N. P. KRISHNA REDDY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA — 1989 DIGILAW 29 (KAR)

BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the endorsements issued by respondent-2 refusing to regularise the sale deeds and to make necessary changes of khatha of the lands in savour of the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE material facts of the case are : according to the petitioners, the lands in question were inferior service inamthi lands known as 'neeraganti Inamthi lands' which were aiienated by the inam holders for valuable consideration in favour of the petitioners. The 1st petitioner purchased 35 guntas of dry land in Sy. No. 81 of Neraluru under a registered sale deed executed on 5-6-1967 by respondent-6 putting the petitioner in possession of the same. The 2nd petitioner purchased 3 guntas of land in sy. No. 152, 4 guntas of land in Sy. No. 154, 7 1/2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 183 and 6 1/2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 190 of the same village under a registered sale deed executed on 5-8-1968 and he was put in possession of the lands by rcsponadents-3 to 5. The 3rd petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, purchased 1 acre 6 guntas of land in Sy. No. 91 of the same village from rcspondents-3 to 5 under a registered sale deed dated 2-7- 1970 and he was put in possession of the land. The 4th petitioner purchased 1 acre 1 gunta of land in Sy. No. 71 of the same village from respondents-3 and 4 under a registered sale deed dated 5-6-1970 and he was also put in possession of the land. ( 3 ) LATER on, these lands were regranted to the vendors of the petitioners who were the inam holders. The regrant order was made on 26-8-1985. ( 4 ) THE petitioners applied to respondent 2 seeking regularisation of their sale deeds with a prayer for effecting change of khathas in their names in accordance with law. But respondent-2 declined to do so and issued the impugned endorsements (Annexures-B to E) and instructed the lower authorities to dispossess the petitioners of the lands. Thereupon, the authorities have been insisting upon the petitioners to vacate the lands and it is also alleged that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have resorted to strong-arm methods against the petitioners by making attempts to trespass into the lands using the law of force. Thereupon, the authorities have been insisting upon the petitioners to vacate the lands and it is also alleged that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have resorted to strong-arm methods against the petitioners by making attempts to trespass into the lands using the law of force. The bellicose attitude of the respondents has caused grave concern and anxiety in the minds of the petitioners creating a sense of insecurity and helplessness resulting from withholding of protection by the concerned authorities. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court for legal remedy. ( 6 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that respondent-2 is not justified in refusing to regularise the alienations made in favour of the petitioners and in declining change of khatha of the lands as desired by the petitioners. It is also the case of the petitioners that the endorsements issued by respondent-2 under Annexures 'b' to 'e' are illegal and repugnant to the principle laiddown by this Court in the case of lakshmana Gowda v State, 1981 (1) Kar. L. J. 1. Equally important is the contention of the petitioners that since the lands have been regranted in favour of the alienors (inam holders), the State has no jurisdiction to evict the petitioners from the lands and that respondent-2 ought to have taken positive steps to confirm the rights vested in the petitioners in accordance with the procedure laid-down by law. ( 7 ) THE material point for consideraion in this case is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the alienees (petitioners) have acquired a valid title to the lands concerned after regrant to their alienors. ( 8 ) I consider it appropriate to examine the applicability of the ratio of the decision in Lakshmana Gowda's case to the facts of this case in order to arrive at the proper conclusion. ( 9 ) THE following are the questions which arose for determination in the said case :-" (I) Did an alienee of a Service Inam land from its holder or the authorised holder, acquire any title to or interest in, such land, if the alienation had taken place prior to the coming into force of the principal Act? ( 9 ) THE following are the questions which arose for determination in the said case :-" (I) Did an alienee of a Service Inam land from its holder or the authorised holder, acquire any title to or interest in, such land, if the alienation had taken place prior to the coming into force of the principal Act? If not, did he acquire such title or interest subsequently by his alienor obtaining its regrant under Section 5 or 6, as the case may be, of the Principal Act? (ii) Did the holder or the authorised holder of a Service Inam Land get title to it when that land stood resumed to the government under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Principal Act or did he get such title to that land only when it was re-granted to him under Section 5 or 6, as the case may be, of the Principal Act? (iii) Did an alienee of a Service Inam land from its holder or the authorised holder, acquire title to such land, if the alienation had taken place between the date of the coming into force of the principal Act and the date of the regrant, after its regrant to its holder or the authorised holder under Section 5 or 6, as the case may be, of the Principal Act? (iv) Did an intending alienee of a service Inam Land from its holder or the authorised holder, who was put in possession of that land pursuant to an agreement to purchase obtained from the latter prior to the coming into force of the principal Act, get a right to continue in possession or that land after the Principal act came into force - (a) if such land had not been regranted to the alienor under Section 5 or 6 of the principal Act, (b) after such land was so regranted to the alienor? (v) Did an alienee or an intending alienee of a Service Inam Land, who was, prior to the coming into force of the principal Act, put in possession under a deed of alienation or pursuant to an agreement to purchase, become disentitled to regrant of such land subsequent to 7-8-1978 eventhough he had made an application for regrant under original Section 7 of the Principal Act? If so, was such person liable to be evicted? If so, was such person liable to be evicted? (vi) Did a transferee of a Service Inam land from its holder or authorised holder after its regrant under Section 5 or 6 of the Principal Act, get title to or interest in, such land, if such transfer had taken place without the previous sanction of the deputy Commissioner under the unamended sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Principal Act? (vii) Is sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Principal Act attracted to - (a) a transfer of a Service Inam Land in contravention of unamended sub-section (3) of that Section; or (b) a transfer of such land in contravention of amended sub- section (3) of that section; or (c) both of them. (viii) Is substituted Section 7 of the principal Act violative of Art. 31 of the constitution? (ix) Is Section 5 of the Amendment act which provides that all pending applications and proceedings relating to grant of Service Inam Lands to unauthorised holders under the proviso to sub-section (1) of unamended Section 7 of the Principal Act, shall not have effect and shall abate, violative of Article 14 of the constitution? (x) Is the opportunity provided under the proviso to sub-section (1) of substituted Section 7 of the Principal Act to an affected person to make a representation, sufficient to satisfy the requirement of fair hearing a principle of natural justice?" ( 10 ) THE following principles laid-down by the Court in determining the above questions are of relevance to this case. The principles are extracted below :-" (I) The alienee of a service Inam Land from its holder or the authorised holder, did not acquire any title to such land if the alienation had taken place prior to the coming into force of the Village Offices abolition Act and he did not also acquire any title to such land subsequently by his alienor obtaining its regrant under Section 5 or 6, as the case may be, of the Act; (ii) The holder or the authorised holder of a Service Inam land did not get any title to it when that land stood resumed to the Government under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act, but he got title to it only when it was regranted to him under Section 5 or 6, as the case may be, of the Act; (iii) If the holder or the authorised holder of a Service Inam Land had alienated it after the Act came into force and before it was regranted to him under section 5 or 6, as the case may be, of the act the alienee acquired a title to that land after such re-grant to his alienor. " ( 11 ) IN the instant case, the alienations took place on 5-6-1967, 5-8-1968, 2-7-1970 and 5-6-1970 and the regrant order was passed on 26-8-1985. These facts are not disputed. The Karnataka Village Offices abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') received the assent of the president on 8-7-1961 and was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 20-7-1961. The act came to be amended in 1968 as well as 1978 by Karnataka Act Nos. 8/68 and 13/78 respectively. In Lakshmana Gowda's case, decision was taken with reference to the Act together with Amendment Act of 1978. Thus, it is clear that the alienations took place after the Act came into force and before the lands were regranted to the authorised holders of inferior service inam lands. It is equally clear under Annexure-A, which is a copy of the regrant order dated 26-8-1985, that in exercise of the powers conferred on respondent-2 under Section 5 of the Act, the order of regrant was passed in respect of the Neeraganti service inam lands. It is equally clear under Annexure-A, which is a copy of the regrant order dated 26-8-1985, that in exercise of the powers conferred on respondent-2 under Section 5 of the Act, the order of regrant was passed in respect of the Neeraganti service inam lands. ( 12 ) ACCORDING to the principle laiddown in Lakshmana Gowda's case "if the holder or the authorised holder of a Service Inam land had alienated it after the Act came into force and before it was regranted to him under Sections 5 or 6, as the case may be, of the Act, the alienee acquired a title to that land after such re-grant to his alienor". The principle, in my opinion, is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In my opinion, the petitioners, as alienees, have acquired valid titles to the lands in respect of which regrant was made under Annexure-A. ( 13 ) ON the other hand, it was vehemently contended by the learned Counsels appearing for the respondents that it is the principle which is laiddown in the case of hanwnaiah v State of Kamataka, ILR 1987 kar. 550, that is attracted to the facts of this case and not the principle laiddown in lakshmana Gowda's case. It is, therefore, necessary to determine whether the principle laiddown in Hanumaiah's case is in the same set of facts and circumstances and whether it is contrary to the decision taken earlier in lakshmana Gowda's case. I have carefully looked into the decision in Hanumaiah's case. What was referred by the learned single Judge to the Division Bench for consideration in Hanumaiah's case is the question "whether the regrant order made under Section 7 of the Act stands on the same footing as that of a regrant order under section 5 or 6 of the Act?". After elaborate discussion, the Division Bench of this Court held that "the regrant order made under amended Section 7 of the Act does not stand on the same footing as that of a regrant made under Section 5 or 6 of the Act". In the instant case, obviously, the order of regrant was made under Section 5 of the Act. With reference to the consequences and implications of an order of regrant made under amended Section 7 of the Act, judgment was rendered in Hanumaiah's case. In the instant case, obviously, the order of regrant was made under Section 5 of the Act. With reference to the consequences and implications of an order of regrant made under amended Section 7 of the Act, judgment was rendered in Hanumaiah's case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the facts and circumstances of the case decided in hanumaiah's case are the same as in the case on hand. ( 14 ) THE following finding of the Division bench of this Court in Hanumaiah's case makes the point sufficiently clear:"the vital difference between a grantee under Section 7 (3) and Sections 5 and 6 is that while 'holder' and 'authorised holder' have a right to make application for regrant under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act respectively, no such right is provided for an unauthorised holder. The prospective grantee is preferred for the disposal of land after summary eviction of the unauthorised holder. The holders of the inferior offices under Section 7 (3) are those who have failed to secure the regrant under section 5 of the Act. Preference under section 7 (3) of the Act is restricted to 'holders of inferior village office' and not to 'authorised holders' of inferior village office. The alienations in favour of the petitioners being null and void and having lost possession, they cannot plead equity or estoppel. . . . . . "thus, it is clear that, in so far as the regrant made under Section 5 of the Act is concerned, the legal principle is not affected by the decision in Hanumaiah's case. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the principle enunciated in lakshmana Gowda's case is attracted to the facts of this case and the decision in hanumaiah's case stands on a different footing. ( 16 ) IN the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned endorsements are quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to regularise the alienations made in favour of the petitioners and mak c necessary change of entries of the khatha of the lands concerned in favour of the petitioners. ( 17 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .