State of Karnataka vs M. Ramaswamy

Jawad Rahim, J.—In this writ action, the State of Karnataka by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Limited, by its Managing Director and the Tahsildar, are in writ action questioning the legality of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams under the provisions of the Section 3(1)(b) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, at present the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, passed in Case No. 47 of 1958-1959, dated 30-9-1975, Annexure-A, whereby the claim of one K. Muniswamappa, was considered, despite the fact that the lands in question in Sy. Nos. 70, 31, 75, 13, 69 and 67 measuring 32 guntas, 16 guntas, 5 acres, 34 acres, 1 acre 34 guntas and 100 acres, was gomala land. In the party array, the petitioner-State has brought in, the Special Deputy Commissioner, who passed the impugned order as respondent 5 and his successors in title from the original grantee i.e., K. Muniswamappa.

The respondents 1 to 4 are represented by learned Counsel Sri Keshava Murthy, while respondent 5 is represented by Sri Venkatesh Dodderi.

Sri Rajashekarappa, learned Counsel for the petitioners-State, while supporting the grounds urged in the writ action against the impugned order, would contend that the State Government has reposed confidence and appointed the 5th respondent as an authority under the Act for the purpose of grants and recognition of claims under the provisions of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ''Inams Act'' for brevity). But he gets no jurisdiction while performing statutory functions depends to deal with the lands which are do not come within the ambit of that Act like Gomal Lands. He submits that the 5th respondent purporting to act by virtue of the power conferred on him under the said Act, has ignored the material fact and passed the impugned order, consequent to which, the order impugned is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Several other grounds are urged in the writ petition, but Rajashekarappa very fairly brings to my notice that the order passed in W.P. No. 40698 of 2012 (KLR-RES) the State was in similar action sought to quash the order passed by the 5th respondent, under the provisions of the Inams Act, was refused.

He would submit that this Court referring to the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam Vs. State of Karnataka, , declaring that the whole of the 1979 Amendment Act as void and invalid and thereafter the Apex Court in the case of M.B. Ramachandran Vs. Gowramma and Others, restricted the Division Bench''s declaration of law only to the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, the issue of the validity of the 1979 Amendment Act with regard to the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, was kept open. Learned Counsel would submit that initially the contention of the petitioner was that the transitional provisions contained in Section 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the 1979 Amendment Act would apply. Referring to that provision, this Court opined that the judgment in the case of Garikapatti Veeraya Vs. N. Subbiah Choudhury, would be relevant and applying the observation in the said judgment, it opined that right of appeal is available against the impugned judgment and order of the 5th respondent. But the Bench opined that it would be difficult to entertain the petition, notwithstanding that the appeal provision is available. Holding that the appeal as against the impugned order is to be filed before the KAT, and petition was rejected.

Sri Rajashekarappa would further submit that he has also furnished the opinion of the Government acknowledging the legal proposition on the basis of which the decision was rendered and he also submits that the State has not preferred any appeal against the order in W.P. No. 40698 of 2012. In the circumstances, learned Counsel submits this petition may be disposed of on the same terms.

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Acharya, has, while resisting the grounds in the writ petition, fairly conceded that the order passed by this Court opining that in view of the appeal provision, the writ petition is not maintainable is incorrect. In the circumstances, no further discussions is required. The writ petition is dismissed in view of availability of alternate remedy of appeal. However, as till now no appeal has been filed, I do not think any good purpose would be served by making any observation with regard to right of appeal against the said order. The writ petition is dismissed.