M.B. RAMACHANDRAN versus GOWRAMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 964 · Decided: 28-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.B. RAMACHANDRAN 
v. 
GOWRAMMA AND ORS. 
APRIL 28, 2005 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
land Laws: 
Karnataka lnams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1979-Validity of-Mysore 
C Act 1of1955 and Mysore Act 18of1955 amended by Act of 1979-Jurisdiction 
to determine occupancy rights conferred on land Tribunal instead of Deputy 
Commissioner-Act of 1979 declared ultra vires in entirety by High Court 
when only the validity of amendments to Act 18of1955 in issue and not Act 
1 of 1955-ln separate matters grant of occupancy rights by land Tribunal, 
D upheld by Single Judge-Order quashed by Appellate Bench as Land Tribunal 
ceased to have jurisdiction and matter remitted to Special Deputy 
Comrnissioner-On appeal, held: Order of High Court declaring Act of 1979 
as void in its entirety not correct-It could have declared only Act 18of1955 
as ultra vires-Matters disposed of by Deputy Commissioner under Act 1 of 
1955 after Act of 1979 declared ultra vires are saved-However, in future 
E land Tribunal would exercise jurisdiction, including matters pending before 
Deputy Commissioner-Matters remitted back to High Court for disposal on 
merits-Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Jnams Abolition Act, 1954-
Mysore (Religious and Charitable) lnams Abolition Act, 1955. 
Karnataka. loams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1979 amended some 
F of the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) loams 
Abolition Act, 1954 (Act of 1955) and Mysore (Religious and Charitable) 
lnams Abolition Act, 1955 (Act 18 of 1955) and the jurisdiction to 
determine occupancy rights was conferred on the 'Tribunal' which was 
earlier conferred on the 'Deputy Commissioner'. 
G 
H 
K filed writ petitions challenging the v~lidity of the Amendment Act 
of 1979 relating to amendment of Mysore Act 18of1955 which dealt with 
abolition of religious and charitable loams. The High Court declared ttie 
entire Amendme~t Act of 1979 as ul~ra vires. Appeals filed before this 
(:ourt were disposed of without going into the question of validity of the 
964 
I ,. 
--
M.B. RAMACHANDRAN v. GOWRAMMA 
965 
Amendment Act and it was left open for consideration in an appropriate A 
case. Hence the Civil Appeal No. 5687 of 1999. 
With regard to claim of appellants in Civil Appeal No. 5684-5686, 
for grant of occupancy rights, the Land Tribunal granted the same in their 
favour. Single Judge of High Court upheld the order. However, in Writ 
Appeals, the Division Bench of High Court set aside the order of the Land B1 
Tribunal and the Single Judge and remitted the matter to the Special 
Deputy Commissioner for adjudication since the Land Tribunal ceased 
to have jurisdiction after the Amending Act, 1979 was declared ultra vires 
by the earlier judgment of High Court. Hence the Civil Appeal No. 5684-
5686. 
c 
Disposing of the matters, the Court 
HELD : 1. In the Writ Petitions filed by K, the issues involved related 
only to the amendments to Mysore Act 18 of 1955 which dealt with 
religious and charitable lnams and not with Mysore Act 1 of 1955 which D I 
dealt with abolition of personal Inams. Therefore, the judgment of the 
High Court declaring the Karnataka Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 
1979 (Act 26of1979) void in its entirety is not correct. At best, the High 
Court could have declared the amendments brought about by Section 3 
of the 1979 Act to the Mysore Act 18 of 1955 as ultra vires, since the 
question of validity of the amendments to the Mysore Act 1 of 1955 was E 
not in issue. [969-A-B; 970-E-F) 
2. It is directed that if after the Amendment Act of 1979 was declared 
ultra vires, the Deputy Commissioner has disposed of matters under the 
Mysore Act 1 of 1955 which fell within his jurisdiction, the said orders 
will not be affected by this judgment and are saved. But from the date of 
this judgement, the jurisdiction would be exercised by the Lp,nd Tribunal, 
including the matters pending before the Deputy Commissioner. This will 
not prevent the parties from challenging the vi res of the Amendment Act 
of 1979 insofar as it relates to Mysore Act 1 of 1955. Thus, the Writ appeals 
f·i 
are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for disposal G 
on merits. [970-G-H; 971-A-B) 
State of Bihar v. Rai Bahadur Hurdut Roy Moti Lall Jute Mills and Anr., 
(1960) 2 SCR 331; Mishra Lal (Dead) by Lrs. v. D~irendra Nath (Dead) by 
lrs. and Ors., (1999) 4 SCC 11 and Raj Narain Pandey and Ors. v. Sant 
Prasad Tewari and Ors., (1973) 2 sec 35, referred to. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.