Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 755 (KAR)

Bheema Rao Alms Bheemasen v. State of Karnataka

2015-07-14

B.V.NAGARATHNA, SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE

body2015
ORDER : B.V. Nagarathna, J. The petitioners have assailed order dated 29th June, 2007 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent 2-Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the inamdars of the land in question situated at Balakundi Village, Bagalkot District, which were granted in the 19th Century to their ancestors. Under the provisions of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952, the lands stood vested with the State on the enforcement of the aforesaid Act, with effect from 1st August, 1953. The said Act recognised the right of persons in the mines and mineral products in the land in question. In respect of the said land, initially, there was an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 5th August, 1995 holding that the said land had vested in the State. That order was assailed before this Court in a writ petition. Ultimately, a Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment and order dated 27th June, 1996, held that the vesting of the land under Section 7 of the Act was by operation of law and that, persons asserting title in relation to those land must establish their title before the Civil Court and further held that the land had vested in the State. Against that order, the parties before this Court in those proceedings had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but, by order dated 30th July, 1996, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Division Bench of this Court. 3. There have been a number of other proceedings pertaining to the land in question. But, the grievance of the petitioners herein is that insofar as the impugned order is concerned, they were not made parties although those proceedings were initiated by respondents 3 and 4 herein. Also in Writ Petition No. 4665 of 2010, which was disposed by this Court on 24th June, 2015, the petitioners herein were not parties. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that the impugned order dated 29th June, 2007 is not binding on them or in fact not applicable insofar as the petitioners rights are concerned in respect of the land in question. 4. We have heard learned Senior Counsel, Sri V. Tarakaram, for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondents. 5. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that the impugned order dated 29th June, 2007 is not binding on them or in fact not applicable insofar as the petitioners rights are concerned in respect of the land in question. 4. We have heard learned Senior Counsel, Sri V. Tarakaram, for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondents. 5. During the course of submission, learned Counsel for respondent 5-Smt. S.R. Anuradha, has brought to our notice order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24th June, 2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 4665 of 2010. It was contended that this Court has held that the impugned order would not have any bearing in the appeal filed by the State and that respondents 3 and 4 herein had also lost their title before the Competent Civil Court. In the circumstances, this Court held that the impugned order dated 29th June, 2007 was not binding on the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4665 of 2010, who is none other than respondent 5 herein. Similar prayer has been made by the petitioners in this writ petition on the premise that the petitioners herein were not made parties in any of the proceedings which culminated in the impugned order dated 29th June, 2007. 6. Having regard to the chequered history of this litigation and considering the previous orders passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as order passed by us in Writ Petition No. 4665 of 2010, dated 24th June, 2015, we hold that the impugned order dated 29th June, 2007 is not binding or applicable to the petitioners herein in this writ petition. 7. The writ petition is disposed with the aforesaid observations.