PALAMANERU MUNISWAMAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has come up before us on account of the order dated 1-8-1985 made by the learned Single Judge as similar petition raising same question of law had earlier been referred to a Division Bench. We may at this stage itself submit that the petition referred earlier has since been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 7-1-1987.

(2.) The facts leading to this WritPetition may be briefly stated and they are as follows:- Petitioner admittedly is the purchaser of 20 guntas of land in survey No. 72/2 of Tayalur Amanikere village, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District of Karnataka State. The said land was so purchased by a sale deed executed by the third respondent, holder of a minor village office. By virtue of it, that land was in his possession. The sals deed is dated 21-9-1965. The said sale deed has been annexed to the Petition as Annexure 'A' and is in Kannada. The recitals therein indicate that it was inam land and on account of accute poverty and drought which existed in the district at the relevant time, the holder of the village office could not maintain his family by cultivating the land attached to the office which had since been abolished and therefore he was selling the same to the petitioner for valuable consideration. However, the third respondent-vendor and holder of inferior village office, filed an application to restore the land, which he had alienated, in the year 1981. The application was made before the Tahsildar, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District who is respondent-2 in this proceeding. Admittedly, the petitioner was notified of the application. In the course of the impugned order, it is observed that he filed a statement admitting having purchased the land in question knowing it to be an illegal transaction and that he was willing to surrender the land to the Government. In the light of that admission, the order was passed restoring the land to the original baravardars subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 7A of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has epproached this Court under Article 226 enter alia contending - that the order is liable to be set aside in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Lakshmana Gowda v State of Karnataka & others (1981(1) Kar.L.J. P. 1). Petitioner also has further contended that the opportunity given to him was not adequate and that some subordinate official of the Taluk Office at Mulbagal obtained petitioner's signature and therefore procedure followed by the Tahsildar in passing an order under Section 7A was contrary to law. In that circumstance, he has prayed for setting aside the order and grant such other reliefs which this Court may in the circumstances of the case.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Pap! Reddy inregard to the contentions advanced by him. Identical - contentions were advanced before the Division Bench in Writ Petitions 34413 to 34415 of 1982 disposed of on 7-1-1989. In the said decision, Prem Chand Jain, C.J., as he then was, examined the contentions similar to the one raised before us and other contentions and having analysed in detail, the earlier judgment of this Court in Lakshmana Gowda's case supra, came to the conclusion that those contentions were liable to be rejected. One of the questions decided in Lakshmana Gowda's case was that a holder or the authorised holder, if he alienated after the Principal Act came Into force and before it was re-granted to him under Section 5 or 6 of the Principal Act, the alienee acquired-title to that land on such re-grant to his alienor. In other words, if the alienation of the service inam land had taken place prior to re- grant, alienee of such land would get his title perfected by virtue of subsequent re-grant made in favour of the alienor. Undoubtedly, that was the declaration of law. But then in that case, the effect of the amendment brought about by Amendment Act No. 13/1978 resulting in certain changes in the various provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, as originally enacted was not noticed. Sub section (3) of Section 5 authorised the Deputy Commissioner to regularise any sale which by the operation of law was declared to be void if the alienee paid 15 times the assessment of the service inam land which he had purchased from the holder of the inferior village office. In the instant case, the petitioner has not claimed any benefit of an order passed under that provision. In other words, between 1965 and 1981, he has done nothing to enjoy the land which he took possession of subsequent to the execution of sale deed as at Annexure 'A'. In the latter - Division Bench case in the case of Hanumaiah and others v State of Karnataka and others rendered in Writ Petitions 34413 to 34415 of 1982, the Division Bench examined in detail the ruling of this Court in Lakshmana Gowda's case. In para 6 of the latter judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has ruled as follows :-