Purchasers of Karnataka service-inam land sold between 1963–78 cannot be evicted under Section 7, rules Karnataka HC

The dispute concerned Thoti service-inam lands in Sy.Nos. 95 and 108, Yelahanka Village. The petitioners or their predecessors had purchased portions of the lands through sale deeds executed between 1967 and 1972, i.e., after abolition of village offices on 1 February 1963 but before 7 August 1978.

The legal representatives of the original village-office holders subsequently sought re-grant under Section 5 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (“the Act”), in proceedings registered as HOA.CR.37/2000-01. Although the Tahsildar’s order dated 6 April 2005 did not finally adjudicate the parties’ claims, the applicants later sought revival of the proceedings by an application dated 28 December 2007 and thereafter filed a memo dated 9 June 2009 seeking withdrawal of that application.

Earlier, the Assistant Commissioner had passed an eviction order dated 30 March 1979 under Section 7 of the Act, treating the petitioners as unauthorised holders. Relying on that order, the Tahsildar accepted the withdrawal memo on 11 June 2015, prepared a possession mahazar dated 23 June 2015, and re-granted the lands to the legal representatives of the original village-office holders under Section 7(3)(a) on 30 June 2015.

The appellate court dismissed the petitioners’ challenge on 12 February 2021. The petitioners consequently invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioners, having acquired the lands through alienations made between 1 February 1963 and 7 August 1978, were “unauthorised holders” liable to eviction under Section 7 of the Act?

2. Whether the Assistant Commissioner’s eviction order dated 30 March 1979 was legally valid, or was a nullity in view of the law governing pre-7 August 1978 alienations?

3. Whether the Tahsildar was justified in accepting the memo dated 9 June 2009 and permitting withdrawal of the revival application dated 28 December 2007?

4. Whether the Tahsildar could exercise powers under Section 7 and re-grant the lands under Section 7(3)(a) without first adjudicating the pending application for re-grant under Section 5?

5. Whether the Tahsildar was justified in resuming possession and directing the petitioners to surrender the lands on the basis of the 1979 eviction order?

6. Whether the re-grant dated 30 June 2015 under Section 7(3)(a) was legally sustainable?

The Court applied Sections 4 to 7 and 7A of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961: lands attached to abolished village offices vest in the State, but may be re-granted under Section 5 to the holder of the village office, under Section 6 to an authorised holder, or under Section 7(3) after eviction of an unauthorised holder.

Relying principally on the Full Bench decision in Syed Bhasheer Ahamed v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that alienations of service-inam land made between 1 February 1963 and 7 August 1978 are valid; the alienee obtains an imperfect title and is entitled to the benefit of the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel when re-grant is made to the alienor under Sections 5 or 6. Such alienee is not an “unauthorised holder” and cannot be evicted under Section 7 merely on account of the alienation.

The Court further applied the principle that a null and non-est order creates no rights or obligations and may be challenged collaterally, as recognised in Seth Abdullamiyan Abdulraheman v. Government of the Province of Bombay and Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan.

The sale deeds were executed during the period protected by Syed Bhasheer Ahamed—between 1967 and 1972—and therefore the petitioners’ possession could not be characterised as unauthorised solely because the lands had not yet been re-granted.

Since Section 7 does not authorise eviction of such alienees, the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 30 March 1979 was a nullity and could not validly support subsequent resumption or re-grant proceedings.

The Tahsildar’s own records showed that the original Section 5 claim had not been finally determined: the order dated 6 April 2005 had reserved liberty to seek revival, and the application dated 28 December 2007 sought precisely such revival.

Consequently, the withdrawal memo could not properly be accepted on the basis of the invalid 1979 eviction order. Nor could the Tahsildar proceed under Section 7(3)(a) before determining the pending Section 5 claim.

Although a re-grant under Section 7(3)(a) would not automatically enure to the petitioners’ benefit in the same manner as a re-grant under Sections 5 or 6, the petitioners remained in possession with an imperfect title and could not be summarily evicted under Section 7.

The Tahsildar’s orders dated 11 June 2015, 23 June 2015 and 30 June 2015, as well as the appellate order dated 12 February 2021, were quashed.

The memo dated 9 June 2009 and the revival application dated 28 December 2007 were restored, and the matter was remitted to the Tahsildar for fresh adjudication after hearing all parties, with directions to pass appropriate orders within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

The Court declined to grant direct regularisation of the sale deeds because the underlying Section 5/Section 6 re-grant issue remained undetermined.