TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against the common judgment dated 22.12.2006 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in a batch of Writ Petitions in relation to 34 acres and 3 guntas of Inam land in Bangalore District which was allotted by the State Government to an association of teachers for construction of houses and for which the Bangalore Development Authority has sanctioned a lay out plan. The Bangalore Development Authority has filed Civil Appeal No.3037/2007, the legal representatives of Inamdars have filed Civil Appeal No.3038/2007, the Teachers' Colony Residents Association has filed Civil Appeal No.3049/2007 and several owners of the house sites have filed the remaining Civil Appeals. Facts 3. The relevant facts briefly are that the Mysore (Personal Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 (for short `the Inam Abolition Act') was enacted for abolition of personal Inams and other miscellaneous Inams in the State of Mysore, except Bellari District. On the Inam Abolition Act coming into force on 1.2.1959, all rights, title and interests vested in the Inamdars ceased and vested absolutely in the State of Mysore free from all encumbrances. Every Inamdar, however, was entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Rao filed a memo in the Court saying that he does not want to press O.S. No.687/1979 as the suit has been settled out of court and on 10.11.1980 the Principal Munsif, Bangalore, dismissed the suit as not pressed. 6. In the meanwhile, the Karnataka Inam Abolition Laws (Amendment Act) 1979 amended the Inam Abolition Act providing that the Tribunal constituted under Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short `the Tribunal') instead of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition, will decide the claims for occupancy rights under the Inam Abolition Act. Thereafter, the Tribunal by its order dated 23.6.1982 passed in Case No. I.R.F. INA 419/1979-80 decided the claims of Sreenivasa Rao and Babu Rao for occupancy rights in respect of the land and ordered the confirmation of the occupancy rights in the suit land in favour of Sreenivasa Rao and Babu Rao jointly. Pursuant to the order dated 26.6.1982 of the Tribunal, Sreenivasa Rao and Babu Rao withdrew the amount of ₹ 3,40,750/- deposited with the Government by the Sangha. During the years 1982 to 1990, the Sangha got the layout plan of the land of 34 acres 3 guntas allotted to the Sangha sanctioned from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se to respondent No.5- Society and accordingly dismissed the application for recalling. 8. Thereafter, on 6.8.2002 the State Government of Karnataka directed the Special Commissioner to acquire 14 sites in the layout developed by the Association with a further direction to the Special Deputy Commissioner to allot 14 sites to the family members of the Inamdars. The owners of the 14 sites filed W.P. Nos.32462-473/2002 in the Karnataka High Court, challenging the order dated 6.8.2002 of the State Government and by an order dated 28.11.2002 the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and remitted the matter to the State Government with the direction to comply with the order dated 9.4.1999 of this Court after hearing the petitioners and the respondents in the writ petitions and any other person interested in the matter. The legal representatives of the Inamdars also filed Writ Petition Nos.39046-48/2002 seeking deletion of a condition of the grant made in their favour, but on 9.1.2003 they withdrew the writ petitions as not pressed. The State Government of Karnataka by its order dated 10.2.2003 then directed the Special Deputy Commissioner to stop constructi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court has recorded the following findings and conclusions: (i) The 34 acres 3 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 45 and 47 of Jakkasandra village, Bangalore South Taluk, did not vest in the Government on 15.6.1979 because the applications of the Inamdars for registration as occupants in respect of the land under in Sections 9 and 10 of the Inam Abolition Act were pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner and therefore the State Government had no power to pass the order dated 15.6.1979 according sanction for grant of the land in favour of the Sangha and the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, was justified in passing the order dated 22.12.2003 cancelling the grant in favour of the Sangha and ordering resumption and restoration of 182 house sites in favour of the Inamdars pursuant to the order dated 9.4.1999 of this Court. (ii) The order dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government sanctioning the grant of the land in favour of the Sangha for allotment of house sites to its members was void ab initio in law as Sections 79-A, 79-B and 63(7) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act provided for allotment of land only for agricultural purposes and the rights given under the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or 30 X 40 feet, ₹ 1,75,000/- for 40 X 60 feet or proportional amount for any other lesser or higher dimension sites to the legal representatives of the Inamdars equally. The High Court further directed that until allotments of the sites and payment of the compensation are made by the Sangha, no construction shall be put up on the vacant sites and status quo shall be maintained. The High Court further held that the legal representatives of the Inamdars are entitled to receive compensation in respect of the land acquired by the BDA for formation of the road, if any. The High Court also quashed the direction in the order dated 22.12.2003 to examine whether further 20 acres of land can be allotted to the Inamdars. Contentions of the parties before this Court 12. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the Inamdars (the appellants in Civil Appeal No.3038 of 2007), referred to sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Inam Abolition Act which states the consequences of a notification under sub-Section (4) of Section 1 in respect of any inam and submitted that the expression save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act in this provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs of the Inamdars for grant of occupancy rights and therefore once the Tribunal passed the order dated 23.6.1982 in favour of the Inamdars confirming their occupancy rights, the Inamdars were entitled to become occupants of the land and the order dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government was liable to be cancelled. He submitted that since the Sangha did not challenge the order of the Tribunal, the Sangha or its members cannot, at this stage, question the right, title and interest of the Inamdars to the land. 13. Mr. Dave next submitted that the High Court was also right in coming to the conclusion in the impugned order that the grant of land by the State Government by the order dated 15.6.1979 in favour of the Sangha for allotment of house sites to its members was void ab initio as the land could only be allotted for agricultural purposes and not for house sites under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short `the Land Reforms Act'. He also submitted that Section 79-A of the Land Reforms Act prohibits acquisition of any land by any person or a family or a joint family which has an assured annual income of not less than ₹ 2 lakhs from sources other than agricultural land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions, the consequence whereof would be that the same is invalid and thus opposed to public policy and the same shall attract the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. 15. Mr. Dave submitted that Section 17 of the Registration Act provides that any non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property has to be registered compulsorily. He submitted that since the agreement dated 1.11.1980 executed by the Inamdars in favour of the Sangha is not registered, it cannot affect the right, title and interest of the Inamdars in respect of the land. In support of this proposition, he relied on Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Others [(1995) 5 SCC 709] and Appineni Vidyasagar v. State of A.P. and Others [(2004) 11 SCC 186]. 16. Mr. Dave also supported the conclusion of the High Court in the impugned order that the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court in earlier proceedings in W.P. No.11412/1990 and W.A. No.7574/1996 do not operate as res judicata. He submitted that the question of res judicata does not arise beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not have denied the reliefs sought by the legal representatives of the Inamdars and should not have quashed the directions in the order dated 22.12.2003 of the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, for resumption and restoration of 182 sites in favour of the Inamdars. He submitted that in this appeal this Court should restore the order dated 22.12.2003 of the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, for resumption and restoration of 182 sites in favour of the Inamdars and for examination to allot 20 acres of land in favour of the Inamdars and should set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. 19. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the Teachers' Colony Residents Association (the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.3049/2007), on the other hand, submitted that Inamdars were only entitled to the occupancy price of ₹ 10,000/- per acre amounting to ₹ 3,40,750/- for the entire land measuring 34 acres 3 guntas which was given as grant by the State Government to the Sangha and they have in fact withdrawn the amount of ₹ 3,40,750/-. He submitted that in addition to the price of ₹ 10,000/- per acre, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No.7574/1996 did not get merged in the order dated 9.4.1999 of this Court in the SLP in which the judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court was under challenge. He agued that as no special leave was granted by this Court against the said order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No.7574/1996, the contention of Mr. Dave that the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No.7574/1996 got merged with the order dated 9.4.1999, is misconceived. 21. Mr. Rao next submitted that the judgment dated 15.9.1998 of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No.7574/1996 had, therefore, become final and binding on the parties and the rights which had accrued in favour of the Sangha and its members to occupy the land granted to its members by the Sangha under the judgment dated 15.9.1998 could not be taken away by an executive order and yet the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, passed orders on 22.12.2003 canceling the grant of land made in favour of the Sangha and issuing directions for resumption and restoration of land to the extent of 182 sit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Karnataka, the vacant civic amenity sites to an extent of 2 acres 34 guntas of the layout plan were directed to be handed over to the Inamdars free of cost and the land utilized by the BDA for formation of the Ring Road as per the sanctioned layout plan was directed to be acquired by the BDA and compensation paid to the Inamdars as if such land was the private property of the Inamdars. He submitted that the BDA, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.15614/2004 before the Karnataka High Court challenging the order dated 22.12.2003 of the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, directing handing over of the civic amenity sites to the Inamdars free of cost and directing acquisition of the land forming the Ring Road and payment of compensation to the Inamdars for such acquisition, but these directions in the order dated 22.12.2003 of the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, have not been set aside by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the impugned judgment. 23. Mr. Javali referred to earlier judgment dated 15.9.1998 of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No.7574/1996 to show that the Inamdars had filed petitions before the BDA saying that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and the purposes for which the BDA was created. He submitted that the directions in the order dated 22.12.2003 of the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, to handover the vacant civil amenities sites to the Inamdars and to acquire the land forming the Ring Road, therefore are contrary and destructive of the objects of the Act and cannot be sustained. 25. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned counsel appearing for State of Karnataka, supported the order dated 22.12.2003 passed by the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, by referring to the reasons indicated in the order itself. He further submitted that this order was passed by the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, because of the pressure of contempt put by the legal representatives of the Inamdars on the Government saying that the order dated 9.4.1999 of this Court in SLP (C) No.2833/1999 was not being complied with by the State Government. He submitted that Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, has taken an equitable view of the entire matter and has not disturbed those members of the Teachers' Association or Sangha who have already utilized the house sites for construction of the houses and has direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion is required for public purpose and if there are claims, they are eligible for occupancy certificate by price payable for the land. Therefore, it is manifestly clear that in case the rights of the claimants/inamdars are upheld, they are entitled for price payable for the land. Though the grant is subject to the order of the grant in favour of inamdars, it is made clear that the grant order in favour of Respondent No.3 that the Inamdars are entitled for the price of the land. Therefore, on this count, the order cannot be set back. Thus, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the judgment dated 15.9.1998 in Writ Appeal No.7574/1996 negatived the contention that the order dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government sanctioning the grant of land in favour of the Sangha was bad because the claim of the Inamdars for registration under Sections 9 and 10 of the Inam Abolition Act was pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner and instead held that in case the claims of the Inamdars to occupancy in respect of the inam land were upheld, they would be entitled for the price payable for the land. 28. On a reading of the judgment dated 15.9.1998 of the Division Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of the Sangha cannot held to be bad; second, in the event the claim of the Inamdars to be registered as occupants of the land was subsequently allowed by the Special Deputy Commissioner or by the Tribunal, the Inamdars were not entitled to restoration of the land from the Sanngha but were entitled for the price of the land; third, the Inamdars had waived their right of occupation of the land by the agreement dated 1.11.1980 and by withdrawing the suit O.S. No.687/1979 in which they challenged the order dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government of Karnataka, sanctioning the grant of land in favour of the Sangha and by receiving ₹ 2,000/- per acre and ₹ 49,000/- in addition to the price of ₹ 10,000/- per acre totaling to ₹ 3,40,750/-. 30. The judgment dated 15.9.1998 of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.7574/1996 was sought to be challenged by the legal representatives of the Inamdars before this Court in SLP (C) No.2833/1999, but this Court did not grant special leave to the legal representatives of the Inamdars to appeal and instead disposed of the SLP with the following order: It appears from the order of grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. Hence, an order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of order under challenge and all that it means is that this Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. The aforesaid law laid down by this Court however makes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment for modification of the order granting land in favour of the Sangha and has given further direction to the State Government to dispose of such application within the period of three months from the receipt of the application of the legal representatives of the Inamdars. Hence, the contention raised on behalf of the legal representatives of the Inamdars before us that the judgment dated 15.9.1998 of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.7574/1996 got merged in the order dated 9.4.1999 in SLP (C) No.2833/1999 and the findings on the three issues in the order dated 15.9.1998 in Writ Appeal No.7574/1996 did not operate as res judicata and were not binding on the legal representatives of the Inamdars, the State Government, the Teachers' Colony Association or the Sangha and its members, is misconceived. 34. In the common judgment impugned in the present appeals, however, the High Court has taken a view that the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court in the earlier proceedings in W.P. No.11412/1990 and W.A. No.7574/1996 do not operate as res judicata as the case of the Inamdars with reference to the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act and the law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a contention was raised on behalf of the legal representatives of the Inamdars that there was no power to grant land for house sites under the Karnataka Land Grants Rules, 1969 but the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court negatived the said contention and held that under Rule 20 of the Karnatka Land Grants Rules, 1969, the State Government had the power to grant land to the Sangha for house sites. We do not find from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 7574/1996 that any contention was raised on behalf of the legal representatives of the Inamdars that grant of land in Survey Nos.45 and 47 of Jakkasandra village could not be sanctioned in favour of the Sangha for house sites because of the restrictions in Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80 of the Land Reforms Act. If this ground of attack had not been taken by the legal representatives of the Inamdars while challenging the order dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government sanctioning the grant of land in favour of the Sangha, this contention could not be raised by them before the High Court in a subsequent proceeding because of the principle of constructive res judicata underlying Explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead as a whole as words are to be understood in their context. Extension of this rule of context permits reference to other statutes in pari materia, i.e. statutes dealing with the same subject-matter or forming part of the same system. Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80 of the Land Reforms Act, therefore, have to be read together with Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act as all these provisions deal the same subject matter, namely, agricultural lands. We therefore hold that the law permitted the grant of the agricultural land in favour of the Sangha for house sites on payment of conversion fine and the grant made by the State Government in favour of the Sangha by the order dated 15.6.1979 was not void ab initio on this count. 37. Mr. Dave, however, is right in his submission that res judicata will not operate as a bar for entertaining a fresh cause of action and in the present case the order dated 22.12.2003 passed by the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, gave rise to a fresh cause of action. But even where a fresh cause of action arises, issues between the parties which have been decided cannot be re-opened before the Court for fresh adjudication between the same parties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e instant case, however, the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, while considering the application of the Inamdars, ignored the findings of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the judgment dated 15.9.1998 in Writ Appeal No.7574/1996 and took the view in his order dated 22.12.2003 that on the competent authority granting occupancy right to the Inamdars by the order dated 23.6.1982, the Inamdars had become the rightful owners of the land and action would have to be taken to cancel the grant made in favour of the Sangha. 39. In Madan Mohan Pathak and Another v. Union of India and Others (supra), the Calcutta High Court in Writ Petition No. 371 of 1976 had delivered the judgment dated 21.5.1976 issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Life Insurance Corporation to pay annual cash bonus to Class III and Class IV employees for the year April 1, 1975 to March 31, 1976 along with their salary for the month of April, 1976. Against the said judgment of learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Letters Patent Appeal was filed but by the time Letters Patent Appeal came up for hearing, the Life Insurance Corporation (Modification of Settlement) Act, 1976 came int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Karnataka, that the vacant civic amenity sites to an extent of 2 acres 34 guntas must be handed over to the Inamdars free of cost and the land, which is used by the BDA for formation of the ring road, has to be acquired by the BDA and the compensation has to be paid for this land to the Inamdars as if the same was private property, has also to be set aside. This is because the civic amenity sites measuring 2 acres 34 guntas and the ring road were part of the land measuring 34.03 acres given on grant to the Sangha. Moreover, at the time of sanctioning the layout plan of the Sangha, the BDA had stipulated that the roads, civic amenity sites, parks and all connections such as underground drainage, water supply lines, shall vest with the BDA free of cost. The civic amenity sites and the road, therefore, had become properties of the BDA and it was the BDA only which was empowered to deal with such properties subject to Section 38-A and other provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. The order dated 22.12.2003 of the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, directing that the civic amenity sites be handed over to the Inamdars free of cost and directing that the BD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t against the order dated 02.04.3009 of the City Civil Court, but the Karnataka High Court by its order dated 08.06.2009 also dismissed the Miscellaneous First Appeal on the ground that the subject-matter of the suit was also the subject-matter of S.L.P. (C) No.10352 of 2007 before this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On 12.07.2007, this Court granted leave in S.L.P. (C) No.10352 of 2007 and other connected SLPs. On grant of such leave, the matters were re-numbered as Civil Appeal Nos.3038 of 2007 and other connected Civil Appeals. We have heard these Civil Appeals and delivered a common judgment today setting aside the common judgment dated 22.12.2006 of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court and allowing the writ petitions filed in the High Court. Since we have decided the dispute pending before this Court, we set aside the impugned order dated 08.06.2009 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2519 of 2009 and the order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the City Civil Court, Bangalore, in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 and remand the matter to the City Civil Court, Bangalore, to hear the parties and decide the application for tem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
