S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. versus B.R. VASUDEVA MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 586 · Decided: 08-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[201 O] 2 S.C.R. 586 
S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. 
v. 
B.R. VASUDEVA MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3038 of 2007) 
FEBRUARY 08, 2010 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous)lnam Abolition Act, 
1954 - Abolition of lnams - During pendency of lnamdars' 
C application for registration as occupants, the land granted to 
a Sangha for construction of house - Conversion fine paid -
lnamdars initially challenging the grant, but later settled the 
matter out of Court agreeing for an amount in addition to the 
amount towards the price of the land -
The competent 
D authority later confirming the occupancy rights of the 
lnamdars - Layout plan for the allotted land sanctioned by 
Development Authority - Sites allotted to the members of the 
Sangh and houses constructed -
Thereafter Legal 
Representatives of the lnamdars challenging the order of 
E grant, in a suit and writ petition - Suit withdrawn - Writ petition 
and writ appeal thereagainst dismissed - In special Leave 
Petition, Supreme Court observing that occupancy .rights 
having been granted in favour of lnamdars it was open to their 
Legal Representatives to approach the State for modification 
F of the order granting the land to the Sangh -
State 
Government's direction to acquire sites in the lay out 
developed plan for allotment of the same to the. LRs of the 
lnamdars challenged by the 14 a/lattes - The wit petitions were 
allowed - Matter remitted to State to comply with direction 
issued by Supreme Court - States' direction to stop the 
G construction on the site challenged - High Court directing the 
State to decide the matter within prescribed time - State 
directing to handover vacant civic amenity sites, and the 
vacant sites to the LRs of lnamdars and compensation to be 
H 
586 
S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. v. B. R. VASUDEVA 587 
MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
paid to them for the land utilized by BOA for construction of A 
road - The order challenged - High Co"urt gave the finding 
in favour of the LRs of lndamdars, but quashed the direction 
of the State for resumption and restoration of the sites in 
favour of lnamdars - Court directed to allot each LR of 
lnamdar a site in the same layout in lieu of the 182 sites and 
B 
pay compensation to them - Review petition dismissed - On 
appeal, held: The issue having been decided in writ apoeal 
and having attained finality, cannot be re-opened for fresh 
adjudication in subsequent challenge - The lnamadars by 
entering into the agreement with the Sangha, waived their c 
occupancy right - lnamdars were bound by the agree1r;ent ~­
The grant in favour of Sangha not liable to be cancelled - The 
grant was also not contrary to ss. 79A, 798 and 80 of Land 
Reforms Act as the conversion fine was paid uls. 95 (2) and 
(7) of Land Revenue Act - Moreover, this issue was also not 0 
raised at initial stage - Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 -
ss. 79A, 798 and 80 - Kamataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 -
s. 95 (2) and (7). 
Doctrines I Principles - Doctrine of merger - Order 
refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted 
E 
in place of order under challenge - Such order could not 
come within meaning of Article 141 - Doctrine of merger will 
not be attracted in such case - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 136 and 141. 
Judgment - Per-in-curium - Applicability of - Judgment 
passed per-in-curium is relevant to the doctrine of precedent 
and not to the doctrine of res-judicata. 
F 
After abolition of lnams every lnamdar was entitled 
to be registered as an occupant of the land. Two G 
lnamdars made applications for registration as occupants 
in respect of the land in question. During pendency of the 
applications, the State granted the land to an Association 
(Sangha) for construction of house sites. State fixed the 
H 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A price of the land and a conversion fine was also imposed 
which was deposited by the Sangha. 
Both the lnamdars challenged the grant in a suit but 
the matter was settled out of court between the parties. 
8 The Sangha agreed to pay certain amount to the 
lnamdars in addition to the amount towards the price of 
ttae land. 
Thereafter, the competent authority decided the 
claims of the lnamdars for occupancy rights and 
C confirmed the occupancy rights in their favour. The 
lnamdars withdrew the amount deposited by the Sangha. 
The Sangha got the layout plan sanctioned from the 
Development Authorit

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