B S MOHIYUDDIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case, in brief, are these: 500 acres of land in V. S. No. 15 of Hegalathi village in Thirthahalli Taluk was an inam land. One Bhagirathi Bai was the inamdar of the said land in the year 1937 She executed a registered 'mulgeni karar' in favour of one Kalinga Rao on 26-7-1937, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A As the entire case stands upon the said Karar, it is necessary to set-out the same which reads: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_338_KANTLJ2_1986Image1.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_338_KANTLJ2_1986Image2.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_338_KANTLJ2_1986Image3.jpg</IMG> (Bold words by us) According to the appellant the said Kalinga Rao leased the said land in his favour on 10-6-1958 by executing a 'Permanent Saguvali Karar' (vide Anne- xure-B). Subsequently, a registered lease-deed dated 29-7-1961 was executed by Kalinga Rao for a period of 90 years in favour of the appellant (vide Annexure-C). Before the execution of the aforesaid registered lease-deed the title in the inam land in question stood vested in the State under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Though under Section 3 of the Act the inam tenure of the lands in the former State of Mysore was abolished, it provided that the title to the lands vested absolutely in the State of Mysore with effect on and from the date on which the Act came into force. Certain provisions ware incorporated into the Act for conferring occupancy rights on permanent and quasi-permanent tenants on certain conditions. The relevant provisions are Sections 5 and 6 therein which reads :

(2.) After the Act came into force the appellant made an application before the Special Deputy .Commissioner for Inarns Abolition, Shimoga claiming occupancy rights in respect of 500 acres of land in V. S. No. 15 under Section 5 of the Act. This claim was rejected by the Special Deputy Commissioner on the ground that since the lease-deed (Annexure-A) was subsequent to the date of vesting, it was of no consequence and the land in question came within the purview of Section 3 of the Act. This order was confirmed, on appeal, by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Revenue), Bangalore. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant preferred a Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was also dismissed upholding the decisions of both the authorities. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has presented this Writ Appeal.

(3.) It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant that if the appellant was not a permanent tenant he was not entitled to claim occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. His contention. However, was that the appellant was a permanent tenant in view of the clear definition of the expression 'permanent tenant' in subsection (12) of Section 2 of the Act read with Section 79 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Code, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and the undisputed registered lease-deed dated 26-7-1937 (Annexure-A).