G. MANJUNATH Vs. THE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition raises a short but interesting question regarding the maintainability of a revision petition before the Regional Commissioner under Section 27 -A of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Act": for the sake of brevity). The petitioners have assailed order dated 21 -1 -2013 in Case No. INA.R.P.01/2006 -07 (Annexure -F) passed by the third respondent -Regional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Bangalore. By that order, the Regional Commissioner has held that the revision filed under Section 27 -A of the Act, is maintainable. Thus, the bone of contention between the parties in this writ petition is with regard to the maintainability of the revision petitions filed by the first and second respondents herein, before the third Regional Commissioner.

(2.) THE facts germane to the disposal of this writ petition are that the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, had passed an order of regrant in favour of one Akkayamma in Case No. 5A/1959 -60 on 28 -8 -1965 under Section 10 of the Act. That order is stated to be in operation since then. That order has been assailed by first and second respondents in two revision petitions filed by them before the third respondent invoking Section 27 -A of the Act. In those revision petitions, petitioners' father, late R.K. Govindappa, had entered appearance being the son of the original grantee namely, late Akkayamma and had raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the revision petitions under the provisions of the Act as well as the delay in filing the revision petitions and the locus standi of the respondents 1 and 2 to file those petitions. The third respondent initially passed an order on maintainability as well as on merits and set aside the order of regrant made in favour of late Akkayamma, on 9 -4 -2001, vide Annexure -C. That order was challenged in W.P. No. 24331 of 2001 by late R.K. Govindappa. This Court by order dated 31 -5 -2006 allowed the writ petition and directed the third respondent to initially consider the question of maintainability. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 1340 of 2006 connected with W.P. No. 1736 of 2006. The Division Bench by its order dated 21 -2 -2009 dismissed the writ appeal by confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the third respondent considered the question of maintainability of the revision petitions and passed the impugned order, holding that he had the jurisdiction and was competent to consider the revision petitions on merits. That order is assailed in this writ petition by the petitioners who are the legal representatives of R.K. Govindappa.

(3.) ELABORATING the aforesaid submissions, it was stated that Sy. No. 145 of Kodihalli Village was granted in favour of late Akkayamma, under Section 10 of the Act. That order was passed on 28 -5 -1965. As against that order, an appeal was maintainable under Section 28 of the Act. Section 28 of the Act was amended by Act No. 26 of 1979 (hereinafter, referred to as the "Amendment Act") with effect from 1 -5 -1979 by deleting the remedy of appeal against an order passed under Section 10 of the Act. The Amendment Act was assailed before this Court in case of Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam, Kudli v. State of Karnataka : 1992 (3) Kar. L.J. 258 (DB) : ILR 1992 Kar. 1827 (DB). A Division Bench of this Court struck down the Act both on the ground of legislative incompetence as well as on other grounds. In fact, the Amendment Act also amended certain provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. However, this case does not concern those amendments. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision held that the Amendment Act was still born, void and invalid and did not affect the Act as such. That judgment was assailed by State of Karnataka before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The civil appeals were dismissed by the Hon'ble Court. Consequently, the Amendment Act did not remain on the statute book and the original provisions of the Act continued to operate and the right of appeal under Section 28 of the Act was available to the first and second respondents, assuming but not conceding, that the said appeal was otherwise maintainable. Instead, the first and second respondents have invoked Section 27 -A of the Act, which is the revisional jurisdiction of the Regional Commissioner, which was not applicable to assail an order of regrant. It was therefore contended that the Regional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petitions filed by respondents 1 and 2 under Section 27 -A of the Act.