STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. M. RAMASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ action, the State of Karnataka by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Limited, by its Managing Director and the Tahsildar, are in writ action questioning the legality of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams under the provisions of the Section 3(1)(b) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, at present the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, passed in Case No. 47 of 1958 -1959, dated 30 -9 -1975, Annexure -A, whereby the claim of one K. Muniswamappa, was considered, despite the fact that the lands in question in Sy. Nos. 70, 31, 75, 13, 69 and 67 measuring 32 guntas, 16 guntas, 5 acres, 34 acres, 1 acre 34 guntas and 100 acres, was gomala land. In the party array, the petitioner -State has brought in, the Special Deputy Commissioner, who passed the impugned order as respondent 5 and his successors in title from the original grantee i.e., K. Muniswamappa.

(2.) THE respondents 1 to 4 are represented by learned Counsel Sri Keshava Murthy, while respondent 5 is represented by Sri Venkatesh Dodderi.

(3.) HE would submit that this Court referring to the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Sri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam, Kudli v. State of Karnataka : 1992 (3) Kar. L.J. 258 (DB) : ILR 1992 Kar. 1827 (DB), declaring that the whole of the 1979 Amendment Act as void and invalid and thereafter the Apex Court in the case of M.B. Ramachandran v. Goivramma and Others : 2005 (4) Kar. L.J. 321 (SC) : ILR 2005 SC 2929 (SC) : AIR 2005 SC 2671 : 2005 AIR SCW 2934 : (2005) 10 SCC 25 restricted the Division Bench's declaration of law only to the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, the issue of the validity of the 1979 Amendment Act with regard to the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, was kept open. Learned Counsel would submit that initially the contention of the petitioner was that the transitional provisions contained in Section 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b)of the 1979 Amendment Act would apply. Referring to that provision, this Court opined that the judgment in the case of Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and Others : AIR 1957 SC 540 : 1957 SCC 399 would be relevant and applying the observation in the said judgment, it opined that right of appeal is available against the impugned judgment and order of the 5th respondent. But the Bench opined that it would be difficult to entertain the petition, notwithstanding that the appeal provision is available. Holding that the appeal as against the impugned order is to be filed before the KAT, and petition was rejected.