D S SHAMALA Vs. ASST COMMR MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions under Art.226 are directed against the orders made by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub Division, under Sec.33 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act') whereby the sale transactions made in favour of the petitioners were set aside as null and void being contrary to Sections 66 and 74 of the Act.

(2.) The facts in all these petitions are almost identical and may briefly be stated as follows : Late Maharaja Jayachamaraja Wadeyar of the erstwhile State of Mysore had created several Trusts out of which we are concerned with the following three: (1) Yuvaraja Sri Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadeyar Trust; (2) Maharaja Kumari Indirakshi Devi Trust and (3) Smt.Tripurasudarammani Trust. Yuvaraja Sri Srikanta Datta Wadeyar is the only son of late Maharaja. Maharaja Kumari Indirakshi Devi is the fourth daughter and Smt. Tripurasundarammani is the wife of late Maharaja. Srikanta Datta Trust has among others, a Rayankere Dairy Farm and Madhuvana. They consist of lands situated at Gurur, Chowdanahalli Halalu, Kalalwadi and Mysore Kasba. Out of those lands, the petitioners in WPs.6036 and 6060 to 6065/75, 6037 and 6056 to 6059/75, 212 to 221 /76, 641 to 645, 1348 to 1352 and 1411/77 have purchased different bits of lands. They were first put in possession either in 1572 or 1973, when agreements for sale were executed. They paid full consideration, but registered sale deeds were not executed immediately then for one reason or the other. The property belonging to Maharaja Kumari Indirakshi Devi Trust consists of land bearing Sy. No.4, described as "Lucerne Garden" in the Deed of Trust. It measures about 100 acres 32 guntas and, situated in Kurubarahalli village. This land has got a history behind. It once formed part of a vast extent of land measuring about 1516 acres which was very close to the then Mysore Palace. It was acquired for Palace purpose as far back in 1917 under the Land Acquisition Act. A portion of the land has been subsequently acquired by the CITB, Mysore, and, out of the remaining an extent of 100 acres 32 guntas was endowed to the said Trust. In this, a portion was used for cultivation of what is known as "Lucerne Grass". It is a clove like plant meant as fodder for the palace horses. The petitioners in WPs.885 to 895/77 purchased different sites therein. They were put in possession under agreements for sale executed in the year 1972. WP.1365/77 has been preferred by the trustee challenging the validity of the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The properties belonging to Smt. Tripurasundarammani Trust consist of the lands in Sy. Nos.227 and 177 of Bogadi and Dattagalli villages. The petitioners in WPs. 790 to 799/77 and 1078 to 1090/77 have purchased these lands. Like the other petitioners, they were also put in possession of the lands under agreements for sale executed in 1972 or '73. The registered sale deeds in respect of all these transactions finally came to be executed on behalf of the aforesaid Trusts either in the month of May, June or July 1974, and those sale deeds have been held to be void by the Asst Commr, as they were executed after the 1st March 1974.

(3.) The Asst Commr, who is the prescribed authority under Sec.83 of the Act suo motu initiated proceedings against the petitioners with a notice issued to each of them. One such notice is herein set out for immediate reference: Whereas it has been brought to my notice that you have purchased the land shown in the schedule to this notice from the Secretary, Palace Trust on 17-3-74. This sale transaction is in contravention of Sections 66 ano i 74 of the KLR. Act 61. It is therefore proposed to take action u/s.83 of the said Act. You are therefore required to show cause within 15 days from the date of service of this notice as to why the sale transaction entered into between you and the Secretary, Palace Trust should not be treated as null and void. If no reply is received from you within the time stipulated, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in the matter and that it will be decided as per rules. It is seen from the above notice that the Asst Commr was of opinion that the sale deeds above referred to were in contravention of Secs.66 & 74 of the Act