- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15098 WP No. 11510 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 11510 OF 2012 (LR-SEC 48A) BETWEEN: SRI. PARVATHRAJU S/O VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS CHOKKAPURA VILLAGE NARASAPURA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UMESH .B.N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. NARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL KOLAR TALUK AT, THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB DIVISON KOLAR-563 101. 2. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O R. SAMPANGIRAMAIAHA 3. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O SAMPANGIRAMIAHA BOTH R2 AND R3 ARE R/AT MATANAHALLI VILLAGE SUGATUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15098 WP No. 11510 of 2012 AND DISTRICT-563 101. 4. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O CHOKKAPPA 5. SMT. BAGYAMMA D/O CHOKKAPPA BOHT R4 AND R5 ARE R/AT CHOKKAPURA VILLAGE NARASAPURA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 101. 6. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR INAM ABOLITION KOLAR-563 101. CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 09.02.2023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R6; SRI. RASHEED KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5; R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CASE LRF: 1858/74-75 ON THE FILE OF R1, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1.2.2011 PASSED BY THE R1/THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOLAR TALUK, IN CASE NO. LRF. 1858/74-75, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15098 WP No. 11510 of 2012 ORAL ORDER 1. Venkataswamappa—father of the petitioner had filed an application under Section 10 of the Mysore Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act') claiming occupancy rights in respect of several lands in Chokkapura Village, including Sy.No.17 measuring 02 acres 02 guntas. 2. The Special Deputy Commissioner, by an order dated 22.09.1963, held that Venkataswamappa should be treated as an ordinary vara tenant under Section 9A of the Act. This order was not challenged by anybody. 3. About five years thereafter, it appears that one Chokkappa purchased this property and thereafter made an application for re-grant. 4. The Special Deputy Commissioner considered his application and proceeded to re-grant the land in favour of Chokkappa. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15098 WP No. 11510 of 2012 5. In the course of this order, the Special Deputy Commissioner has also stated that Venkataswamappa could not have been treated as a tenant under Section 9A of the Act. It is obvious that the Special Deputy Commissioner could not have held that an earlier order passed in favour of Venkataswamappa was illegal or was contrary to the provisions of the Act, fundamentally because the Deputy Commissioner would have had no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and also because the said order had attained finality. 6. Venkataswamappa thereafter filed Form No.7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964. The Land Tribunal, on consideration of the said application and also the order of passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner which had conferred occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner, treated him as a tenant and conferred occupancy rights. However, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15098 WP No. 11510 of 2012 Chokkappa filed a writ petition and after several orders of remand, the matter was sent back to the Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal by the impugned order has come to the conclusion that it could not consider Venkataswamappa to be the tenant, since the Special Deputy Commissioner in the order dated 21.08.1978 had held that the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner treating Venkataswamappa as a tenant under Section 9A of the Act, i.e., the order dated 22.09.1963 was incorrect. 7. Being aggrieved by this rejection of Form No.7, the petitioner, who is the son of Venkataswamappa has filed this writ petition challenging not only the order of the Land Tribunal but also the order dated 21.08.1978 by which the Special Deputy Commissioner had held that the earlier order passed in favour of Venkatswamappa was incorrect. 8. As noticed above, an order was passed on 22.09.1963 holding that Venkataswamappa was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15098 WP No. 11510 of 2012 entitled to be treated as a tenant under Section 9A of the Inams Abolition Act. 9. Admittedly, this order was not challenged by either Chokkappa or anybody else and has attained finality. 10. If the order treating Venkataswamappa as a tenant had attained finality, it would be impermissible in law for a subsequent Special Deputy Commissioner, while considering the application of re-grant by Chokkappa who came into the picture only in 1968, to hold that the earlier order of the Special Deputy Commissioner treating Venkataswamappa as a tenant was incorrect. In other words, the order dated 21.08.1978 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner was a void order and could not obviously bind the petitioner herein. 11. The learned AGA also produced the original records which indicate that a notice was stated to have been issued to Parvathraju i.e., the petitioner herein, who - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15098 WP No. 11510 of 2012 was a minor at that point of time, through his mother. However, there is no acknowledgement for having served the notice on either the petitioner or his mother. It is therefore clear that the order dated 21.08.1978 was an order which was passed behind the back of the petitioner and therefore cannot be sustained. 12. Viewed from any angle, the Special Deputy Commissioner could not have passed an order on 21.08.1978 annulling an order which was passed in the year 1963. Consequently, the order dated 21.08.1978 will have to declared as void. Ordered accordingly. 13. Since the order dated 22.09.1963 treating Venkataswamappa as a tenant under Section 9A of the Act was in subsistence till the Karnataka Land Reforms Act had come into force, it is obvious that Venkataswamappa would have to be treated as a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15098 WP No. 11510 of 2012 tenant and the Land Tribunal was therefore not justified in rejecting his application. 14. Consequently, the order of the Land Tribunal is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to register the petitioner, who is the son of Venkataswamappa, as a tenant of the land bearing Survey No.17. 15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 16. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78