E MALLANAGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 9-12-1997 passed by the Karnataka appellate tribunal, Bangalore (3rd respondent herein) has approached this court in this writ petition.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the lands bearing survey nos. 66/3 and 69 measuring 4 acres 11 guntas and 19 acres 30 guntas respectively of itagi village in hospet taluk. According to the petitioner, itagi village is an ex-inam estate village and as per the notification dated 28-6-1988 issued by the government of Karnataka exercising its power conferred under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Madras estates (abolition and conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "madras act") and he applied for grant of ryotwari patta. Similarly, the 4th respondent as well as her father-in-law g. Sanna thimmanagouda also filed similar applications. By the order dated 30-12-1995 the settlement officer appointed under the Madras Act, allowed the application of the petitioner and ordered for issue of ryotwari patta in respect of the lands in question to the petitioner. It appears that the fourth respondent feeling aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal before the Karnataka appellate tribunal, Bangalore, in appeal No. 107 of 1996. Before the appellate tribunal/the 3rd respondent the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal itself inter alia contending that any appeal under Section 15 of the Madras act has to be filed before a tribunal constituted under the Madras act as per Section 8 and as such the Karnataka appellate tribunal constituted under the Provisions of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "1976 act") has no jurisdiction. The Karnataka appellate tribunal by the impugned order dated 9-12-1997 (Annexure-G) rejecting the contention of the petitioner held that it has got jurisdiction to decide the question in issue and accordingly set aside the order of the settlement officer and in turn cancelled the ryotwari patta granted to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent/karnataka appellate tribunal which is constituted under the 1976 act has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide an appeal filed under Section 15 (2) of the Madras act. Inviting my attention to the Provisions of the Madras act the learned counsel contended that, as per Section 15 (2) of the Madras Act, "any person deeming himself aggrieved by a decision of the settlement officer under sub-section (1) may (. . .) Appeal to the tribunal; (. . .)". "tribunal" has been defined under Section 2 (14) of the Madras act thus: " 'tribunal' means a tribunal constituted under Section 8 and having jurisdiction". Section 8 (2) of the Madras act states thus: