1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER 2013

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR

AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO

WRIT APPEAL NO.2421/2005(LR)

C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.10141/2008(LR-Res)

In W.A. No.2421/2005

BETWEEN :

1. M.R.Jayaram,
Aged 59 years,
S/o.Late Sri.M.S.Ramaiah,

2. M.R.Sampangiram,
Aged 54 years,
S/o.Late Sri.M.S.Ramaiah,

3. M.R.Prabhavathi,
Aged 50 years,
S/o.Late Sri.M.S.Ramaiah,

4. M.R.Seetharam,
Aged 47 years,
S/o.Late Sri.M.S.Ramaiah,

5. M.R.Kodandaram,
Aged 41 years,
S/o.Late Sri.M.S.Ramaiah,

6. M.R.Anandaram,
Aged 35 years,
 2

S/o.Late Sri.M.S.Ramaiah,

7. Gokula Education Foundation,

Gokula Extension,
Bangalore – 560 052,
Rep. by its Chairman
Sri.M.R.Jayaram.

Appellants 1 to 6 are
Residing at Gokula House,
Gokula Extension,
Bangalore – 560 054. ...APPELLANTS

(By Sri.A.G.Holla, Sr. Adv. for

Sri.K.Shashi kiran Shetty and
Smt.Farah Fathima, Advs. for
M/s. Shetty & Hegde Associates)

AND :

1. Hanumantha Devaru,
Represented by the
Tahsildar and
Muzarai Officer,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore.

2. Venkatalakshmamma,
Adult, W/o.Late Ananthaiah,

3. A.Satyanarayana,
Adult, S/o.Late Ananthaiah,

4. Mr.Kodandarama,
Adult, S/o.Late Ananthaiah,

5. M.A.Narasimhamurthy,
Adult, S/o.Late Ananthaiah,

6. A.Sreenivasa
 3

Adult, S/o.Late Ananthaiah,

Respondents 2 to 6 are
Residing at Mathikere Village,
Yeswanhapura Hobli,
Bangalore District.

7. The Land Tribunal,

Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore.

8. State of Karnataka,
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Buildings,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore – 1,
Represented by its
Secretary. …RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.D.Vijaykumar, AGA for R1, 7 & 8,

Sri.L.M.Chidanandayya, Adv. for R2 to 6)
. . . .
This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set-aside the order
passed in the writ petition No.39293/1992 dated
10.12.2004.

In W.P. No.10141/2008

BETWEEN :

1. Smt.Venkatalakshmamma,
Aged about 74 years,
W/o.Late Ananthaiah,

2. Sri.A.Sathyanarayana,
Aged about 49 years,
S/o.Late Ananthaiah,

3. Sri.Kodandarama,
 4

Aged about 46 years,

S/o.Late Ananthaiah,

4. Sri.M.A.Narasimhamurthy,
Aged about 40 years,
S/o.late Ananthaiah,

5. Sri.A.Srinivasa,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o.Late Ananthaiah,

1 to 5 are residents of Mathikere,

Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Bangalore.

6. Smt.Indiramma,
Aged about 53 years,
W/o.Late A.Devaprasanna,
Daughter-in-law of
Late Ananthaiah,
R/o.Railway Gollahalli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.

7. Sri.M.A.Jayaram,
Aged about 56 years,
S/o.late Ananthaiah,
Resident of Mathikere,
Yeshwanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore.
...PETITIONERS
(By Sri.L.M.Chidanandayya, Adv.)

AND :

1. Hanumantha Devaru,
Represented by the
Tahsildar and
Muzarai Officer,
 5

Bangalore North Taluk,

Bangalore.

2. The Special Deputy Commissioner

For Abolition of Inams,
Bangalore District, Bangalore.
3. The Land Tribunal,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore.

4. Late M.S.Ramaiah,
Since deceased by his L.Rs.,

(a) M.R.Jayaram,
S/o.late M.S.Ramaiah,
Aged about 63 years,

(b) Sri.M.R.Sampangiram,
Aged about 58 years,
S/o.Late M.S.Ramaiah,

(c) Smt.M.R.Prabhavathi,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o.Late M.S.Ramaiah,

(d) Sri.M.R.Seetharam,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o.Late M.S.Ramaiah,

(e) Sri.M.R.Kopdandaram,
Aged about 45 years,
S/o.Late M.S.Ramaiah,

(f) Sri.M.R.Anandaram,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o.Late M.S.Ramaiah

5. Gokul Education Foundation,

Gokula Extension,
Bangalore – 560 052,
 6

Represented by its
Chairman
Sri.M.R.Jayaram. …RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.D.Vijaykumar, AGA for R1 to R3,

Sri.A.G.Holla, Sr.Adv. for
Sri.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty &
Smt.Farah Fathima, Advs. for
M/s.Shetty & Hegde Associates, Advs.
For C/R4(a-f) & 5)
. . . .

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the
order at Annexure `A’ dated 10.06.2008 passed by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.264/2002 and
allow Appeal No.264/2002 by setting-aside the order
Annexure `B’ dated 12.04.1977 passed by the R2 and
consequently, set-aside the order dated 12.04.1977 at
Annexure `B’ challenged before the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal in Appeal No.264/2002.

This writ appeal along with writ petition coming on

for preliminary hearing, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered
the following:

JUDGMENT

This writ appeal as well as the writ petition is

taken up for consideration together as the subject

matter of both the proceedings is one and the same

and the parties are also the same.

 7

2. The subject matter of these proceedings is

land bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 4 acres 39 guntas

situated at Mathikere village. It is an Inam land

endowed to Hanumantha Devaru Temple. One

Ananthaiah was the Archak of the Temple performing

religious duties. Sri.M.S.Ramaiah obtained the said

land on lease under an agreement (Guttige kararu)

dated 20.02.1962 from the said Archak Ananthaiah

and was cultivating the same personally. Karnataka

State Legislature enacted the Mysore (Religious and

Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (Mysore Act

18/1955 for short hereinafter referred to as the Act)

for abolition of Religious and Charitable Inams.

Section 2, 34 and 36 of the said Act came into force at

once i.e., on 1st day of September, 1955 which was

duly published in the official gazette. In exercise of

the powers conferred under Sub-Section (4) of Section

1 of the Act, which is in force in the Mysore area, the

Government of Mysore appointed 1st day of July, 1970

 8

as the date on which the rest of the Act other than

Sections 2, 34 and 36 shall come into force in Minor

Inams in unalienated areas in the State. By virtue of

the said notification, the aforesaid land vested with

the Government. The consequence of such vesting is

set out in Section 3 of the Act. However, immediately

when the said Act came into force, Archak

Ananthaiah, on 21.08.1958 filed an application to the

Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore

requesting for making the katha in respect of the

aforesaid land as well as the land bearing Sy.Nos. 30

and 105 belonging to Gopalaswamy Devaru and also

Sy.No.88 in respect of Hanumantha Devaru Temple

on 29.11.1958. Subsequently, acting on the said

application, the land bearing Sy.Nos. 7 and 88 of

Hanumantha Devaru Temple and Sy.Nos. 30 and 105

of Gopalaswamy Devaru Temple were granted to

Archak Ananthaiah and the said lands were

registered under his name under Section 8 of the

 9

Inams Abolition Act and the Archak was permitted to

enjoy these lands so long as he remains the Archak of

the Temple. However, the Special Deputy

Commissioner passed an order on 29.11.1958 to the

effect that as these are Devadaya Inam lands, the

Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition

Act, 1954 does not apply. Therefore, he directed

maintenance of status-quo. However, in respect of

the said order, it appears that an endorsement was

issued by the office of the Special Deputy

Commissioner, Bangalore registering Archak Ananthaiah

as an occupant and Khathedar of the aforesaid lands as

per Section 10 of the said Act accepting him as a tenant

of the aforesaid lands. Ananthaiah, during his

lifetime effected a partition of all the properties

belonging to his family under a registered settlement

deed dated 14.05.1959 distributing the said

properties to his wife and children. Subsequently, on

03.09.1971 he died. Subsequently, by Act

 10

No.27/1973, which came into effect from 27.12.1973,

Section 6-A was inserted conferring right of

poojary/Archak etc. to be registered as occupant on

certain conditions. Thereafter, Sri. M.S.Ramaiah filed

an application on 24.12.1974 claiming occupancy

rights of land bearing Sy No.7 of Mathikere village. In

the said proceedings, he showed Hanumantha Devaru

Temple represented by Tahsildar and Muzarai Officer,

Bangalore North Taluk as the respondents. As by

that time Archak Ananthaiah had died, his L.Rs. were

not made parties. The Deputy Commissioner for

Inams Abolition Act in case No.AI/MI-207/76-77

passed an order registering M.S.Ramaiah as an

occupant of the said land under Section 6 of the Act

subject to the payment of premium to Government in

a sum of Rs.900/- only, payable in not more than 10

annual installments for the ownership of the above

lands under Section 27 of the Amendment Act of

1973. Subsequently, in the year 1992 on the basis of

 11

the said order, mutation entries were made in the

name of Sri.M.S.Ramaiah. Thereafter, the Bangalore

Development Authority issued a notification dated 3rd

January 1977 for the formation of Gokul II Stage, Raj

Mahal Vilas II State Layout under Sub-Section (1) and

(2) of Section 17 of the BDA Act, 1976. The aforesaid

land was also notified for acquisition at Sl.No.8,

where it is mentioned as Hanumantha Devaru Inam.

Sri.M.S.Ramaiah preferred a writ petition challenging

the said notification in W.P. No.4691/1991. During

the pendency of the writ petition, there appears to be

some negotiations wherein the BDA assured him that if

the writ petition is withdrawn, they would denotify the

land. At this juncture, it is necessary to notice that it

is not the only land, which was notified for

acquisition. Totally, an extent of roughly about 40

acres belonging to M.S.Ramaiah in several Survey

numbers were notified for acquisition. Therefore, the

writ petition was withdrawn. Subsequently, the

 12

notification was also withdrawn and notification

denotifying the lands were issued. Even to these

proceedings, the legal heirs of Ananthaiah were not

made parties.

3. In the meanwhile, V.Kodandarama, S/o.

Ananthaiah filed an application on 12.05.1983

claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land

bearing Sy.No.7 as well as Sy.No.88 claiming

occupancy rights under his father before the Land

Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk, which was

registered as case No. LRF/INA 13(B)/83-84. The

Tribunal after examining the wife and children of

Ananthaiah treated the application filed by

Kodandarama as one filed on behalf of the family of

Ananthaiah and granted occupancy rights to all of

them in a part of Sy.No.88 and 4 acres 39 guntas in

Sy. No.7 by its order dated 3rd March 1989.

 13

4. On coming to know of the said order,

Sri.M.S.Ramaiah, and Gokul Education Foundation

preferred a writ petition before this Court in

W.P.No.39293/1992 challenging the order of the

Tribunal. The learned Single Judge of this Court by

his order dated 26th November 2001 held that in view

of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the

Land Tribunal constituted under the Karnataka Land

Reforms Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the said

application. Therefore, he quashed the impugned

order with a direction to the Land Tribunal to transfer

the application, if any, to the concerned Deputy

Commissioner for appropriate adjudication.

Aggrieved by the said order the legal heirs of

Ananthaiah preferred a Writ Appeal No.1965/2002.

The writ appeal was allowed. It was held that in view

of the full Bench decision in the case of Ramaiah

V/s. State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR

2003 KAR 1385, the order of the Land Tribunal

 14

cannot be set aside, on the ground of defacto

jurisdiction. Therefore, they set aside the order of the

learned Single Judge and remanded the matter to the

learned Single Judge to decide the matter on merits of

the case. After such remand, the learned Single

Judge accepting the argument of the children of

Sri.M.S.Ramaiah that they have not been heard in the

matter set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and

remanded the matter back to the Special Deputy

Commissioner for Inams Abolition Act, Bangalore for

adjudication afresh in accordance with law. This

order came to be passed on 10th December 2004.

5. The L.Rs. of Ananthaiah filed an application

I.A.No.1/2006 bringing to the notice of the Court the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sri.M.B.

Ramachandran V/s. Gowramma and others

reported in 2005(10) SCC 25 wherein it is held that

the Land Tribunal has got jurisdiction to grant or to

 15

reject the occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition

Act. Following the said judgment, the learned Single

Judge modified the order remanding the matter to the

Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk for

adjudication afresh on merits. Against these two

orders, the children of M.S.Ramaiah, have preferred

writ appeal No.2421/2005.

6. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the

order granting occupancy rights in favour of Sri

M.S.Ramaiah was passed in a proceeding, to which

the legal heirs of Archak Ananthaiah was not a party.

Therefore, they were not aware of the said order.

Though the order granting occupancy rights was

passed on 12.04.1977, immediately thereafter the

name of Sri M.S.Ramaiah, was not mutated in the

revenue records. His name came to be mutated only

in the year 1992. Therefore, the legal heirs of Archak

Ananthaiah had no knowledge of the said order even

 16

subsequent to the passing of the order. Not knowing

the passing of the said order, they had filed an

application on 12.05.1983 claiming occupancy rights

in respect of the very same land granted in favour of

Sri M.S.Ramaiah. By an order dated 03.03.1989 the

occupancy rights were also granted in their favour. It

is only when that order was challenged by the

children of Sri M.S.Ramaiah, they came to know

about the passing of the order in favour of Sri

M.S.Ramaiah. They were contesting the matter. It is

only when the writ petition was allowed on

26.11.2001, they realized the need to challenge the

order passed in favour of Sri M.S.Ramaiah.

Therefore, they preferred an appeal under Section 29

of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams

Abolition Act, challenging the order dated 12.04.1977

in Appeal No.264/2002. As there was a delay, they

also filed an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act to condone the delay. The said

 17

application was contested. The Tribunal held as there

is a delay of nearly 25 years and 11 days in preferring

the appeal and the cause shown did not constitute

sufficient cause, it dismissed the application for

condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal also

came to be dismissed by an order dated 10.06.2008.

It is thereafter the legal heirs of Archak Ananthaiah

preferred the writ petition challenging both the order

of the Tribunal as well as the order passed by the

Special Deputy Commissioner, for Inams Abolition.

The learned Single Judge before whom this writ

petition was pending on coming to know about the

pendency of the connected appeal passed an order

directing the office to place this writ petition before

the Division Bench to be heard along with the writ

appeal. That is how both the appeal as well as the

writ petition are before us.

 18

7. Sri A.G.Holla, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellants in the writ appeal

contended that the learned Single Judge was not

justified in remanding the matter to the Tribunal for

fresh consideration. According to him, under the Act

no right is conferred on the Archak of a Temple to

claim occupancy rights. Therefore, the application

filed claiming occupancy rights as Archak cannot be

entertained by the Tribunal. Secondly, he contended

on the day when the amendment Act came into force

conferring right on the archak or the pujari of a

Temple for occupancy rights, Archak Ananthaiah was

dead. Under Section 6-A of the Act, a pujari or

archak of a Temple to be eligible for occupancy rights,

he must be rendering religious service on the day the

amendment came into force. The said right is not

conferred on his legal representatives and therefore,

Section 6-A of the Act has no application to the facts

of this case. Therefore, the learned Single Judge after

 19

setting aside the impugned order passed by the

Tribunal ought to have dismissed the application, if

any, filed for grant of occupancy rights by the Archak

of the Temple under Section 6-A of the Act. He

further contended that the claim made by one of the

sons of the Archak is not under Section 6-A of the

Act, but under Section 5 of the Act as a permanent

tenant. In fact, in the evidence deposed by him before

the Tribunal, he has not deposed that he was

cultivating Sy.No.7. Therefore, the question of

considering his request would not arise. As such the

order of remand is bad. He also submitted Ananthaiah

had made an application for grant of occupancy rights on

21.08.1958 under the Inams Abolition Act. The

Deputy Commissioner after noticing that the said Act

is not applicable had directed maintenance of status-

quo. That order has attained finality. Therefore, the

question of considering the right of Ananthaiah or his

children would not arise. Insofar as the grant of

 20

occupancy rights in favour of Sri M.S.Ramaiah is

concerned, he submitted that the written karar was

entered into between Archak Ananthaiah and

M.S.Ramaiah as far back as on 20.12.1962 and

therefore after vesting of the land, he filed an

application on 24.12.1974 and after enquiry looking

into the oral and documentary evidence on record

order granting the occupancy rights was passed on

12.04.1977. Subsequent to the said order, mutation

entries are made in the name of M.S.Ramaiah. The

said land along with his other lands were notified for

acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority.

M.S.Ramaiah filed a writ petition challenging the

acquisition, whereas the legal heirs of Ananthaiah did

not move their little finger. Thereafter the writ

petition was withdrawn and acquisition proceedings

were withdrawn by way of de-notification. Thereafter

the land is developed by spending huge amounts of

money. It is only after 25 years after passing of the

 21

order an appeal is filed before the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal under Section 29 of the Act, which

does not provide for any such appeal at all.

Therefore, the appeal itself was not maintainable.

Now that the said appeal is dismissed on the ground

of delay in preferring the appeal not being condoned, it

is settled law that this Court in its jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with

the orders passed about 30 years back. The writ

petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of

delay and laches. Therefore, he submits the order of

the learned Single Judge remanding the matter is to be

set aside, by dismissing the application for grant of

occupancy rights and the writ petition filed

challenging the order for grant in favour of

M.S.Ramaiah is to be dismissed on the ground of

delay and laches.

8. Per contra, Sri L.M.Chidanandayya, learned

Counsel appearing for the legal heirs of Archak

 22

Ananthaiah contends that, as is clear from the

specific case pleaded by M.S.Ramaiah, he is a tenant

under the Archak Ananthaiah. He is not a tenant

under the inamdar Hanumantha Devaru. Therefore,

he could not have maintained an application for grant

of occupancy rights under the Act itself.

9. Secondly, in the writ petition he has

categorically stated he is the owner of an area of 77

acres ½ gunta of lands situated in Sy.No.6/1, 6/2, 7

to 13/1, 13/2, 16, 20, 21 and 44 of

Chikkamaranahalli Village, Sy.Nos.7 to 11 of

Mathikere Village and Sy.Nos.27, 29/1 and 29/2 of

Dyvasandra Village of Bangalore North Taluk. The

lands originally belonged to the first petitioner and

other members of his family. Therefore, he contends

that in the order granting occupancy rights, it is

made clear that the grant is subject to the provisions

of Section 27-A of the Act.

 23

10. Section 27-A of the Act prescribes the extent

of land which a person may be registered as an

occupant. It provides that the extent of land in

respect of which a person referred to in section 6 or

section 6-A shall be entitled to be registered as an

occupant shall not together with any land held by him

exceed such extent as may be prescribed. Rule 14-A

of the Act provides that the extent of land for the

purpose of Section 27-A shall not exceed two hectares

of garden land or wet land possessing facilities or four

hectares of dry land or rain-fed wet land. Therefore,

he submits that in view of the conditional grant as

M.S.Ramaiah was holding nearly 77 acres of land, he

was not entitled to grant of the land at all. When his

specific case was that he was a tenant under Archak

Ananthaiah in the application filed by him, he has not

made him a party. As on the date of the application

Archak Ananthaiah was dead. His legal heirs were

 24

not parties. Even the Tribunal which has passed an

order knowing fully well that the tenancy was claimed

under Archak Ananthaiah did not choose it proper to

issue notice to the legal heirs of Archak Ananthaih

and therefore, the said order passed by the Tribunal

is not only violative of principles of natural justice,

but is contrary to Section 27-A of the Act. The said

order is obtained by suppressing the true facts and

without impleading proper persons and therefore the

said order is void abinitio.

11. As the said order was not within their

knowledge, they did not challenge the same. Once it

was brought to their notice in the year 2001, in 2002

immediately steps were taken to prefer appeal. As on

that day there was a delay of 25 years. An

application for condoning the delay was also filed.

The said application came to be dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal came to be dismissed. That

 25

is how the matter is before this Court. Even if the

appeal is not maintainable, in the facts of this case,

neither delay nor lapse could be attributed to the legal

heirs of Archak Ananthaiah, as prior to the grant of

land in favour of Ramaiah they were agitating their

rights and even subsequent to the grant also, they

were agitating rights in parallel proceedings.

Therefore, it is not a case of the parties not being

diligent in prosecuting the matter nor lethargic in

enforcing their right. Therefore, the judgments relied

on, have no application and the order passed in

favour of M.S.Ramaiah is liable to be set aside.

Moreover, it is settled law that before an authority, if

there are rival claimants those applications have to be

clubbed together and a common order is to be passed.

Even in cases where an order is passed on an

application filed by one of the parties and after

passing of the order if a second application is filed,

the law requires that the first order is to be recalled,

 26

both the applications have to be clubbed and a

decision is to be rendered on merits in the presence of

both the parties. The said procedure is not followed

by the Tribunal and therefore, he submits that the

learned Single Judge was right in remanding the

matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and the

order passed in favour of M.S.Ramaiah is liable to be

set aside and that this matter also has to be

remanded to the Tribunal to be decided along with

the application filed by the legal heirs of Archak

Ananthaiah.

12. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival

contentions, the points that arise for our

consideration are as under:

1) Whether the order dated 12.04.1977 passed in

Case No.A1 M1 207/76-77 by the Special
Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams,
Bangalore, granting occupancy rights in favour
of M.S.Ramaiah requires to be set aside?
 27

2) Whether the order passed by the learned Single

Judge setting aside the order of the Tribunal
granting occupancy rights in favour of the legal
heirs of Archak Ananthaiah and remanding the
matter back to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration calls for any interference?

3) Which is the forum which is competent to

decide the claim for occupancy rights under the
provisions of the Act?

Re-Point No.1

13. From the facts set out above, it is not in

dispute that the land in question Sy.No.7 measuring

4 acres 39 guntas situated at Mathikere Village,

Bangalore North Taluk, is a Devadaya Inam land

endowed to Hanumantha Devaru Temple. The Archak

of the Temple is one Ananthaiah.

14. In the impugned order, it is clearly mentioned

that M.S.Ramaiah has deposed that he obtained these

lands from Archak 15 to 16 years back on gutta

basis. Since then he has been in possession of these

 28

lands and paying the gutta to Archak in lieu of his

services rendered to the said Temple as Archak. He

has been cultivating the land personally and growing

ragi. In support of his claim, he has produced certified

pahani extracts from Village Accountant from 1966-67

to 1976-77 which is marked as Ex.P1, certified index of

land extract from Village Accountant as per Ex.P2,

certified record of rights register extract from Village

Accountant as per Ex.P3, certified quit rent register

extract as per Ex.P4, guthige karar from the Archak as

per Ex.P5 and guthige paid receipts as per Ex.P6

series. The Deputy Commissioner proceeds on the

basis that there are no other claim applications.

There are no counter claims for this land. This land

is a Devadaya inam land. Anthappa was the Archak

and the petitioner obtained these lands from the

Archak on gutta cultivating these lands personally

and growing ragi crops. Therefore, there is no

ambiguity either in the claim of M.S.Ramaiah or in

 29

the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. His

claim was for grant of occupancy rights under Section

6 of the Act.

15. Section 6 of the Act deals with other tenants to

be tenants under the Government. Every tenant of

the inamdar other than a kadim tenant or a

permanent tenant shall, with effect on and from the

date of vesting, and subject to the provisions of

Chapter IV, be entitled to be continued as a tenant

under the Government in respect of land of which he

was a tenant under the Inamdar immediately before

the date of vesting.

16. Therefore, to be eligible for grant of occupancy

rights under Section 6, the condition precedent is

that the claimant should be a tenant of the inamdar.

A tenant of the Archak is not entitled to grant of

occupancy rights under the said provision. It is not a

case of M.S.Ramaiah that he was a tenant of the

 30

inamdar i.e., Hanumantha Devaru Temple. It is his

specific case that he took this land on lease under a

guthige karar from the Archak of the Temple. This

aspect has been completely missed by the Deputy

Commissioner while passing the impugned order.

17. Secondly, Section 27-A of the Act deals with

the extent of land which a person may be registered

as an occupant which reads as under:

27-A. Extent of land which a person may be

registered as an occupant: The extent of land
in respect of which a person referred to in
section 6 or section 6-A shall be entitled to be
registered as an occupant shall not together
with any land held by him exceed such extent as
may be prescribed.

18. Therefore, it is clear that the land held by such

claimant and the land to be granted under Section 6

both put together should not exceed the extent that

may be prescribed.
 31

19. The Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams

Abolition Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Rules’ for short) prescribes the extent of land to which

a person may be registered. Section 14-A deals with

the extent of land in respect of which a person may be

registered as an occupant. It reads as under:

14-A. Extent of land in respect of which a

person may be registered as an
occupant: (1) The extent of land for the
purpose of Section 27-A shall not exceed two
hectares of garden land or wet land
possessions facilities for assured irrigation or
four hectares of dry land or rain-fed wet land.

(2) If a person owns more than one class of

land, the extent owned by him, for the
purpose of this rule shall be determined by
converting the extent of different classes of
land according to the following formula,
namely.
 32

One hectare of garden land or one hectare

of wet land possessing facilities for assured
irrigation-two hectares of rain-fed wet land or
dry land.

20. Therefore, the total extent of the land which

the applicant is entitled to hold including the land

granted in his favour should not exceed 2 hectares if

it is a garden land or wet land and 4 hectares if it is a

dry land. So the land owned by the person and the

land claimed by the person together should not

exceed four hectares of land before granting the land.

The Deputy Commissioner should have made an

enquiry and then found out whether the applicant is

eligible for the grant. If the applicant was owning

more than 4 hectares of land, notwithstanding the

fact that he establishes the tenancy he has no

jurisdiction to grant the said land. As set out earlier

M.S.Ramaiah owned about 77 acres of land. Even if

we take the entire extent of land as a dry land, it

 33

exceeds four hectares and therefore, the disputed

land could not have been granted in his favour.

Unfortunately, the Deputy Commissioner being fully

aware of these mandatory provisions abdicates his

responsibility of deciding the said issue before

granting, but grants the land subject to the said

Section which is patently illegal. It is like putting the

cart before the horse. In that view of the matter, the

said order is one without jurisdiction because if the

applicant owns more than four hectares of land, the

Special Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to

grant land under the Act either under Section 6 or

under Section 6-A. At the same time, when the claim

is made under the Archak Ananthaiah, he should

have been made a party. If he was dead, his children

should have been made a party. If the applicant does

not make them parties, to adjudicate the claim in a

satisfactory manner, the Deputy Commissioner ought

to have issued notice to them. More strangely, the

 34

Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, who is made a

party remains absent. Therefore, virtually it is an

exparte order contrary to law obtained behind the

back of the wife and children of the Archak

Ananthaiah.

21. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of

BASAPPA GURUSANGAPPA vs LAND TRIBUNAL,

BADAMI AND OTHERS reported in Kar.L.J. 1979(2)

370, dealing with the question where rival claims are

made in respect of a property, what is the procedure

to be followed by the adjudicating authorities, has

held at para 11 as under :-

“11.When rival applications are made

before the Tribunal for grant of occupancy
right in respect of the same land, it is, in our
opinion, the duty of the Tribunal to consider
together those rival applications and decide
them by a common order. Otherwise, there
cannot be a proper adjudication of the rival
claims. Even if one of the rival applicants
had filed his application earlier and the
 35

Tribunal had granted him occupancy right in

respect of that land and subsequently
another applicant makes an application
within the time limit provided by Sec.48A in
respect of the same land, the Tribunal cannot
decline to consider the subsequent
application on the ground that it has already
granted occupancy right in respect of that
land to the earlier applicant. The Tribunal is
bound to consider every application filed
within the time limit provided by the Act and
it is no answer to such application to say
that that land in not available for grant of
occupancy right therein. The only way in
which the Tribunal can be enabled to
consider the later application, is to set aside
its earlier order and to direct it (the Tribunal)
to consider together both the rival
applications and to decide thereon. It may
look startling that an order of the Tribunal
which was valid when it was made and did
not suffer from any infirmity, should be set
aside, merely because another person makes
a rival application in respect of the same
land after the Tribunal has granted
 36

occupancy right in respect of that land to the

earlier applicant. But there is no other way
in which the Tribunal can discharge its
obligations to consider all applications filed
in time.”

22. Therefore, it is clear that, though there are

two applications, one by the Archak claiming

occupancy rights under Section 6A of the Act and yet

another application by the tenant claiming occupancy

rights under Section 6 of the Act, as the claim

pertains to the very same land and when both the

applications are within the time prescribed under law,

a duty is cast on the Special Deputy Commissioner

for Inams Abolition to consider together both the

applications and decide them by a common order. As

the said procedure is not adopted, the order passed

by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams in

favour of the deceased Ramaiah is liable to be set

aside on that ground also.

 37

23. In so far as the delay and latches in

challenging the order passed in favour of deceased

Ramaiah is concerned, though this order was passed

in the year 1977, the records disclose that mutation

entries in respect of this land was ordered only in the

year 1992 i.e., on 16.03.1992. Therefore, if the name

of M.S.Ramaiah was not mutated till 1992, there is no

chance for the legal heirs of Archak Ananthaiah to

know about this order. But the material on record

shows that they in turn filed an application on

12.05.1983 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the

very same land. The occupancy right was granted on

03.03.1989. On coming to know of the said order, the

children of Sri M.S.Ramaiah preferred a writ petition

in W.P.No.39293/1992 challenging the said order.

The order was set aside by an order dated 26.11.2001

by the learned Single Judge. It is thereafter the legal

heirs of Archak Ananthaiah preferred an appeal

before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in 2002

 38

without any further loss of time. The Tribunal took

nearly six years to decide the application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act and ultimately the said

application came to be dismissed on 10.06.2008.

That delay cannot be attributed to the legal heirs of

Archak Ananthaiah. That order is challenged in the

writ petition. Therefore, in the facts of this case, we

do not find any delay or laches in approaching the

Court challenging the said order.

24. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied

on a number of judgments of the Apex Court on the

question of delay and laches.

25. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in

the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal

Bhai reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006, considered the

effect of delay in filing writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution and held as under:

 39

“17.…It has been made clear more than once that

the power to give relief under Article 226 is a
discretionary power. This is specially true in the
case of power to issue writs in the nature of
mandamus. Among the several matters which the
High Courts rightly take into consideration in the
exercise of that discretion is the delay made by
the aggrieved party in seeking this special
remedy and what excuse there is for it…It is not
easy nor is it desirable to lay down any Rule for
universal application. It may however be stated
as a general Rule that if there has been
unreasonable delay the court ought not ordinarily
to lend its aid to a party by this extraordinary
remedy of mandamus.

21…The learned counsel is right in his

submission that the provisions of the Limitation
Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief
under Article 226. It appears to us however that
the maximum period fixed by the legislature as
the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil
court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to
be a reasonable standard by which delay in
seeking remedy under Article 226 can be
 40

measured. This Court may consider the delay

unreasonable even if it is less than the period of
limitation prescribed for a civil action for the
remedy but where the delay is more than this
period, it will almost always be proper for the
court to hold that it is unreasonable.”

26. The Apex Court in the case of Ajodhya Bhagat

v. State of Bihar reported in (1974) 2 SCC 501,

approved dismissal by the High Court of the writ

petition filed by the appellant for quashing the

acquisition of his land and observed as under:

“23…The High Court held that the

appellants were guilty of delay and laches. The
High Court relied on two important facts. First,
that there was delivery of possession. The
appellants alleged that it was a paper
transaction. The High Court rightly rejected that
contention. Secondly, the High Court said that the
Trust invested several lakhs of rupees for the
construction of roads and material for
development purposes. The appellants were in
full knowledge of the same. The appellants did
 41

not take any steps. The High Court rightly said

that to allow this type of challenge to an
acquisition of large block of land piecemeal by the
owners of some of the plots in succession would
not be proper. If this type of challenge is
encouraged the various owners of small plots will
come up with writ petitions and hold up the
acquisition proceedings for more than a
generation. The High Court rightly exercised
discretion against the appellants. We do not see
any reason to take a contrary view to the
discretion exercised by the High Court.”
(emphasis supplied)

27. The Apex Court in the case of State of

Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi reported in (1996) 6 SCC

445, referred to Administrative Law by H.W.R. Wade

(7th Edn.) observed as under:

“10. The order or action, if ultra vires the

power, becomes void and it does not confer any
right. But the action need not necessarily be set
at naught in all events. Though the order may be
void, if the party does not approach the Court
 42

within reasonable time, which is always a

question of fact and have the order invalidated or
acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the Court
has to be exercised in a reasonable manner.
When the discretion has been conferred on the
Court, the Court may in appropriate case decline
to grant the relief, even if it holds that the order
was void. The net result is that extraordinary
jurisdiction of the Court may not be exercised in
such circumstances.”

28. In the case of Girdharan Prasad Missir v.

State of Bihar reported in (1980) 2 SCC 83, the

delay of 17 months was considered as a good ground

for declining relief to the petitioner. In Municipal

Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial

Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd. reported in

(1996) 11 SCC 501, this Court held as under:

“9…..It is thus, well-settled law that when

there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition
and when all steps taken in the acquisition
proceedings have become final, the Court should
 43

be loath to quash the notifications. The High

Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the
notification under Section 4(1) and declaration
under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking
all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration.
When the award was passed and possession
was taken, the Court should not have exercised
its power to quash the award which is a material
factor to be taken into consideration before
exercising the power under Article 226. The fact
that no third-party rights were created in the
case, is hardly a ground for interference. The
Division Bench of the High Court was not right in
interfering with the discretion exercised by the
learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition
on the ground of laches.”

29. The Apex Court in the case of Urban

Improvement Trust, v. Bheru Lal reported in (2002)

7 SCC 712 reversed the order of the Rajasthan High

Court and held that the writ petition filed for

quashing of acquisition of land for a residential

scheme framed by the appellant Urban Improvement

 44

Trust was liable to be dismissed on the ground that

the same was filed after two years.

30. The Apex Court in the case of Ganpatibai v.

State of M.P. reported in (2006) 7 SCC 508,

considered the unreasonable delay of 5 years and

confirmed the order passed by the High Court

refusing to entertain the writ petition. In that case

also the petitioner had initially filed the suit

challenging the acquisition of land. The suit was

dismissed in 2001. Thereafter, the writ petition was

filed. This Court referred to an earlier judgment in

State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar (1995) 4 SCC

229 and observed as under:

“9. In State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar

(1995) 4 SCC 229, this Court had observed that
civil suit was not maintainable and the remedy to
question notification under Section 4 and the
declaration under Section 6 of the Act was by
filing a writ petition. Even thereafter the
appellant, as noted above, pursued the suit in the
 45

civil court. The stand that five years after the

filing of the suit, the decision was rendered does
not in any way help the appellant. Even after the
decision of this Court, the appellant continued to
prosecute the suit till 2001, when the decision of
this Court in 1995 had held that suit was not
maintainable.”

31. The Apex Court in the case of Sawaran Lata

v. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 4 SCC 532,

upheld the dismissal of writ petition filed after seven

years of the publication of declaration and five years

after the award passed by the Collector and it was

observed as under:

“11. In the instant case, it is not the case of

the petitioners that they had not been aware of
the acquisition proceedings as the only ground
taken in the writ petition has been that substance
of the notification under Section 4 and declaration
under Section 6 of the 1894 Act had been
published in the newspapers having no wide
circulation. Even if the submission made by the
petitioners is accepted, it cannot be presumed
 46

that they could not be aware of the acquisition

proceedings for the reason that a very huge
chunk of land belonging to a large number of
tenure-holders had been notified for acquisition.
Therefore, it should have been the talk of the
town. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the
petitioners could not have knowledge of the
acquisition proceedings.”

32. From the aforesaid judgments, what could be

gathered is that the power of this Court under Article

226 is discretionary in nature. Among several

matters which the High Court has to take into

consideration in exercise of that discretion is the

delay made by the aggrieved party in approaching the

Court and what is the excuse therefor. It is neither

easy nor is it desirable to lay down any rule for

universal application. As a general rule if there has

been unreasonable delay, the Court ought not to have

ordinarily lent its aid to the party by this

extraordinary remedy. Therefore, ultimately every

 47

case has to be decided on the facts of that particular

case. If there is inordinate delay in approaching the

Court and if the cause shown does not constitute

sufficient cause, then this Court should not aid such

persons who are not diligent in prosecuting the

matter. Further by lapse of time, if third party

interests have crept in, any order to be passed by this

Court would affect those innocent parties. That is a

factor to be kept in mind by the Court. Thirdly, over

the period of years if investment is made, properties

are developed and things have well settled the same

should not be unsettled by an order of this Court.

Keeping in mind these principles when we look at the

facts of this case, though the legislature passed an

enactment in the year 1955 even before it came into

force, Archak Ananthaiah had made an application

for grant of occupancy rights which was granted

under the provisions of another Inams Abolition Act.

He paid the premium and certificate was also issued

 48

to him. On the assumption that he has become the

absolute owner, he effected a registered settlement

deed on 14.05.1959 distributing his properties

including the property in dispute to his legal heirs.

He died on 03.09.1971. Though originally Archaks

and pujaris were not given occupancy rights in the

inam lands, by Act No.27 of 1973 which came into

force on 27.12.1973, Section 6-A was inserted

conferring such right. It is after conferment of right

on pujari and archak, Sri M.S.Ramaiah filed his

application for grant of occupancy rights on

24.12.1974. Without making archak a party to the

proceedings, behind their back order was passed.

But no mutation entries were made in the revenue

entries. Even before mutation entries could be made

on the death of Ananthaiah, his son had filed an

application for grant of occupancy rights on behalf of

the family in the year 1983 itself. Occupancy rights

were granted on 03.03.1989 before mutation entries

 49

were made. It is only when the said order was

challenged and on 26.11.2001 the writ petition was

allowed, immediately steps were taken to challenge

the order passed in favour of Sri M.S.Ramaiah by

preferring an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate

Tribunal. After dismissal of the appeal, they have

approached the High Court. Therefore, in the light of

the aforesaid facts no delay or laches could be

attributed to the legal heirs of Archak Ananthaiah.

Therefore the contention that the writ petition is liable

to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches,

lacks merits. Accordingly it is rejected. Therefore the

said order which is an exparte order, patently illegal

passed in violation of principles of natural justice is

liable to be set aside because when once an

application is filed in the year 1983 for grant of

occupancy rights, the Tribunal or the Deputy

Commissioner for Inams, ought to have recalled the

earlier order passed in favour of Sri M.S.Ramaiah,

 50

clubbed both of them and should have decided the

case on merits.

Re-Point No.2

33. In the light of what is stated above, the land in

question is a Devadaya Inam land. By virtue of the

Act, the said land vested with the Government, as on

01.07.1970. A notification dated 04.04.1970 came to

be issued under Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act

making the rest of the Act to come into force from

01.01.1970. Correspondingly, Section 9 of the Act

was also amended by Act No.4 of 1987 substituting

the words “30th day of June, 1987” in place of “31st

March, 1984”. Therefore, the period prescribed for

filing an application for grant of occupancy rights

under Sections 4, 5, 5-A, 6-A, 7 and 8 was extended

upto 30th day of June, 1987. As Ananthaiah was

dead, his son Kodandaram filed an application on

12.05.1983 claiming occupancy rights well within

 51

time. However, as on that day already occupancy

rights had been granted in favour of M.S.Ramaiah by

the order dated 12.04.1977. As the applicant was not

aware of the said order M.S.Ramaiah was not made a

party. The said order was passed by the Spl. Deputy

Commissioner of Inams Abolition. The application

was filed before the Land Reforms Tribunal.

Probably, Land Tribunal also was not aware of the

said order. However, enquiry was held. All the legal

heirs of Ananthaiah were examined and thereafter

occupancy rights were granted in favour of all of

them, by an order dated 03.03.1989. On coming to

know of the said order, the children of Sri

M.S.Ramaiah preferred W.P.No.39293/1992

challenging the said order on the ground that they

have not been heard in the matter. It is an order

passed behind their back as the said land has already

been granted in their favour. The said writ petition

was allowed on 26.11.2001, on the ground that the

 52

Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass that order. The

said order was challenged by legal heirs of

Ananthaiah by preferring W.A.No.1965/2002. The

appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to

the learned Single Judge for decision on merits. After

remand, again the writ petition was allowed setting

aside the impugned order and remanding the matter

back to the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams

Abolition, Bangalore, for fresh consideration.

34. In view of the latest judgment of the Supreme

Court, modification was sought by the legal heirs of

Ananthaiah and accordingly, by order dated

04.12.2006, the order was modified remanding the

matter to the Tribunal. Therefore, no fault could be

found with the order of the learned Single Judge in

remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

35. With regard to the contention of the appellants

that the said application was not maintainable, the

 53

said application was not filed under Section 6-A, but

was filed under Section 5 of the Act. In the deposition,

the applicant has not stated that he is cultivating the

land which is in dispute and they are not performing

puja of the Temple, on the date on which the

application was filed. Whether such a person is

entitled to grant of occupancy rights under Section

6-A are matters to be decided by the Tribunal or the

Special Deputy Commissioner to whom now the

matter is remanded. For the first time, this Court

cannot go into those disputed questions of facts and

record any finding. In fact, all these grounds were not

urged before the learned Single Judge. The only

grievance before the learned Single Judge was that

the impugned order was passed behind their back

without notice to them and therefore it has to be set

aside. Therefore the learned Single Judge without

going into the merits, has rightly set aside the order,

directing an opportunity to be given to the children of

 54

Sri M.S.Ramaiah to put forth their case also. In that

view of the matter, the order of remand cannot be

found fault with and this Court cannot embark upon

an enquiry in this appeal on these disputed facts.

Therefore, we do not see any justification to interfere

with the said order.

Re:Point No.3

36. By the order dated 10.12.2004, the learned

Single Judge has remanded the matter to the Special

Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition for

adjudication of the rights of the parties.

37. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam Vs. State

of Karnataka reported in ILR 1992 KAR 1827, held

that the Amendment Act of 1979 which vested in the

jurisdiction of adjudication in the Tribunal along with

other provisions is a colourable piece of legislation

and therefore it is null and void and is still born Act.

 55

Therefore, the Amendment Act of 1984, amending

those provisions would be a superfluous Act.

Therefore, if the Amendment Act of 1979 and

Amendment Act of 1984 is excluded from the purview,

it is the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams

Abolition under the Act who is the competent

authority to adjudicate the dispute. However, two

years thereafter the legal heirs of Ananthaiah filed an

application for modification of the order bringing to

the notice of the Court a judgment of the Apex Court

in the case of M.B.Ramachandran Vs. Gowramma

and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 2671, wherein

it was held that in the aforesaid Shri Kudli

Sringeri’s case, the validity of the Amendment to the

Mysore Act 1 of 1955 was not in issue and therefore

in that case which arose under the said Act, the said

judgment has no application. Consequently, it was

held that if after 24.04.1992 the Deputy

Commissioner has disposed of the matters under the

 56

Mysore Act 1 of 1955 which fell within his

jurisdiction, the said orders will not be affected by

this judgment and are saved. But from the very date

of the judgment and onwards, the jurisdiction shall

be exercised by the Land Tribunal, including the

matters pending before the Deputy Commissioner.

Applying the said judgment to this case, the learned

Single Judge has remanded the matter to the

Tribunal. To that extent the order modifying the

earlier order is erroneous. The present case arises

under Act No.18 of 1955. It is in the context of

amendment to this Act No.18 of 1955 by the Act

No.26 of 1979 in the aforesaid case it was held it is

still born, it is null and void and the second

Amendment Act of 1984 to the said amendment was

also superfluous. The said finding stands. It is not

set aside by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid

M.B.Ramachandran’s case. The resultant position is

that it is the Deputy Commissioner for Inams who

 57

has to adjudicate the disputes under the Act and

therefore, the order passed by the learned Single

Judge on 10.12.2004 is correct and the order dated

04.12.2006 is wrong.

38. Hence, we pass the following :

ORDER

(i) W.A. No. 2421/2005 is dismissed.

The order dated 10.12.2004 passed in W.P. No.
39293/1992 is affirmed. However, the order
dated 4.12.2006 passed on IA. No. I/2006 in
W.P. No. 39293/1992 is set aside.

(ii) W.P. No. 10141/2008 is allowed.

The order dated 12.4.1977 passed by the Special
Deputy for Abolition of Inams, Bangalore, in Case
No. AI.MI.207/76-77 is hereby set aside.

(iii) The order of the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 264/2002
dated 10.6.2008 is also set aside.
 58

(iv) The matter is remanded back to the

Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of
Inams, for fresh enquiry on merits.

(v) Both the claims made by

M.S.Ramaiah by way of his application on
24.12.1974 and the application filed by
Kodandarama, on 12.05.1983 shall be taken up
for consideration together by the Special Deputy
Commissioner for Inams Abolition and after
giving opportunity to both the parties, to adduce
evidence and after hearing their argument, the
Special Deputy Commissioner, shall pass
appropriate orders on merits and in accordance
with law. While deciding this issue, he shall take
note of the provisions of law set out in this order,
but he shall decide the case on merits without in
any way being influenced by any of the
observations made by this Court in this order.

39. The Apex Court in a Special Leave Petition to

Appeal (Civil) No.32866 of 2009 filed by

Venkatalakshmamma and Others i.e., legal heirs of

Ananthaiah, granted an order of status-quo and

 59

ordered that the order of status-quo granted on

23.11.09 shall be in operation till the disposal of

W.P.No.10141/2008 and W.A.No.2421/2005. Now

that we have disposed of the writ petition as well as

the writ appeal, the order of status-quo granted by

the Apex Court shall be in force till the disposal of the

applications filed by the rival claimants by the Special

Deputy Commissioner for Inams, on merits.

Parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Sd/-
JUDGE

SPS/JT