NINO ANNA Vs. NARAYANA GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is presented against the order made by the learned single Judge in WP No. 6242 of 1976. setting aside the order of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in which it had directed the grant of occupancy rights in respect of lauds in Sy.Nos. 11 and 32 of Bedarahalli village, Magadi Taluk, Bangalore Dist. under S 9 of the Myscie (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 the Act for short) in favour of the father of the appellants and remitting the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal of the matter in accordance with law.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief, are as follows: (i) The appellants father (hereinafter referred to as 'the inamdar') was an inamdar. He applied under S. 9 of the Act for grant of occupancy rights in respect of lands in Sy, Nos, 17 and 33 of Bedarahalli village, Magadi Taluk, Bangalore Dist The Spi. Dy. Commissioner, appointed as the competent authority under the Act, by his order dt. 26 3-1973 rejected the claim of the inamdar. (ii) Against the order of the Spl. Dy. Commissioner, the Inamdar preferred an appeal to the Kar. Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dt. 1 10-1975 allowed the appeal. The Tribunal by , its order not only set aside the order of the Spl. Dy, Commissioner, but also directed the registration of the name of the inamdar as an occupant of the lands. (iii) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal respondents 1 to 7 filed the writ petition before this Court They are all residents of the village. They were not parties to the proceedings before the Spl. Dy. Commissioner or the Tribunal. They, however, felt aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal for the reason, according to them, the two survey numbers in respect of which the inamdar claimed occupancy rights were lands which were being used by the entire village community and they fell within the excepted categories in respect of which an Inamdar had no right to claim occupancy rights under S. 9 of the Act. (iv) To the said writ petition, the inamdar was impleaded as 1st respondent, the State Government as 2nd respondent and the Revenue Appellate Tribunal as 3rd respondent. The order of the Tribunal was made on 1-10-1975. The writ petition was filed on 4-7 1976. In between this period, the inamdar died on 23-4-1976. The writ petitioners, instead of impleading the legal representatives of the inamdar at respondents to the petition, impleaded the deceased Inamdar. Later one of the sons of the inamdar, whose name was also Narasimhaiab, got himself impleaded as the 4th respondent to the petition. In his application for impleading, he stated that his father, namely, the inamdar died on 23-4-1976 and there were other sons, who were legal representatives of the deceased inamdar. After this information was disclosed, the writ petitioners filed an application under Or. 1, R. 10 of the CPC for impleading the appellants, who are three in number, who are the sons of the deceased inamdar, as additional respondents to the writ petition. No orders were passed on the said application. (v) The learned single Judge proceeded to dispose of the writ petition finally by order dt. 12-12-1979. He was of the view that the Spl. Dy. Commissioner as well as the Tribunal had failed to consider as to whether 'kharab land meant waste land which was one of the excepted categories of land in respect of which the inamdar bad no right to claim occupancy rights. It was also urged before the learned single Judge on behalf of the writ petitioners that these two survey numbers formed part of tank bed, as shown in the index of lands, which was also one of the excepted categories of land specified in the proviso to S. 9 of the Act. In the result, the learned single Judge set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Spl. Dy. Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have presented this writ appeal.

(3.) Sri B. S. Puttasiddaiab, learned counsel for the appellants, urged the following contentions: (i) The writ petition having been instituted against a dead person, the entire proceedings are void ab initio. (ii) In any event, as the legal representatives of the deceased inamdar were not impleaded as respondents to the writ petition, the order of the learned singl Judge is. liable to be set aside and the matter should be remitted to the learned single Judge for fresh disposal of the petition in accordance with law. (iii) The writ petitioners had no locus standi to present the writ petition. (iv) The order of the Tribunal suffered from no legal infirmity and was not liable to be set aside.