Erappa and Others vs State of Karnataka and Other

Per K.V. Narayanaraju, M.-This appeal under S. 118 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is from the order dated 30-7-1982 passed by the learned Special Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Manvi, in No. LRM:5/SIR/KDD/20-75-76 granting land out of Survey Number 72 of Kadadinni village of Manvi Taluk to respondents 2 to 4 herein in exercise of the power under S. 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

The appellants have stated that their uncle Mallaiah had filed a declaration in Form 11 stating that his brothers Ramanna and Amarappa were entitled for equal shares; but the Land Tribunal without giving notice to them (appellants) passed an order that there was surplus of land of 3.3 units, that such order of the Land Tribunal is being challenged in a Writ Petition filed in the High Court of Karnataka; that however on the basis of the order of the Land Tribunal the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order granting surplus lands in favour of the respondents; that such order is illegal and erroneous since there is no surplus land at all and the appellants have not surrendered the land; that the appellants are the true owners and their rights are not affected, etc.

The Counsel for the appellants was heard on the question of maintainability of the appeal in the context of the fact that admittedly there was an order by the Land Tribunal that the lands in question are surplus. It is not denied that such an order of the Land Tribunal is final and in fact the appellants themselves have said that that order of the Tribunal is being challenged in the High Court.

When there is an order under S. 67 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act that the land is surplus, the Assistant Commissioner authorised by the State Government will be competent to dispose of such surplus land under S. 77 of the Land Reforms Act.

This Tribunal is not competent to go into the question of the legality or propriety of the order passed by the Land Tribunal under S. 67 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. That order has to be deemed final and conclusive. If there is a writ petition filed by the appellants and they succeed in getting the order of the Land Tribunal cancelled, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner disposing of the land will necessarily fail and the appellants should automatically succeed.

As long as the order of the Land Tribunal under S. 67 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is not set aside, it is not possible to say that the Assistant Commissioner for Land Reforms has no jurisdiction to dispose of the land. The appellants also cannot contend that the land which has vested in the State belongs to them.

The learned counsel for the appellants referred to the two decisions of our High Court reported as 1963(1) Mysore Law Journal 196 and 1965(2) Mysore Law Journal 324 in which it has been held that a person who is not a party to the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act could prefer an appeal if he was really aggrieved by the order. As long as the order of the Land Tribunal stands, the appellants cannot say that they have an interest in the land and so the order of distribution affects their right. They cannot say that they are aggrieved by the order distributing the lands because their rights are extinguished by the order under S. 67 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is not their case that they are also applicants for the grant of land and that the respondents ought not to have been selected.

We may also mention that similar Appeals 542/82 and 543/82 have been rejected by a judgment dated 6-9-82.

For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that there are no grounds for entertaining the appeal and that the proper course for the appellants is only to take steps for getting over the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The appeal is rejected.