VENKATESHAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 10-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

i l 
[2008~ 4 S.C.R. 623 
-~ 
VENKATESHAPPA 
A 
v 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1867 of 2008) 
MARCH 10, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Land Reforms: 
Jurisdiction - Dispute of, in respect of lands in question 
- High Court disposed of writ petition with direction to Tribunal c 
to ascertain whether lands in question were lnam lands and tf 
so, to forward records to Special Deputy Commissioner who 
would decide the case and if lands were not lnam lands then 
Tribunal to entertain the proceedings -
Tribunal did not 
consider this aspect - Single Judge and Division Bench of D 
High Court a/so did not analyse the issue - Hence, matter 
remitted to Single Judge of High Court to deal with issue -
Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Mysore (Personal and 
Miscellaneous) lnam Abolition Act, 1954 - Kamataka lnams 
Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979. 
E 
The dispute relates to applicability of the Karnatalca 
Land Reforms Act, 1961 in the background of Mysore 
(Personal and ii/iiscellaneous) lnam Abolition Act, 1954 as 
amended by the Karnataka lnams Abolition Laws 
.. 
(Amendment)Act, 1979. 
F 
)" 
The appellant filed writ petition before High Court 
which was disposed of by the Single Judge with direction 
that Tribunal would first ascertain whether lands in 
question are inam lands and if so, to forward records to G 
Special Deputy Commissioner and if it has jurisdiction to 
entertain the proceedings then to proceed to do so. 
Land Tribunal did not consider this aspect and also 
did not record any finding in respect thereto. On appeal, 
623 
H 
\ J 
' .. 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 
A Single Judge of High Court did not deal with the question 
.4- -
of jurisdiction of Land Tribunal. The Division Bench of 
High Court also did not analyze the issue in detail and 
upheld the view of Single Judge. Hence the present 
appeal. 
B 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to 
the High Court, the Court 
HELD : On the earlier occasion, the Single Judge has 
specifically stated that the question of jurisdiction of the 
c Tribunal has to be dealt witli. This apparently has not been 
done by the Land Tribunal and Single Judge and the 
Division Bench lost sight of these relevant aspects. 
[Para 9) (627-A] 
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CivilAppeal No. 1867 
D of 2008 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 27.5.2004 of 
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 935/2004 
(LR) 
E 
Shantha Kr. Mahale and Rajesh MahalefortheAppellant. 
S.N. Bhat, Sanjay R. Hegde, Vikrant Yadav, Amit Kumar, 
Arul Varma and K. Sharda Devi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
• 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
-1 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Division 
Bench of the of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ 
appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. 
G Challenge in the writ appeal was to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge. The dispute relates to applicability of the 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') in the 
background of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) lnam 
Abolition Act, 1954 (in short 'lnam Act') as amended by the 
H Karnataka lnams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 (in 
\ 
~ 
-.... 
• 
)' 
VENKATESHAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKAAND 
625 
ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
short 'Amendment Act'). 
A 
3. The factual controversy lies in a very narrow compass. 
AppeHant had filed the writ petition no.32930of1996 which 
was disposed of by orders dated August 4, 2000 and August 
24, 2000. By the latter order the following directions were given: 8 
"Even with regard to the question as to whether the lands 
in question are lnam lands or not, it is impossible for me 
to form a correct impression because each of the learned 
Advocates is making a different statement. The Tribunal 
shall first ascertain whether, the lands in question are c 
imams lands and if the answer is in the affirmative, then 
the Trjbunal shall forward the records to the Special Deputy 
Commissioner who shall give notice to the parties, hear 
them and decide the case. If however, the Tribunal does 
have jurisdiction in law to entertain the proceeding insofar D 
as, if the lands are not inam lands then the Tribunal shall 
proceed to do so." 
4. It is the case of the appellant that the Land Tribunal did 
not consider this aspect and did not also record any finding and 
E 
came to an abrupt conclusion as foll

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