UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE versus RAJAIAH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 23-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
v.
RAJAIAH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 170-173 of 2011)
MARCH 23, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – ss.44(1) and 107 –
Private respondents filed suits against the appellant-University for
injunction restraining the University from interfering with their
possession and enjoyment of the suit properties – Suits dismissed
by the trial Court, however, allowed by the First Appellate Court –
Appeals were filed before the High Court by the University – During
the pendency of the appeals, University filed writ petition
challenging the order dated 05.06.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal
whereby occupancy right had been granted in favour of the private
respondents – Appeals as well as the writ petitions were dismissed
by the High Court – On appeal, held: It is clear from the materials
placed on record that originally the property in question belonged
to the Maharaja of Mysore – He gifted the said property to the
President of India – Thereafter, Union of India leased 22 acres of
said land for 99 years in favour of the University – Suit properties
were a part and parcel of the said land – It is thus clear that
University was the lessee of the said land – Further, the declaration
register maintained by the Land Tribunal does not contain any entry
for having filed declaration forms by the respondents – The State
has also given the aforesaid particulars in their statement of
objections – Respondents have not filed any rebuttal documents –
It is clear that the order of the Land Tribunal filed was a fabricated
document – Also, provisions ss.44(1) and 107 of the KLR Act make
it clear that any land belonging to or held on lease by a University
established by law is not subject to the provisions of the KLR Act –
High Court was not justified in holding that the private respondents
are in possession of the lands in question – They do not have title
or are in possession of the said lands – It is also clear that the
University is in lawful possession of the said lands – Further, High
Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 490
                                                  490
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
491
University challenging the order of the Land Tribunal – The order
dated 05.06.1981 of the Land Tribunal is hereby quashed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The first question for consideration is whether
the University is a lessee of the schedule property. It is clear
from the materials placed on record that originally the property
in question belonged to the Maharaja of Mysore.  He gifted the
said property to the President of India for starting Logopedics
Institute in Mysore as per registered gift-deed dated 12.8.1965.
Since the land was not suitable for the said purpose, Union of
India requested the University of Mysore to give some other
land and accordingly the University gave 32 acres of its land.  In
lieu of the same, the Union of India leased 22 acres of the said
land for 99 years commencing from 30.11.1997 in favour of the
University.  This is evident from the registered lease deed dated
30.11.1970. It was a vacant land. The schedule properties are a
part and parcel of the said land.  It is thus clear that the University
was the lessee of the said land.  [Para 19] [498-E-G]
2. This takes to the next question as to whether
Respondents had made applications for grant of occupancy right
in respect of the schedule lands and whether the order of the
Land Tribunal dated 5.6.1981 is in respect of the said lands.  The
University and the State Government have contended that the
contesting respondents have managed to create bogus documents
to their advantage in relation to the land in question.  In order to
test the correctness of this submission, the original records
produced by the Additional Advocate General representing the
State Government in relation to the properties in question were
verified. The order dated 5.6.1981 of the Land Tribunal shows
that the Land Tribunal passed the order granting occupancy right
in KL/RF/4480/79-80 and 4481/79-80.  A perusal of the records
reveals that K.L.R.M. No.4480/1979 and 4481/79 is in respect
of different Sy. Nos. of different villages, to two different persons
an extent of 2 acres of land each and occupancy right in the said
case was granted to them.  The Declaration Register maintained
by the Land Tribunal pertain

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