S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS & Ors. v. B.R. VASUDEVA MURTHY ETC. ETC & Ors.

A agreement in favour of the Sangha by the lnamdars, during pendency of the application for occupancy rights was not legal; that the order passed by the High Court in the earlier proceedings do not operate as res judicata as the case of the lnamdars with reference to the B provisions of lnam Abolition Act were not considered therein, and the same was per incurium. However, in view of the facts that the members of the Sangha had already constructed the houses and were residing there, for considerable time, the High Court quashed the directions c in the order- dated 22.12.2003 for resumption and restoration of 182 sites and directed the Sangha to allot each LR of the lnamdars a site and in lieu of the 182 sites to pay compensation. High Court further held that the LRs were entitled to receive compensation in respect of the land acquired by the Development Authority for formation of the road. High Court also quashed the direction to examine whether further 20 acres of the land could be allotted to the lnamdars. The review petition filed by the LRs of lnamdars was dismissed. Hence, the Development Authority, the Residents' Association and several owners of the house sites. E present appeals by the LRs of lnamdars, 0 Disposing of the appeals,· the Court F HELD: 1. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court decided" three issues in its judgment dated 15.9.1998 in the Writ Appeal first, that the State Government had the power to sanction grant of the land in Survey Nos.45 and 47 in favour of the Sangha by the G order dated 15.6.1979 notwithstanding the pendency of the claim of the lnamdars to be registered as occupants of the land before the Special Deputy Commissioner, lnam Abolition, and therefore the order dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government of Karnatka sanctioning the land in favour of the Sangha cannot held to be bad; second, H S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 8. R. VASUDEVA 591 MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. in the event the claim of the lnamdars to be registered as A occupants of the land was subsequently allowed by the Special Deputy Commissioner or by the Tribunal, the lnamdars were not entitled to restoration of the land from the Sangha but were entitled for the price of the land; third, the lnamdars had waived thei.r right of occupation B of the land by the agreement dated 1.11.1980 and by withdrawing the suit 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 Rs.2,000/- per acre and Rs.49,000/- in c addition to the price of Rs.10,000/- per acre. [Para 29) [620-G-H; 621-A-D]

1.2. On interpreting the two orders dated 9.4.1999 and 28.8.2000 of Supreme Court, the decisions on the three Issues in the judgment dated 15.9.1998 of the Division D Bench of the High Court in the Writ Appeal were not disturbed by this Court in the SLP and, therefore, the decisions on the three issues of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the Writ Appeal became final and binding on the parties, namely, the legal E · representatives of the lnamdars, the State Government and the Sangha and its members. [Para 31) [622-C-D]

1.3. In order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of order under challenge and F all that it means is that this Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. If the order refusing leave to appeal makes a statement of law, such statement of law is declaration of law by this Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the G Cons.titution of India and if the order records some finding other than the declaration of law such finding would bind the parties thereto and also 1 the Court, Tribunal or Authority in any proceeding subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court H 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A being the Apex Court of the country. [Para 32] [622-F-G; 622-H; 623-A-B] 8 C

1.4. The judgment dated 15.9.1998 of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the Writ Appeal which was challenged in SLP before this Court, does not stand substituted by the order dated 9.4.1999 of this Court in the SLP because this Court has not granted special leave to appeal against such judgment. Further, the order dated 9.4.1999 of this Court does not contain any statement of law which would amount to declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In the o_rder dated 9.4.1999 this Court has also not recorded any finding which would be binding on the legal representatives of the lnamdars, the State Government, the Sangha and its members, but D , has only granted liberty to the legal representatives of the lnamdars to approach the State Government 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 E period of three months from the receipt of the application .of the legal representatives of the lnamdars. Hence, the contention raised on behalf of the legal representatives of the lnamdars that the judgment dated 15.9.1998 of the Division Bench of the High Court got merged in the order F -dated 9.4.1999 in the SLP and the findings on the three issues in the order dated 15.9.1998 in the Writ Appeal did not operate as res judicata and were not binding on the legal representatives of the lnamdars, the State Government, the Teachers' Colony Association or the G Sangham and its members, is misconceived. [Para 33] [624-A-C; 624-E-H; 625-A] Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Anr. (2000) 6 sec 359, relied on H S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. v. B. R. VASUDEVA 593 MURTHY & ORS, ETC. ETC.

#2. The High Court in the impugned order has taken A a view that the orders passed by the High Court in the earlier proceedings in the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal do not operate as res judicata as the case of the lnamdars with reference to the provisions of the lnam Abolition Act and the law laid down by this Court on B various aspects were not considered in the earlier writ petitions and writ appeal and the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in the Writ Appeal were per incurium. The High Court lias failed to appreciate that the principle of per incurium has relevance to the c doctrine of precedents but has no application to the doctrine of res judicata. [Para 34] [625-B-D] Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee and Ors. v. Kedar Nath Haldar AIR 1928 Calcutta 777, referred to D

3.1. From the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the Writ Appeal, it is not found that any contention was raised on behalf of the legal representatives of the lnamdars that-grant of land in Survey Nos.45 and 47 could not be sanctioned in favour E 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 lnamdars 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 IV of Section 11 of the CPC which has been G applied to writ petitions. [Para 35] [626-E-H] F Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 715, followed H 594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Ors. v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, referred to 8

3.2. Chaptet,,'V of the Land Refor~s Act is titled "Restrictions on holding on transfer of agricultural lands" and th~ language of Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80 shows that these provisions apply to only "agricultural lands". From the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (7) of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 it is seen that the land held for agricultural purpose can be , . permitted to be diverted . for other purposes on payment C of fine. In the order dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government sanctioning the grant of the land in favour of the Sangha, it is clearly stipulated that the Sangha shall pay such conversion fine to be levied as per the rules made under the Revenue Act. The Karnataka Land D Grants Rules, 1969 made under Section 179 of the Land Revenue Act and in particular Rule 18 has also made elaborate provisions for grant of building sites on payment of price. [Para 36] [627-E-H; 628-A] E

3.3. 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 with the same subject matter, namely, agricultural lands. The law permitted the grant of the agricultural land in favour F 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. [Para 36] [628-C-D] 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation' by Justice G.P. G Singh 12th Edition p. 298, referred to

4.1. It is correct to say 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 H passed by the Minister, Revenue, Government of S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. v. B. R. VASUDEVA 595 MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. Karnataka, gave rise to a fresh cause of action. But even A 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. The findings of the Division Bench of the High Court in the judgment dated 15.9.1998 in the Writ Appeal s that the order dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government sanctioning the grant of land in favour of the Sangha was valid and that the lnamdars were only entitled to the price payable for the land when their claims for registration under Sections 9 and 10 of the lnam Abolition Act were c allowed and that the lnamdars have waived their right of occupation in the land by entering into the agreement dated 1.11.1980 and by accepting the price of Rs.10,000/ - per acre deposited by the Sangha and the additional amount paid by the Sangha were binding not only on the D legal representatives of the lnamdars and the Sangha but also on the State Government. [Paras 37 and 38] (628-E- F; 629-C-E] State of Haryana and Ors. v. M.P. Moh/a (2007) 1 sec 457, relied on. E

4.2. While deciding the application of the legal representatives of the lnamdars for modification of the order dated 15.6.1979 sanctioning the grant of land in favour of the Sangha, therefore, the State Government F could not ignore these findings of the Division Bench of the High Court in the judgment dated 15.9.1998. In the order dated 9.4.1999 of this Court in the SLP there was no mandamus to the State Government to modify or cancel the order dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government G sanctioning the grant of land in favour of the Sangha, but there was only a direction to the State Government to consider the application of the legal representatives of the lnamdars for modification of the order dated 15.6.1979. [Para 38] [629-E-G] H 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 2 S.C.R. A Madan Mohan Pathak and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (1978) 2 sec 50, referred to.

4.3. The Revenu Minister, Government of Karnataka, while considering the application of the lnamdars, ignored the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court in the judgment dated 15.9.1998 and took the view in his order dated 22.12.2003 that on the competent authority granting occupancy right to the lnamdars by the order dated 23.6.1982, the lnamdars 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. [Para 38] [629-G-H; 630-A-B] 8 C 0 Bench

4.4. The judgment dated 15.9.1998 of the Division of the High Court had held that on the occupancy D rights of the lnam~ars being confirmed, the lnamdars would be entitled to only the price and that the lnamdars had waived their right to occupy the land by accepting the price and by accepting further additional amounts from the Sangha and this judgment of the Division Bench E of the High Court had not been disturbed by this Court in SLP and the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, could not have taken a view that on the confirmation of the occupancy rights of the lnamdars, the grant of the land made in favour of the Sangha was liable to be cancelled. [Para 39] [631-B-D] F 4~5 .. Once it is held that the grant made in favour of the Sangha was not .liable to be cancelled, the order of the Minister, Revenue,. Government of Karnataka, directing that the vacant 182 sites have to be transferred G to the lnamdars or compensation in lieu of the vacant 182 sites were to be paid by the Sangha to the lnamdars, has to be .set aside. Further, the. order that the vacant civic amenity sites to an.extent of 2 acres 34 guntas must.be H S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. v. B. R. VASUDEVA 597. · MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. handed over to the lnamdars free of cost and the land, A which is used by the BOA for formation of the ring road, has to be acquired by the BOA and the compensation has to be paid for this land to the lnamdars 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 B 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 BOA had stipulated that the roads, civic amenity sites, parks and all connections such as underground drainage, water C supply lines, shall vest with the BOA free of cost. The civic amenity sites and the road, therefore, had become properties of the BOA and it was the BOA only which was empowered to deal with such properties subject to Section 38-A and other provisions of the Bangalore D Development Authority Act, 976. The order dated 22.12.2003 of the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, directing that the civic amenity sites be handed over to the lnamdars free of cost and directing that the BOA will acquire the land comprised in the ring road after paying compensation for the same, was thus E without the authority of law. [Para 40] [631-E-H; 632-A-C] Taherakhatoon (D) by L.Rs. v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635; Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359; Virender Singh Hooda and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (2004) 12 SCC 588; Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 54; Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. v. R. Hanumaiah and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 508, referred to. Case Law Reference: F G (1974) 2 sec 472 Referred to Para 14 (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 549 Referred to (1996) 10 sec 533 Referred to Para 14 Para 14 H 598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. Referred to Referred to Referred to Referred to Referred to Referred to Referred to (2004) 1 sec 459 (1995) 5 sec 109 (2004) 11 sec 186 (1990) 1 sec 201 (1988) 2 sec 580 (2004) 1 sec 112 (2004) 3 sec 1 (1999) 2 sec 635 (2004) 12 sec 588 (1991) 4 sec 54 (2005) 12 sec 508 (2000) s sec 359 AIR 1928 Calcutta 777 Referred to (1970) 1 sec 613 (1990) 2 sec 115 . (2001) 1 sec 457 (1978) 2 sec 50 Referred to Referred to Referred to Referred to Referred to Referred to Relied on Followed Referred to. Para 14 Para 15 Para 15 Para 16 Para 16 Para 17 Para 17 Para 20 Para 21 Para 24 Para 24 Para 33 Para 34 Para 35 Para 35 Para 37 Para 39 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3038 of 2007. From the Judgment & Order dated 22.12.2006 of the High Court qf Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. Nos. 20331, 7332, 10303, 12024, 12094, 14858, 15614, 16833, 17883, 20678, 22145, 25372, 26218, 32203, 36796, 10305 of 2004, 21620 · of 2005 and Review Petition No. 107 of 2007. A B c D E F G H S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. v. B. R. VASUDEVA 599 MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. WITH C.A. Nos. 3037, 3049, 3040-3047, 3050 and 3941-3953 of 2007. C.A. Nos.1477,1478 and 1479 of 2010 A B Dushyant A. Dave, P. Vishwanath Shetty, S.S. Jawali and P.P.Rao, S. U.K. Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Shwetank (for Lawyers' Knit & Co.), M. Gireesh Kuamar, A.A. Kalebudde, Vijay Kumar, G.V. Chandrashekar, Purushottam S.T. Sahar Bakht, Ustav Sidhu, Anjana Chandrashekar, R.S. Hegde, c Chandra Prakash, Rahul Tyagi, Ashwani Garg, P.P. Singh, Bhaskar Y.Kulkarni, Ms. K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Dr. Sushil Balwada, E.C. Vidya Sagar, K.K. Mani, Pantosh Gupta (for Lawyers' Knit & Co.), Sanjay R. Hegde, A Rohen Singh, Ms. Deepa Kulkarni and D.P. Chaturvedi for the appearing parties. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.K. PATNAIK, J. Permission to file Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.18843/2007 and 18846/2007 granted. Delay condoned and leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions. E We also condone the delay in filing the applications for substitution and allow the applications for substitution. We also allow the applications for impleadment. F

#2. These Civil Appeals are directed 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 lnam 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 G Bangalore Development Authority has filed Civil Appeal No.3037/2007, the legal representatives of lnamdars have filed Civil Appeal No.3038/2007, the Teachers' Colony Residents H 600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010} 2 S.CR. A Association has filed Civil Appeal _tio .•. 3049/2007 and several owners of the hous_et-sH-es~tlave filed the remaining Civil Appeals. Facts B

#3. The relevant facts briefly are that the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) lnam Abolition Act, 1954 (for short 'the lnam Abolition Act') was enacted for abolition of personal lnams and other miscellaneous lnams in the State of Mysore, except Bellari District. On the lnam Abolition Act coming into force on C 1.2.1959, all rights, title and interests vested in the lnamdars ceased and vested absolutely in the State of Mysore free from 911 encumbrances. Every lnamdar, however, was entitled to be registered as an occupant of land and could make an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner, lnam D Abolition, for such registration as an occupant.

#4. Sreenivasa Rao and Babu Rao, two lnamdars, filed applications for registration as occupants in respect of some lands in Survey Nos. 45 and 47 of Jakkasandra village, E Bangalore South Taluk. When these applications were pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Kendra Upadhyayara Sangha (for short 'the Sangha'), an association of teachers, applied for grant of land for house sites to its members and the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, proposed grant of land measuring 34 acres 3 guntas in Survey Nos. 45 F and 47 of Jakkasandra village in favour of the Sangha. The . Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore, while recommending the proposal of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, for grant of the land in favour of the Sangha, reported that the land in question was a Devadaya lnam Land in respect G of which applications for occupancy rights were still pending settlement before the Special Deputy Commissioner, lnam Abolition. The Government of Karnataka in the Revenue Department by an order dated 15.6.1979 accorded· sanction for grant of the land measuring 34 acres 3 guntas out of Survey H Nos.45 and 47 of Jakkasandra village in favour of the General ' ........ ~. . . ,_, S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. v. B. R. VASUDEVA 601 MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. [AK. PATNAIK, J.] Secretary of the Sangha for providing house sites to the A Members of the Sangha subject to the decision in the dispute pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner, lnam Abolition. The Government also fixed a price of Rs.10,000/- per acre amounting to Rs.3,40, 750/- for grant of the land and a conversion fine of Rs.4,000/- per acre in its order dated B 15.06.1979 and the amounts were deposited by the Sangha.

#5. On 4.8.1979, Sreenivasa Rao filed O.S. No.687/1979 in the Civil Court, Bangalore, questioning the grant made by the State Government in favour of the Sangha and praying for C a decree of permanent injunction against the Sangha in respect of the land. On 1.11.1980, however, Sreenivasa Rao and Babu Rao entered into an agreement with the Sangha to withdraw the suit on receipt of Rs.2,000/- per acre in respect of 34 acres and 3 guntas of land in addition to the amount of Rs.3,40, 750/ D - deposited by the Sangha towards the price of the entire land with the Government. Accordingly, on 8.11.1980 Sreenivasa 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. E

#6. In the meanwhile, the Karnataka lnam Abolition Laws (Amendment Act) 1979 amended the lnam Abolition Act providing that the Tribunal constituted under Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the Tribunal') F instead of the Special Deputy Commissioner, lnam Abolition, will decide the claims for occupancy rights under the lnam Abolition Act. Thereafter, the Tribunal by its order dated 23.6.1982 passed in Case No. l.R.F. INA 419/1979-80 decided the claims of Sreenivasa Rao and Babu Rao for occupancy G 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 Rs.3,40, 750/- deposited with the Government by the H 602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A 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 the Bangalore Development Authority (for short the 'BOA') and allotted sites to its members and the members of the Sangha built houses on some of these sites B and some members also transferred their house sites to others. D

#7. In the year 1990, however, Nagaraj, Venkojirao and Narhari, the legal representatives of Sreenivasa Rao filed W.P. No.11412/1990 in the Karnataka High Court challenging the C order dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government of Karnataka granting the land in favour of the Sangha. On 8.7.1992, the legal representatives of Sreenivas Rao, namely, Nagaraj, Venkojirao and Narhari also filed the suit O.S. No.4349/1992 for declaring the grant of the aforesaid land in favour of the Sangha as null and void and for declaring all acts of the BOA sanctioning the layout in respect of the suit land in favour of the Sangha as illegal and for delivery of vacant possession of the suit land to them. On 17.6.1995, the three legal representatives of Sreenivasa Rao filed a memo in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, for withdrawal of the suit 0.S. No.4349/1992 E and on 24.9.1995 the suit was dismissed as withdrawn by the Court. On 28.6.1996, W.P. No. 11412/1990 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. Nagaraj, Venkojirao and Narhari, however, filed Writ Appeal No.7574/ 1996 against the order passed by the learned Single Judge F but the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court by its order dated 15.9.1998 after deciding various issues raised by the parties dismissed the writ appeal. Nagaraj and- Narhari then filed SLP (G) No.2833/1999 against the order dated 15.9.1998 passed by the Division Bench before this Court. and on G 9.4.1999 this Court, without issuing notice in the SLP and while disposing of the SLP, made observations that if the proceedings pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner with regard to the claim of lnamdars have ended in favour of the petitioners who have filed the SLP, it will be open to them to approach the State Government for modification of the order H S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. v. B. R. VASUDEVA 603 MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.] granting land to the Sangha. The Teachers' Colony Residents A Association (for short the 'Association') which was impleaded as respondent No.5 in SLP(C) 2833/1999 filed an application before this Court for recalling the order dated 9.4.1999, but this Court in its order dated 28.8.2000 in SLP(C) 2833/1999 observed that there was nothing adverse to respondent No.5- B 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 C to the family members of the lnamdars. 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 D 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 lnamdars also filed Writ Petition E 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 construction on the land F in dispute till disposal of the final proceedings and this order dated 10.2.2003 was challenged before the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No.8551/2003, but by an order dated 6.3.2003 the High Court while dismissing the writ petitions directed the State Government to decide the matter within two months. The G Special Deputy Commissioner then submitted his report to the Statement Government on 28.5.2003 and when the State Government did not pass any order in compliance of the order of this Court in SLP(C) 2833/1999, the lnamdars filed I.A. No.3 in the aforesaid SLP alleging contempt and this Court itisued H 604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 2 S.C.R. A notice in the I.A. on 8.9.2003.

#9. The Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, then passed the order on 22 .12 .2003 directing that : B c D E (a) The vacant civic amenity sites to an extent of 2 acres 34 guntas available be handed over to the lnamdars free of cost. (b) The land which is utilized by the BDA for formation of the ring road has to be acquired by the BOA and the compensation paid as this was private property. (c) The vacant 182 sites which were available as on the day of the inspection by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, on 28.5.2003 would be transferred to the lnamdars or if the same was not available on date, compensation in lieu of it from Sangha be paid to the lnamdars. (d) The Government will examine to allot 20 acres of land in Survey No.148 of Kudlu village of Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, to compensate for the losses.

#10. This order dated 22.12.2003 of the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, was challenged before the Karnataka High Court by the BOA in W.P. No.15614 of 2004, the Sangha in W.P. No.26218 of 2004, the Teachers' Colony F Residents Association in W.P. No.7332 of 2004 and different owners of house sites in W.P. Nos.20331, 10303, 12024, 12094, 14771, 14858, 16833, 17883, 20678, 22145, 25372, 32203, 36796 of 2004 and 21620 of 2005. The writ petitions were heard analogously and decided by a common judgment G delivered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on 22.12.2006. The legal representatives of the lnamdars filed Review Petition No.107/2007 against the common judgment dated 22.12.2006 of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court but the same was dismissed on 19.04.2007. H S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. v. B. R. VASUDEVA 605 MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. [AK. PATNAIK, J.] Findings in the impugned Judgment of the High Court A

#11. In the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2006, the High 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 B Taluk, did not vest in the Government on 15.6.1979 because the applications of the lnamdars for registration as occupants in respect of the land under in Sections 9 and 1 O of the lnam J\bolition Act were pending before the Special Deputy c 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 D 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 lnamdars pursuant to the order dated 9.4.1999 of this Court. E (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 provisions of the Act to lnamdars in respect of land in question could not be whittled down by the State Government in exercise of its power under the Karnataka Land G Grant Rules, 1969. F (iii) The Agreement executed by the lnamdars on 1.11.1980 in favour of the Sangha when the claim of the lnamdars for registration had not been H 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A B c decided by the Tribunal was not legal and was void and being an unregistered agreement could not affect the rights of the lnamdars to immovable property. (iv) The orders passed by the Karnataka High Court in the earlier proceedings in W.P. No.11412/1990 and W .A. No. 757 4/1996 do not operate as res judicata as the case of the lnamdars with reference to the provisions of the lnam Abolition Act and law laid down by this Court on various aspects were not considered in the earlier writ petitions and writ appeal and the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No.7574/1996 was per incurium. D (v) The writ petitions filed by the allottees/purchasers of the house sites against the order passed by the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka dated 22.12.2003 directing the Deputy Commissioner to resume and restore 182 sites from the land earlier sanctioned in favour of the Sangha to the lnamdars were maintainable as the order entailed serious consequences for the allottees/purchasers of the sites. (vi) The order dated 22.12.2003 passed by the Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 9.4.1999 in SLP(C) 2833 of 1999 canceling the grant in favour of the Sangha and directing the· Deputy Commissioner of the district to resume and restore the lands to the extent of 182 sites which were vacant was legal and valid. (vii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, when the members of the Sangha have already constructed houses in the house sites and E F G H S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. v. 8. R. VASUDEVA 607 MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.] have been residing for more than two decades, the A reliefs claimed in the writ petitions should be moulded. The High Court accordingly quashed the direction in the order dated 22.12.2003 of Minister, Revenue, Government of Karnataka for resumption and restoration of 182 sites in favour of the B lnamdars and directed the Sangha to allot to each legal representative of the lnamdars a site measuring 40 X 60 feet in the same layout and in lieu of the 182 sites, pay compensation for each site @ of Rs.1,00,000/- for 30 X 40 feet, c Rs.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 lnamdars equally. The High Court further directed that until allotments of the sites and payment of the 0 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 lnamdars are entitled to receive compensation in E respect of the land acquired by the BOA 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 lnamdars. F Contentions of the parties before this Court

#12. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the lnamdars (the appellants in Civil Appeal No.3038 of 2007), referred to sub-Section (1) of G Section 3 of the lnam 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 provision saves the right of lnamdar under Section 9 of H 608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 2 S.C.R. A the Act to be registered as an occupant in respect of the land from the consequences of vesting even after a notification was issued under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act. He submitted that clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 makes this position further clear by stating that upon an issue of a B notification under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act in respect of any inam, the lnamdar shall cease to have any interest in the inam "other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions" of the Act. He contended that clause (a) of sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the lnam Abolition Act c further provides that no person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 9 unless the claimant makes an application to the Tribunal (earlier the Special Deputy Commissioner) within three years from the date of vesting of the inam concerned or 31.12.1999 whichever was later and D clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 provides that where no application is made within a period specified in clause (a), the right of any person to be registered as an occupant shall stand extinguished and the land shall vest in the State absolutely and such land shall be disposed of in accordance with the rules relating to grant of land. He submitted that the legislative intent of the lnam Abolition Act, therefore, was that so long as the application of lnamdar to be registered as an occupant has been filed within the period specified in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act and such application is pending before the Tribunal (earlier the Special F Deputy Commissioner) the land in respect of the inam does not vest in the State and such· land cannot be disposed of in accordance with the rules relating to grant of land. He submitted that the High Court was thus right in coming to the conclusion in the impugned order that the State Government had no power to pass the order dated 15.6.1979 according sanction for grant of land in favour of the Sangha, because on 15.6.1979 the application of the lnamdars to be registered as occupants in respect of the land was still pending before the Special Deputy Corpmissioner. Mr. Dave submitted that a reading of the order H dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government sanctioning the grant E G S. NAGARAJ {DEAD) BY LRS. v. B. R. VASUDEVA 609 MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. [AK. PATNAIK, J.] of land in favour of the Sangha was "subject to" the pending A proceedings of the lnamdars for grant of occupancy rights and therefore once the Tribunal passed the order dated 23.6.1982 in favour of the lnamdars confirming their occupancy rights, the lnamdars were entitled to become occupants of the land and the order dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government was liable B 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 lnamdars to the land.

#13. Mr. Dave next submitted that the High Court was also C 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 D 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 Rs.2 lakhs from sources other than agricultural lands. He E further submitted that Section 79-B of the Land Reforms Act .p(ohibits any person other than the person cultivating land personally from holding any land and Section 80 of the Act further prohibits transfer of land to non-agriculturists. He submitted that Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act, however, F provides that nothing in Section 79-A or Section 79-B or Section 80 of the Act shall apply to the transactions or to the institutions and companies mentioned therein, but this Section does not exempt the grant of the land made in favour of the Sangha. He argued that the order dated 15.6.1979 of the State G Government making the grant or land in favour of the Sangha was, therefore, hit by the statutory provisions of Sections 79- A, 79-B and 80 of the Land Reforms Act.

#14. Mr. Dave further submitted that the finding of the High H 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 2 S.C.R. B A Court in the impugned order that the agreement executed by the lnamdars in favour of the Sangha was not legal and void and did not affect the rights of the lnamdars in respect of the immovable property was also correct. He argued that under Section 23 of the Contract Act, an agreement which is opposed to public policy is void and the agreement dated 1.11. 1980 is contrary to the public policy laid down in Sections 9 and 10 of the Act conferring a statutory right of occupancy on the lnamdar in respect of the inam land. He cited the decision of this Court in Mur/idhar Aggarwal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh c and Others [(1974) 2 SCC 472] in which Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 was held to be based on public policy. He also relied on the decision of this Court in Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde and Another [(1995) Supp. (2) SCC 549) in ... which an agreement entered into with a triballor purchase of 5 acres of land without prior permission of the competent authority was held to be contrary to public policy laid down in Article 46 of the Constitution of India and as void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. He also referred to the decision of this E Court in Papaiah v. State of Kamataka and Others [(1996) 10 sec 533] for the proposition that there can be no estoppel against a statute. He submitted that in Jayamma v. Maria Bai Dead by proposed L.Rs. and Another[(2004) 7 SCC 459], this Court has held that when an assignment or transfer is made in contravention of statutory provisions, the consequence whereof F 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. 0

#15. Mr. Dave submitted that Section 17 of the Registration G 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 H 1.11.1980 executed by the I namdars in favour of the Sang ha • S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. v. B. R. VASUDEVA 611 MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]