Smt. Holamma vs State of Karnataka and Others

B.K. Sangalad, J.—This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 5.2.1988 passed by the Land Tribunal, Manvi in No. LRM/lnam/Aldal/1/87-88 rejecting Form No. 1 filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner filed Form No. 1 for grant of occupancy right in respect of Sy.No. 101 measuring 27 acres 2 guntas stating that it is a Khairat Inam Land. The Land Tribunal rejected to consider the same stating that it has no jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by this, the present Writ Petition arises.

Sri Shivakumar Kallur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Land Tribunal has got the jurisdiction in view of Section 141 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

Section 141 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act reads as follows:-

Section 141 - Tenure Abolition Acts - Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of any of the Land Tenures Abolition Acts specified in Schedule II to the Act, in so far as such provisions relate to the conferment of the right of an occupant or grant of a ryotwari patta in favour of any inferior holder or tenant in respect of any land held by him."

It is also pertinent to note Section 126 of the K.L.R. Act which reads as follows:-

126 Application or Act to inams: For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the provisions of this Act in so far as they confer any rights and impose obligation on tenants and landlords shall be applicable to tenants holding lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands including tenants referred to in Section 8 of the Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 but subject to the provisions of the said Act and to landlords and inamdars holding lands in such villages or lands."

Mr. Shivakumar Kallur, has also brought to my notice the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Raichur in No. RBA/INA/REG/7067.69-70 wherein Khairat inam land is mentioned. The sum and substance of this order is that if the lands are Khairat inam lands. The Special Deputy Commissioner had the jurisdiction either to grant or reject the same u/s 10 of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. This Act is certainly covered under Schedule II. These facts dearly show that the Land Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to deal with the lands of Khairat Inam Lands. Suffice it to say, judging from any angle, I am of the opinion the Land Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to consider the application for grant of Khairat Inam land.

The petitioner is directed to produce the documents to show that the land in question was a Khairat inam land. After the production of the documents, the Tribunal has to examine that these Khairat inam lands are governed under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. After being satisfied and after affording opportunities to the parties, the Land Tribunal is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Hence the following order.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the land Tribunal to decide afresh in accordance with law.