LAKSHMANAMURTHY S/O LATE RAMANNA

ALL ARE RESIDING AT BUDDIGERE VILLAGE AND POST CHANNARAYANAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

[RESPONDENT Nos. 12(a) to 12(d) AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2025]

13 . SRI K SRINIVAS GOWDA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT46 YEARS

14 . SRI K. MANJUNATH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

R/AT BOODIGERE VILLAGE, AND POST CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 001

15 . SRI T S MUNIRAJAPPA S/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

16 . SRI T S NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

17 . SRI S VEERANNA S/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

18 . SRI S MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

19 . SRI VENKATASWAMAPPA S/O N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

20 . N RAMAIAH (SINCE DECEASED REP BY LRS) SMT KAMALAMMA W/O LATE N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

21 . SRI R THYAGARAJ S/O LATE N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

22 . SRI R KEMAPARAJU S/O LATE N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

23 . SRI NANJEGOWDA S/O LATE N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

24 . SRI R MAHESH GOWDA S/O LATE N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

RESPONDENT No. 15 TO 24 ARE R/AT BOODIGERE VILLAGE AND POST CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

25 . SRI N KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

26 . SRI N RAJANNA S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

27 . SMT NANDINI W/O LATE N MUNIRATHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

28 . M GANESH S/O LATE MUNIRATHNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

29 . M RITESH S/O LATE MUNIRATHNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

RESPONDENT No. 25 TO 29 ARE R/AT THIRUMALENAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560049

30 . NAGARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

31 . JAYARAJ S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

32 . SHEKAR S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

RESPONDENT NO 30 TO 32 ARE R/AT THIRUMALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDOR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 572 001.

33. SREE MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHANA AND GURUPEETHAYALAYA TRUST COMMITTEE PUBLIC CHARITABLE DEVAGIRI BRANCH NELLUR KEMRACHI VILLAGE SULYA TALUK SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT

REP BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI SHAMBHU UPADYAYA REPRESENTATION GPA HOLDER SRI JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN S/O LATE NARAYAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO 22, 1ST MAIN ROAD,

2ND STAGE OKALIPURAM BENGALURU - 560021.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T. M. VENKATAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2, R-4 TO R-9, SRI. K.S. HARISH, G. A. FOR R-10 & R-11, SRI. D. ROHIT URS, ADVOCATE FOR R-12(a to d), R-13, R-14 AND R-30 to R-32.

SRI. N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-15, R-16, R-18 AND R-25.

SRI. H. C. SUNDARESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-17, SRI. K.N. SATHISH KUMAR FOR R-21.

SRI M. PRAKASHA, ADV. FOR R-33 SRI. G.L.VISHWANATH, SR.ADV.FOR Ms.MANASA B. RAO, ADV. FOR R-26.

SRI.P.B.AJIT, ADV. FOR RESPONDENTS 19, 20, 22 TO 24 & 27 TO 29.)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF

THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2024 BY THE

LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.27409/2017 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS

PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

This appeal arise out of common judgment and order

dated 27th September 2024 of learned Single Judge passed in

respect of writ petition Nos.30369 of 2017, 23144 of 2017,

24109 of 2017 and 27409 of 2017. The present appeal

pertains to the judgment and order in writ petition No.27409 of

2017.

2. Learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition. The

findings recorded by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North

(Additional) Taluka, Bengaluru in its order dated 22.05.2017

came to be set aside. The revenue authorities were directed to

mutate the names of legal representatives of Mr. Kemparaju-

the original petitioner, in respect of land to the extent of 160

acres which was subject matter of original suit No.93 of 1953

and execution petition No.151 of 1964.

- 10 -

3. The original petitioner was Mr. T. Kemparaju, now

represented by his legal heirs who are the private respondents

herein. The prayer was made to set aside the judgment and

order dated 22.05.2017 passed by the Land Tribunal,

Bengaluru North in INA CR.1/1997-1998. The Tribunal had

allowed the prayer of the appellant Mr. H. Kempaiah and

allowed occupancy right for him in respect of the land in

question to the extent of 54 acres of D class and 10 units in

respect of survey numbers in question. The subject matter

land was a Jodi and Inam land which came to be governed

under the Inams Abolition Act.

3.1 The case of the original petitioner to be noted in nutshell

was inter alia that the land bearing survey Nos.1, 4, 18, 21 to

85, 87 to 89 and 87 to 104 situated at Chalamakunte Village,

Hobli, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluka. The total area of

the land admeasured 494 acres and 25 guntas. It was sold by

the Jodidhar one Mr. K.P. Ramaiah in favour of one Mr. Kaveri

Reddy on 16.07.1943. It was stated that the land was

partitioned between the brothers of Kaveri Reddy. Mortgage

was executed in respect of the land by Mr. Kaveri Reddy for his

land.

- 11 -

3.2 One Mr. Doddaiah in whose favour the mortgage was

executed, filed original suit No.93 of 1953. Execution petition

was filed. The share of Kaveri Reddy admeasuring 160 acres

of land was attached before the judgment. The suit was

decreed on 11.12.1954. The Deputy Commissioner permitted

the sale of land by Mr. Kaveri Reddy, who sold the land by Sale

Deed dated 20.06.1956.

3.3 On 01.02.1959, it was stated by the petitioner, the

notification was issued under the Mysore (Personal and

Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act and the Jodi Inams land

including the land in question stood vested in the State

Government. Pursuant to the decree in the suit, property was

put to execution. Sale Certificate was issued on 11.02.1966.

Doddaiah sold the land to the petitioner on 21.03.1968.

3.4 In 1973 and subsequently, proceedings were initiated for

regrant of service Inam land. It is claimed by the petitioner that

the file relating to regrant was destroyed in fire. Rebuilding of

file appears to have been ordered by the authorities. In 2000-

01, petitioner filed application for impleading in the pending

regrant proceedings, which request was rejected. On

15.11.2005, petitioner filed appeal before the Karnataka

- 12 -

Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was allowed. The respondents

challenged the same by filing writ petition. The same was

dismissed holding that the petitioner was a necessary party,

whereafter before the Tribunal, the petitioner was arrayed as

claimant No.5. The Tribunal passed the order on 22.05.2017

rejecting the claim of the petitioner for occupancy rights.

3.5 While what is stated above are in a nutshell, the facts

and events are subsequently also narrated based on the total

pleadings and the aspects involved in the controversy. The

Tribunal as per its impugned order rejected the case of the

original petitioner for regrant of land on the ground that the

petitioner had not filed the application required under the law

and there was no such prayer by him. The Tribunal's decision

was rested also on the ground that the petitioner could not

have mortgaged the Jodi land without the permission of the

Government and that it had vested with the Government as per

the Notification dated 01.02.1959.

3.6 The Land Tribunal in the judgment and order passed by

it which was impugned before learned Single Judge observed

thus about the claim of Kemparaju,

- 13 -

"The fifth petitioner Shri T. Kemparaju contended that, the Chalamakunte village was a Jodi Inam village which was earlier owned by K.P.Ramaiah and was purchased by the family comprising of Kaveri Reddy, Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy. Consequently, the old thdree persons were the Jodidars of Chalamakunte; that the said persons had partitioned the Jodi village Chalamakunte according to which an extent of 160 acres was fallen to the share of Kaveri Reddy, that Kaveri Reddy has sought for permission from the Deputy Commissioner had permitted the sale of the said Jodi village in terms of his order dated 17.05.1956. However, the Deputy Commissioner has held that Kaveri Reddy had sought permission to dispose of 2/3rd portion of Jodi village and that Kaveri Reddy had earlier mortgaged the entire land to one Munibyrappa and also sold the entire extent to Shri H. Kempaiah and that therefore held that any permission granted at best would permit him to alienate his interest in the Jodi village and if he had sought to exercise more rights than he was legally entitled, then the respective title has to be established in a court of law. Aggrieved by such permission, his brothers filed a Revision Petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Revision No.8 of 1959 which was disposed of directing Thimma Reddy, Nanja Reddy to prefer application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition."

3.6.1 The Tribunal further reasoned while rejecting the claim

of Kemparaju,

"In so far as the claim of the 5th petitioner Sri. Kemparaju, he made an application on 08.10.2000. The prescribed time limit for making an application for grant of occupancy right under Section 10(3) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, 31.12.1979. Therefore we can safely come to the

- 14 -

conclusion that the application is barred by law of limitation. Further the contention of the 5th petitioner is that on 29.10.1948 had mortgaged the land measuring to an extent of 160 acres. However, that is impermissible under the provisions of Section 6 of the Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Further by virtue of the notification dated 13.01.1959 the entire land was vested with the state with effect from 01.12.1959. In such circumstances, the sale certificate issued to Doddaiah, the vendor of 5th petitioner herein cannot be taken into consideration. In fact Doddaiah has sold the land in favour of T.Kemparaju on 21.03.1968 and as such the said sale has no consequences. Therefore we are of the opinion that the claim made by the 5th petitioner is also liable to be rejected."

3.7 The Tribunal passed the following operative order,

"The claim made by the 1st petitioner H. Kempaiah is hereby allowed and granted with an occupancy right to the extent of 54 acres of 'D'

situated at Chalamakunte village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk, subject to the outcome of the proceedings in LRF.43 of 1974-75 and subject to the ceiling limit prescribed under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

Further, the claim of the petitioner/claimants 2 to 5 for conferment of an 'occupancy right' in respect of land in survey Nos.1 to 104 situated at Chalamakunte village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluka, are hereby rejected.

The Tahasildar, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluka, Bengaluru, shall take necessary action to resume the land in survey Nos.1 to 102 (excluding survey No.78) situated at Chalamakunte village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North

- 15 -

(Additional) Taluka, excluding the land granted herein, in favour of the 1st petitioner H. Kempaiah, to the Government free from all encumbrance, by evicting those who are in possession of the said land and make necessary entries in the revenue records, as Government."

4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa

along with learned Advocate Ms. Nikita Ganesh for learned

Advocate Mr. M.V. Sundara Raman for the appellants, learned

Advocate Mr. C.S. Prasanna Kumar for learned Advocate Mr.

T.M. Venkata Reddy for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 9, learned

Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for respondent Nos.10

and 11, learned Advocate Mr. D. Rohit Urs for respondent

Nos.12 (a to d), 13, 14 and 30 to 32, learned Advocate Mr. N.

Shankaranarayana Bhat for respondent Nos.15, 16, 18 and 25,

learned Advocate Mr. K.N. Sathish Kumar for respondent

No.21, learned Advocate Mr. M. Prakasha for respondent

No.33, learned Senior Advocate Mr. G.L. Vishwanath for

learned Advocate Ms. Manasa B. Rao for respondent No.26

and learned Advocate Mr. P.B. Ajit for respondent Nos.19, 20,

22 to 24 and 27 to 29 at length.

5. From the facts available on record and on the basis of

the pleadings, the following main aspects, events and dates in

the controversy may be recapitulated.

- 16 -

(i) The land in question was a Jodi land situated at

Chalamakunte village of Devanahalli Taluka, presently

Bangalore North Taluka, which was originally a Jodi Inam

village. One K.P. Ramaiah was a Jodidar.

(ii) The said Jodi Inam land came to be purchased by one

Kaveri Reddy on 16.07.1943. A Mortgage Deed was executed

on 29.05.1948 to the extent of 160 acres in favour of one

Doddaiah. On 17.05.1956, Kaveri Reddy made an application

to the Deputy Commissioner seeking permission under Section

6 of the Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and

Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950, which was allowed.

(iii) The property was sold to appellant- H. Kempaiah under

Sale Deed dated 25.06.1956.

(iv) Under the Inams Abolition Act, a Notification came to be

issued on 01.02.1959, by virtue of which the property in

question stood vested in the government free from all

encumbrances.

(v) Doddaiah filed original suit No.93 of 1966 in July 1966

raising dispute about mortgage deed. Execution proceedings

- 17 -

No.151 of 1994 were initiated. 160 acres of land was sold by

Sale Certificate dated 27.07.1966.

(vi) The case is that the land was already vested with the

State Government and sale could not have been effected in

law and that the Sale Certificate was therefore void and not

binding.

(vii) Doddaiah executed Sale Deed on 21.03.1968 in favour

of Kemparaju even after the land was vested.

5.1 The details of legal proceedings ensued thereafter are

summarized below,

(a) Kemparaju initiated proceedings before Tahsildar on

11.12.1968 for change of khatha in his name. It was rejected

by the Tahsildar on the ground that no application for grant of

occupancy rights was ever made by Kemparaju, as required

under the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act.

(b) Against the order of the Tahsildar, Revision Petition was

filed before the Special Deputy Commissioner, which was

rejected. The Deputy Commissioner noted that the property

was Jodi Inam land and in view of Notification dated

- 18 -

01.02.1959, it came to be vested in the State Government from

that date.

(c) After the vesting, the Special Deputy Commissioner for

Inams Abolition determined the occupancy rights in favour of H.

Kempaiah.

(d) An application dated 01.10.2000 was filed by Kemparaju

seeking impleadment in the proceedings. Only prayer

advanced was for impleadment.

(e) The Karnataka Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1973

was passed. Section 10(3)(a) was amended permitting

applications to be filed for occupancy rights within six years

from the date of commencement of the amendment act. The

last date for filing of such application was 31.12.1979.

(f) Kemparaju's application was only for impleadment. No

application before deadline dated 31.12.1979 was filed by

Kemparaju, much less application for grant of occupancy rights

was not filed at all.

(g) Kemparaju's application was rejected by the Deputy

Commissioner on 01.10.2000. He filed Appeal No.1035 of

2004 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in which he was

- 19 -

allowed to be impleaded. The prayer for regrant or occupancy

rights which was never made, was not granted to him. The

claim was rejected on the ground that it was time barred.

Kemparaju filed writ petition No.204 of 2017.

5.2 It would be relevant to notice the provisions of law

applicable. The land property in question is a 'reserved land'

under the Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and

Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950. Section 6(1) mandatorily

contemplates that anyone desires to transact with 'reserved

land', has to obtain previous approval of the Deputy

Commissioner for selling, alienating, mortgaging, assigning,

etc., the 'reserved land' or land in possession of the tenants in

any alienated village. The case of the appellant is that Mr.

Kaveri Reddy who had executed mortgage deed with

Doddaiah-vendor of Kemparaju in respect of 160 acres of land

was invalid in view of Section 6(1) above.

5.3 The provisions of the Inams Abolition Act known as the

Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act,

which would apply includes Section 3 in Chapter-II which deals

with vesting of Inam in the State as well as its consequences.

The relevant part of Section 3 is reproduced as under,

- 20 -

"3. Consequence of the vesting of an inam in the State.- (1) When the notification under sub-section (4) of Section 1 in respect of any inam has been published in the Karnataka Gazette, then notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting, and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the following consequences shall ensue, namely,-

(a)...

(b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar including those in all communal lands, uncultivated lands, whether assessed or not, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State of Karnataka, free from all encumbrances;

(c) the inamdar shall crease to have any interest in the inam other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act;

(d)    ...

(e)    ...

(f)   no such inam shall be liable to

attachment or sale in execution of any decree or other process of any Court and any attachment existing on the date of vesting or any order for attachment passed before such date in respect of such inam, shall, subject to the provisions of Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, cease to be in force;

(g) the Government may, after removing any obstruction that may be offered, forthwith take possession of the inam and all accounts, registers, pattas, mutchalikas, maps, plans and

- 21 -

other documents relating to the inam which the Government, may require for the administration thereof:

Provided that (h) to (k)...

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall operate as a bar to the recovery by the inamdar of any sum which becomes due to him before the date of vesting by virtue of his rights as inamdar and any such sum shall be recoverable by him by any process of law which but for this Act would be available to him."

5.3.1 Thus, as per Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, all rights, title

and interest in the Inamdar shall cease and vest absolutely in

the State Government as a consequence of publication of

Notification under Section 3(1). Furthermore, sub-clause (f) of

sub-Section (1) of Section 3 says that no such Inam land is

liable to be attached for sale in execution of any decree.

5.4 On the basis of the above provision, the contention of the

appellant is that the learned Single Judge committed a serious

error in overlooking the effect of vesting of lands, which took

place with issuance of Notification dated 01.02.1959 under the

Inams Abolition Act, whereby the property - land in question,

came to be notified as per Section 3(1). When the Notification

under Section 1(4) is issued, the land shall vest in the State

Government and Section 3 of the Act would operate.

- 22 -

5.4.1 It is the specific case and contention that since the land

in question was Jodi Inam land which stood notified under the

Inams Abolition Act on 01.02.1959, consequently vested in the

Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, since the

land stood absolutely vested under Section 3(b), Mr. Kaveri

Reddy ceased to have right, title and interest in the land from

the date of vesting, further that all derivative rights or

enforcement measure such as attachment of the property

obtained by the mortgagee-Doddaiah also stood automatically

extinguished under Section 3(f) as it was the right arising out of

Inamdar's extinguished interest. The order of attachment

dated 31.08.1953 was rendered void and became

unenforceable post- vesting. Subsequent Sale Certificate also

became without having any legal effect.

5.4.2 It was also submitted that Section 24(2) of the Act also

comes into picture, under which no claim for compensation was

made by Kemparaju. It was the only right available to a

mortgagee to claim compensation from the State Government

after vesting. A mortgagee or charge holder cannot assert any

claim over the claimant once it was vested in the State.

- 23 -

5.4.3 On the other hand, the contention of the other side is

that Section 3 contains the words 'save as otherwise expressly

provided in this Act'. Therefore, the Section will have to be

construed in that light, to be subject to other provisions of law.

According to respondent-original petitioner, the attachment was

in force and any private alienation after attachment could not

have been done, therefore, the share in favour of the appellant-

Mr. H. Kempaiah was void and he did not derive interest.

5.5 No doubt, the event of issuance of Notification dated

01.02.1959 whereby the land came to be notified under the

Inams Abolition Act, is an important aspect, however, in view of

the other outweighing aspect discussed and highlighted

hereinbelow, the court is of the view that going into the rival

contentions on merits of the above issue would be an

academic exercise.

5.6 The clinching aspect which would disentitle the original

petitioner- Kemparaju-his legal heirs for any relief either in

respect of challenge to the order of the Land Tribunal or his

claim for regrant is that no application was made on his part in

this regard. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the

order of the Land Tribunal, readily overlooked this material

- 24 -

aspect. The Tahsildar while passing order dated 11.12.1968

had rightly noted that there was no application by Mr.

Kemparaju for grant of occupancy rights under the Inams

Abolition Act, which was mandatory. After vesting of the

property in the State Government, post Notification dated

01.02.1959, if land was to be reclaimed or to be regranted, it

ought to have been upon application for the purpose in

accordance with Section 10 of the Act. The Tahsildar found

that neither the original holder nor the decree holder-Doddaiah,

and also not the purchaser-Kemparaju had any legal standing

in relation to the property in question. The Special Secretary in

his order dated 25.02.1972 also considered the issue to find

that the land had vested in the Government and the private

rights were extinguished, confirming the order of the Tahsildar.

5.7 Now we proceed to consider the provisions of the act on

this score. Section 10 of the Act is on the aspect of

determination of the claims under Sections 4 to 9 of the Act.

Pausing here, before looking at the provision of Section 10, the

aforesaid Sections 4 to 9 may be briefly referred to. Section 4

is about the Kadim tenants to be registered as occupants of

their holdings. Section 5 deals with the permanent tenants to

be registered as occupants on certain conditions. Section 6 is

- 25 -

about quasi-permanent tenants, whereas Section 7 is about the

land and buildings to vest in the holder of a minor Inam, to

which the Act is applicable. Section 8 is about the holders of

minor inams to which Act is not applicable. Section 9 says that

the land and building shall vest in Inamdar. Section 10 of the

Act deals with the issue of determination of claims under the

above said Section Nos.4 to 9, which are the different

categories.

5.7.1 Section 10 reads as under,

"10.(Determination of claims under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9-- (1) The Tribunal shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which a kadim tenant, a permanent tenant, a quasi-permanent tenant, the holder of a minor inam or an inamdar claims to be registered as occupant under Sections 4,5,6,7 and 9 or the holder of a minor inam claims to be registered as holder under Section 8, '[xxx] as the case may be, and decide in respect of which lands the claims should be allowed.

(2) A tenant found to be in possession of any land on the first day of July, 1948, shall be presumed to be a quasi-permanent tenant as defined in clause (14) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 unless the inamdar proves that such tenant is not a quasi - permanent tenant as defined in clause (14) of sub-section (1) of Section 2.

Provided that in the case of a tenant in minor inam such presumption shall be raised if such tenant is found to be in possession of any land on the 1st day of July, 1970.

- 26 -

(3) (a) No person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under Sections 4,5,6,7 and 9 unless the claimant makes an applications to the Tribunal. Every such application shall be made-

(i) in respect of lands in inams which have vested in the State before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1973 within six years from the date of commencement of the said Amendment Act; and

(ii) in respect of lands in inams which vest in the State on or after the commencement of the Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973 within [three years] from the date of vesting of the inam concerned or 31st December, 1979 whichever is later.

(b) where no application is made within the period specified in clause (a), the right of any person to be registered as an occupant shall stand extinguished and the land shall vest in the State absolutely, such land shall be disposed of in accordance with the rules relating to grant of lands.

(c) The provisions of Sections 48-A, 48-C and 112 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the relevant rules framed thereunder shall mutatis mutandis apply to an enquiry for determination of a claim under this Section 10 and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final."

5.7.2 Thus, Section 10(3)(a) says that a person shall not be

entitled to be registered as an occupant unless such person-

the claimant makes an application to the Tribunal as

contemplated under (i) or (ii) as above. The application was

required to be made in the present case within six years as per

- 27 -

Section 3(a)(i) from the date of commencement of the Act,

1973. The last date was therefore 31.12.1979.

5.8 There was no application made by the respondent-

original petitioner-Kemparaju. What application was made was

for impleadment only which was submitted on 18.10.2000. As

stated above, the prayer in that was only for impleadment. The

prayer for regrant was never put forth. The application for

regrant was not made at any time. A lame, faint and teethless

plea was then sought to be advanced that the papers were lost

in the fire. This was also raised for the first time only without

any basis, and it hardly inspired any credibility, either in fact or

in law. As stated above, even in the application made on

18.10.2000 for impleadment, it was nowhere stated therein that

he had made an application in the relevant form or format at

any time to be declared as an occupant.

5.8.1 The learned single Judge failed to account for this

decisive aspect that there was neither prayer nor was the

application for regrant by the original petitioner on record.

Therefore, allowing his claim for regrant and directing mutation

in revenue records was not only erroneous but tantamount to

irregular and illegal exercise of jurisdiction.

- 28 -

5.8.2 The factual position which emerges is that there was no

application by the original petitioner-Kemparaju. Much less

before 31.12.1979. The application was only for impleadment

in the proceedings. When it was an admitted fact that

Kemparaju did not file application under Section 9 of the

Mysore Inams Abolition Act, 1954 for the grant of occupancy

rights in respect of the land in question, and the record clearly

reveals that only application filed by Kemparaju was on

01.10.2000 seeking mere impleadment in the proceedings of

INA.CR.01/1997-98 which was originally filed by the appellant-

Kempaiah, there was no question of any entitlement for

Kemparaju for regrant.

5.9 The division bench of this Court in S.M. Kannappa

Automobiles vs. Koladamatt Mahasamstana

(MANU/KA/2671/ 2020), more particularly in paragraph 96 and

103 held that filing of application under the provisions of the

Inams Abolition Act is a sine quo non for claiming right or

privilege there under. It was held that upon vesting of inam

under the State Government, the rights of Inamdars would

survive provided proper application is made and adjudicated.

- 29 -

Unless application is filed within the said period, right to be

registered as an occupant would stand extinguished.

6. In the present case, the last date of make application

was 31.12.1979 in terms of Section 10 of the Act as stated

above. It is to be re-stated and re-asserted that there was no

application with a prayer for regrant. Seeking impleadment in

the proceedings without any relief prayed for does not entitle

any party to relief automatically. There has to be an application

and the prayer. There exists a difference in law seeking to

implead and seeking to a claim with prayer for relief. When

there is no prayer, no application and no claim made in the

instant case, any further case for Kemparaju would not accrue,

survive or much less that any prayer for regrant relief could be

enforced.

6.1 For all the aforesaid reasons and discussion and for the

grounds elaborated in paragraphs 5.5 to 6 preceding, the

judgment and order of learned Single Judge in allowing writ

petition No.27409 of 2017 has to be set aside. The prayers in

the petition made by the petitioner could not have been granted

in facts or in law. The present appeal deserves to be allowed.

- 30 -

7. Resultantly, the judgment and order of learned single

Judge dated 27.09.2024 in writ petition No.27409 of 2017, is

set aside. The appeal stands allowed.

Sd/-

(N.V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

(K.V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

AHB