1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

"a. Quash the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore [Annexure-G] in Appeal No.1146/2012 and also the order dated 19.1.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura, Mandya in Prakarana No.LRF No.73:99-2000 [Annexure-E].

b. Consequently direct the respondent to grant Land Bearing Sy.No.15 measuring 99 guntas situated at Bechanahalli Village, Chowdenahalli Post, Kikkeri Hobli, KR Pet Taluk, Mandya District to the petitioners;

c. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The land bearing Sy.No.15 measuring about 99 guntas situated at Bechanahalli Village, Chowdenahalli Post, Kikkeri Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District is an inam land. The khathedar of the said land being designated as ‘Hanumantha Devaru and Lakshmi Devaru’.

3. It is contended that the father of the petitioner Kalaiah was the occupant of the said land and being in possession of the same for a very long time, as such, he became entitled to obtain occupancy rights in terms of Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. However, due to oversight and certain other reasons, he could not make such an application. There being an amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act by introduction of Section 77A in the year 1998, the father of the petitioner (Kalaiah) made an application for grant of occupancy rights, which came to be rejected on 19.01.2006 by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the provisions of the Land Reforms Act was inapplicable to the Inam lands. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1146/2012 which also came to be dismissed on the very same ground vide order dated 27.04.2018. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Sri.Abhinay Y.T , learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that:

4.1. irrespective of the land being inam or otherwise, an application under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Form No.7A could have been filed by the petitioner on account of he being a tenant in occupation of the property.

4.2. There is no bar as such either under the Inams Abolition Act, 1977 or under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 disentitling consideration of application under Form 7A in respect of inam land.

4.3. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUNIYALLAPPA VS. B.M.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1992 SC 212 [LQ/SC/1991/330] , more particularly Paras 4 and 5 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

“4. The learned single Judge in the instant case has set aside the order of the Tribunal on two grounds : (i) the respondent-landlord was denied fair hearing and the entire proceedings of the Tribunal were conducted in gross violation of the rules of natural justice; and (ii) the appellant was denied registration of occupancy under the Inam's Abolition Act and he has no right to claim occupancy right under Section 45 of the Tenancy Act.

5. It may be stated that the purpose and scope of the two Acts are distinct. The Inams Abolition Act was enacted for the purpose of abolition of Inam tenures and conversion of such tenures into Ryotwari tenure and in that process grant of occupancy rights to the Inamdars and the three classes of tenants specified in that Act. The purpose of the Land Reforms Act, however, is quite different. The main purpose was to abolish the relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of tenanted lands and to confer occupancy rights on tenants who are personally cultivating the lands. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the appellant under the Inam's Abolition Act does not lead to the inference that he has no claim for occupancy right under the Land Reforms Act. The appellant claims that he is a deemed tenant as provided under Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act. The requirement of deemed tenant, as provided under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act, must be determined by the Land Tribunal. The High Court having come to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal was not in accordance with the rules of natural justice ought to have remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal."

4.4. He also relies upon decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10299/2011 [PILLAMMA (DEAD) & ORS VS. M.RAMAIAH REDDY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ANR.] more particularly Paras 17, 18 and 19, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

"17. Under the scheme of the Act 1954, all lands in Inam villages vested in the State Government. But under the Act 1961, not all agricultural lands vest in the State; only lands held by or in possession of tenants immediately prior to 1st March, 1974 vest in the State Government. The claim of the tenant or tenants for registration of occupancy rights under the Act, 1961 has to be decided with reference to the date of vesting under Section 44, viz., 1st March 1974. Under the Act 1954, the rights of the Inamdars and tenants were decided with reference to the date of vesting, viz, 1st February, 1959 under the said Act.

18. The scope and purport of the two Acts being different, termination of the proceedings under the Act, 1954 in regard to grant of occupancy rights cannot bar an enquiry to establish the claim under Section 45 of the Act, 1961 by the Land Tribunal. What the Tribunal, under the, has to inquire into, is whether the lands claimed by the applicant before it, have vested in the State Government under Section 44 of the Act 1961. For that purpose, it has to decide whether the lands were held by or in the possession of any tenant immediately prior to 1st March, 1974(the date of vesting).

19. This is what has been examined by the Tribunal in extenso and thereafter finding was recorded that the first respondent was in possession and was cultivating the subject land in question immediately prior to 1st March, 1974 (the vesting date) under Section 44 of the Act, 1961 and accordingly declared to confer the occupancy rights to the first respondent under its order dated 16 the December 2002."

4.5. The refusal by the Land Tribunal-Assistant Commissioner and upholding of the said order by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal only on the ground that the land is inam land is not sustainable. The said Land Tribunal-Assistant Commissioner ought to have taken into consideration all relevant aspects and pass necessary orders. The same not having been done, the impugned orders are required to be set aside.

5. Per contra, Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 15 who have been impleaded subsequently contended that:

5.1. The land belongs to the temple and it is the temple which has a right over the property and not the petitioner and these lands would have to be continued to be used for the benefit of the temple.

5.2. That there is no document or evidence on record to establish that either the petitioner or the father of the petitioner had cultivated the land prior to 1.4.1974. On these grounds, he submits that the claim of the petitioner is required to be rejected.

6. Heard Sri.Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Bojegowda T.Kollur, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 15.

7. The only aspect that is required to be considered by this Court is could the Land Tribunal-Assistant Commissioner reject an application filed under Form 7A filed under section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act on the ground that the land as regards which an application in Form 7A has been filed is an inam land and therefore, would not be amenable to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

8. The above issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held in Muniyallappa’s case supra that an application by a tenant would be filed under Land Reforms Act even as regards the land which was an inam land. The said aspect has already been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Land Tribunal-Assistant Commissioner ought to have considered the proposition as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court and pass necessary orders after considering all the aspects on merits. The same not having been done, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. The order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore at Annexure-H in Appeal No.1146/2012 and the order dated 19.01.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura, Mandya in Prakarana No.LRF No.73:99-2000 at Annexure-E are hereby quashed.

iii. The matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura, Mandya/Land Tribunal who is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act by affording necessary hearing to the petitioner and impleaded respondents No.3 to 15 by issuing proper notices and permitting them to file necessary documents, statements and after hearing them, pass necessary orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.