VENKATESHAPPAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

i l
                            [2008~ 4 S.C.R. 623



-~                          VENKATESHAPPA                               A
                                     v
                   STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
                     (Civil Appeal No.1867 of 2008)
                            MARCH 10, 2008
                                                                        B
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

            Land Reforms:
             Jurisdiction - Dispute of, in respect of lands in question
       - High Court disposed of writ petition with direction to Tribunalc
       to ascertain whether lands in question were lnam lands and tf
       so, to forward records to Special Deputy Commissioner who
       would decide the case and if lands were not lnam lands then
       Tribunal to entertain the proceedings - Tribunal did not
       consider this aspect - Single Judge and Division Bench of D
       High Court a/so did not analyse the issue - Hence, matter
       remitted to Single Judge of High Court to deal with issue -
       Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Mysore (Personal and
       Miscellaneous) lnam Abolition Act, 1954 - Kamataka lnams
       Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979.                             E
            The dispute relates to applicability of the Karnatalca
       Land Reforms Act, 1961 in the background of Mysore
       (Personal and ii/iiscellaneous) lnam Abolition Act, 1954 as

 ..
  )"
       amended by the Karnataka lnams Abolition Laws
       (Amendment)Act, 1979.                                            F
            The appellant filed writ petition before High Court
       which was disposed of by the Single Judge with direction
       that Tribunal would first ascertain whether lands in
       question are inam lands and if so, to forward records to
                                                                 G
       Special Deputy Commissioner and if it has jurisdiction to
       entertain the proceedings then to proceed to do so.
            Land Tribunal did not consider this aspect and also
       did not record any finding in respect thereto. On appeal,
                                  623                            H
                                                                      \ J
                                                                               '   ..
    624       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 4 S.C.R.


A Single Judge of High Court did not deal with the question            .4- -

  of jurisdiction of Land Tribunal. The Division Bench of
  High Court also did not analyze the issue in detail and
  upheld the view of Single Judge. Hence the present
  appeal.
B        Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to
    the High Court, the Court

         HELD : On the earlier occasion, the Single Judge has
    specifically stated that the question of jurisdiction of the
c   Tribunal has to be dealt witli. This apparently has not been
    done by the Land Tribunal and Single Judge and the
    Division Bench lost sight of these relevant aspects.
    [Para 9) (627-A]
          CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CivilAppeal No. 1867
D of 2008
         From the Judgment and final Order dated 27.5.2004 of
    the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 935/2004
    (LR)
E         Shantha Kr. Mahale and Rajesh MahalefortheAppellant.
          S.N. Bhat, Sanjay R. Hegde, Vikrant Yadav, Amit Kumar,
    Arul Varma and K. Sharda Devi for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F                                                                       •
          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.                     -1

       2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Division
  Bench of the of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ
  appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.
G Challenge in the writ appeal was to the order passed by a
  learned Single Judge. The dispute relates to applicability of the
  Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') in the
  background of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) lnam
  Abolition Act, 1954 (in short 'lnam Act') as amended by the
H Karnataka lnams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 (in
    \      ~
                 VENKATESHAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKAAND                       625
                        ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

-   ....       short 'Amendment Act').                                                A
                    3. The factual controversy lies in a very narrow compass.
                    AppeHant had filed the writ petition no.32930of1996 which
               was disposed of by orders dated August 4, 2000 and August
               24, 2000. By the latter order the following directions were given:     8
                    "Even with regard to the question as to whether the lands
                    in question are lnam lands or not, it is impossible for me
                    to form a correct impression because each of the learned
                    Advocates is making a different statement. The Tribunal
                    shall first ascertain whether, the lands in question are          c
                    imams lands and if the answer is in the affirmative, then
                    the Trjbunal shall forward the records to the Special Deputy
                    Commissioner who shall give notice to the parties, hear
                    them and decide the case. If however, the Tribunal does
                    have jurisdiction in law to entertain the proceeding insofar D
                    as, if the lands are not inam lands then the Tribunal shall
                    proceed to do so."
                    4. It is the case of the appellant that the Land Tribunal did
               not consider this aspect and did not also record any finding and
               came to an abrupt conclusion as follows:                               E

                    "The Gattarlahally was the jodi village, after abolition, it is
                    vest to the Government and not a lnam land."
                     5. Before the learned Single Judge the specific stand
•)'            relating to the jurisdiction was disposed of with the follow~ng        F
               observations:
                    "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have
                    examined the correctness of the findings and reasons
                    recorded in the impugned order by the Land Tribunal on G
                    the contentious points. In my considered view, none of the
                    contenti.ons urged in this petition warrant interference with
                    the impugned order for the reason that, the order passed
                    by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the Act of
                    1954 does not bind third respondent as he was not party H
                                                                             J )
     626       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2008] 4 S.C.R.


 A         to the proceedings. Further, in view of sub-section (1) of
           Sec.44 of Act notwithstanding the order of the Special
           Deputy Commissioner, Act of 1/74 has come into force, it
           is a tenanted land and therefore it will statutorily vests with
           the State Government. Thereafter, consequences as
 8         enumerated under sub-section (2) of Sec.44 will come
           into operation. Further, the contention urged that Form
           No. 7 application is not maintainable as urged above in
           this petition are wholly untenable in law for the reason that
           submissions made on behalf of third respondent is well
 c         founded in place reliance upon the provisions of KLRF
           Act and also in view of Muniyellapa vs. 8.M. Krishna Murthy
           reported in AIR 1992 SC 205 and the same is accepted.
           Therefore, contention urged on behalf of petitioner in this
           regard placing reliance upon the decisions of this Court
           are wholly untenable in law and the same is rejected. Further
 D
           the reliance placed upon Rangaiah's case is wholly in-
           applicable to the fact situation and is misconceived.
           Hence, reliance placed upon the said Judgment are
           misplaced and the contention in this regard is rejected."
 E         6. Learned Single Judge only observed that since the
     respondent was not party to the proceeding, the order passed
     by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the 1954 Act was
     of no consequence and even otherwise the consequences as
   · enumerated in Section 44(2) came into operation. The Division
. F Bench did not analyse the issue in detail and upheld the view of
     the learned Single Judge.
         7. The specific ground has been raised in this appeal that
   question of jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal to reopen a case
   and decide by the Special Deputy Commissioner for lnams
 G Abolition has not been dealt with. Reference has been made to
   Section 141 of the Act.
         8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
   though it has not been specifically dealt with, the factual scenario
 H clearly shows that no relief has been granted to the appellant.
  I    )



             VENKATESHAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKAAND                      627
                    ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
- ;.            9. On the earlier occasion, the learned Single Judge has A
           specifically stated that the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal
           has to be dealt with as quoted above. This apparently has not
           been done by the Land Tribunal, and learned Single Judge and
           the Division Bench lost sight of these relevant aspects.
                10. In the circumstances, the impugned orders of the           B
           learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court
           are quashed and the matter is remitted to the learned Single
           Judge to deal with the issue in accordance with law.
                  · 11. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.   c
           D.G.                                        Appeal disposed of.




...