K.S. Shankrappa (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the Legal Representatives of one Sri K. S. Shankrappa against the Judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 17-1-1991 in Writ Petition No. 19606 of 1979. By that Judgment the said Shankrappa's Writ Petition questioning the orders of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 24-11-79, was dismissed. The Tribunal had confirmed the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 19-6-1978. In the Writ Petition the said Shankrappa also questioned the validity of Section 27A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inam Abolition Act, 1955 and Rule 14-A made under that Act. But in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court titled Sri K. Shamanna v. The State of Karnataka (W.P. 14245 of 1979) dated 27-11-1990 upholding the validity of Section 27A and Rule 14-A, the High Court held that the above provisions were valid.

2. The High Court, thereafter, observed that there was no dispute with regard to the factual position as to the extent of land held by the writ petitioner. A contention was raised for the first time in the writ petition that the appropriate provision applicable to the case of appellants was Section 126 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and not Section 27A read with Rule 14-A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. This contention was rejected by the High Court, inasmuch as no factual foundation was laid to invoke Section 126 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

3. In this appeal, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants stated that it was not necessary for him to challenge the provisions of Section 27A and Rule 14-A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 but that it would be sufficient if the said Shankrappa is declared to fall in the category of "other tenants" under the said Act.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the State of Karnataka.

5. It would be noticed that the said Shankrappa moved the Special Deputy Commissioner for grant of occupancy certificate. But the latter passed an order on 19-6-1978 rejecting the said application of Sri Shankrappa claiming registration of occupancy on the ground that Shankrappa's personal holdings together with the Inam land held by him exceeded the ceiling limit prescribed by Section 27A read with Rule 14-A of the aforesaid Inams Abolition Act. It will be noticed that under Rule 14-A a notification was issued by the Government on 1-8-1975 (prescribing the ceiling limit for purpose of Section 27A. There can be no doubt that the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, as affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal refusing to register the said Shankrappa as occupant, is correct inasmuch as the said Shankrappa was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed in Rule 14-A. Once the vires of Section 21-A and Rule 14-A was accepted and once it was held that Shankrappa held land in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under Rule 14-A, his writ petition was liable to be rejected and was rightly rejected.

6. Learned Counsel has, however, argued that Shankrappa's right as "other tenant" should be declared by this Court. We do not think it necessary that such declaration need be made by this Court in the circumstances of this case in view of what has been already stated by the Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 24-11-1979. That order reads as follows:

The tenancy of the appellant was of relevant origin whether it began during 1969-70 or 1970 made no difference as to the classification of the appellant as "other tenant" under Section 6 for the simple reason that the tenancy did not date back to a period prior to 1-7-1958....

The contention of the appellant was that the personal holdings of the appellant should not be taken into consideration while passing the order. He wanted us to believe that the intention of the legislature was that the total extent of land held by the 'Other' tenant must all be made up of inam lands and the hiduvali land by him should be excluded totally, while computing the ceiling limit....

An acceptance of the contention of the appellant would lead to ridiculous conclusion opposed to the law of the land under the Land Reforms Act and, therefore, it was untenable and unsustainable and had to be rejected if the extent of hiduvali land held by the 'other' tenant was 4 acres and 59 guntas of dry land, he shall be entitled to be registered an occupant of 5 acres and 1 gunta of 'inam' dry land... making a total extent of 10 acres of dry land which was the ceiling fixed under Rule 14-A. Under the circumstances the contention of the appellant that the personal holdings of the appellant ought to be accepted while passing the order had to be rejected as untenable.

7. In view of the above observations of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the status of the appellant, it is not necessary for us to add anything more. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, subject to the above observations, and there will be no order as to costs.