SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE & ORS.
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 206, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 206 
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN 
v. 
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4937 of2017) 
APRIL 10,2017 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.) 
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964: 
s.67 - Applicability of- Dispute as to title of Beaulieu estate 
situated in Bengaluru '--Portions of the estate sold to individuals as 
well as acquired by State Government from time to. time - Case of 
respondent-authority that the said estate belonged to State 
GovernmenLand it was fraudulently shown in conveyai1ce deed of 
year 1900 to have been purchased for the First princess of Mysore 
out of her personal funds - Summary proceedings u/s. 67 - Held: 
Record produced from the Archives of the State depicted that the 
• Dewan of Mysore had put up a memo before the Maharaja of Mysore 
in which it was stated that, as desired by His Highness, the Dewan 
of Mysore had arranged to purchase the Beaulieu estate for the 
First Princess - There were details of the account of the First 
Princess, cash balance and pension due to her and how the money 
for purchase of this house was to be appropriated out of the funds 
of the First Princess - Therefore, ·authority erred in coming to 
conclusion that the deed of conveyance was fraudulently claimed 
in favour of the First Princess and that all subsequent transactions 
relating to the estate property were fraudulent - The proceedings ul 
s.67 were without jurisdiction - s.67 cannot be used to dispute
the 
title of persons who have been holding property for more than 100 
years - The proceedings are also beyond the period of limitation -
Limitation. 
s.67 - A dispute of title of property between the State and 
individuals cannot be decided in terms of s. 67 . 
. Presumption: 
PresuinjJtion of fraud - Fraud must be pleaded and proved; 
it cannot be presumed - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 
206 
- '
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN v. THE DEPUTY 
207 
, COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE · 
Allowing the appeals, the' Court 
A 
HELD: 1. No doubt, the original conveyance deed shows 
thatit had been executed to the Dewan of Mysore by Lancelot 
Ricketts, however, at the bottom of the conveyance deed, there 
is a note that the same has been registered and a fee of Rs.128.50 
h 
had been paid. There is a memo on record which has been 
B 
produced from the Archives of the State and this shows that the 
Dewan of Mysore put up a memo before the Maharaja of Mysore. 
In this memo, it is stated that, as desired. by His Highness, ,the 
Dewan of Mysore had arranged to· purchase Mr. Lancelot 
Ricketts's house for the }'irst Princess. This memo was put up. C 
on 03.08.1990 and approved on 04.08.1990. On the, side of this 
memo, there is a note that His Highness be(ore 'conveying 
approval may explain the matter to and secure t,he clearance of 
the First Princess. This was done jlnd approval given on 
04.08.1990, where-after the conveyance deed was executed on 
25.08.1900. [Para 8] [212-C-D, F] 
, 
D 
2. The total area was 24 acres and 12 gunthas. In the year 
1918-19, correspondence was exchanged between the 
Government of Mysore and the Controller of Palace of Mysore 
with regard to some encroachment upon the land of the First 
Princess. Finally, the Government agreed to pay compensation 
of Rs.2,300/- for the same to the First Princess. Again in 1948 it 
appears that the State wanted to acquire some
portion of the 
estate. On 11.12.1948, a letter was written by the Huzur Secretary 
to the Government of Mysore that since the land was part of 
''Beaulieu" estate whkh belonged to the First Princess, all 
correspondence for acquisition of the same be addressed to her. 
On 06.08.1949, 12680 square yards, out of 'Beaulieu' estate were 
acquired for a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- and the compensation was 
paid to the First Princess. [Para 9] [212-G-H; 213-A] 
3. The First Princess married one Sri Kantharaje Urs in 
the year 1918 and they had a daughter Smt. Leelavathi Devi. 
Smt. Leelavathi Devi became the owner of "Beaulieu" estate 
after the death of her parents and, after her death, her husband 
.K. Basavaraj Urs succeeded to the property. On 02.08.1956, 
the Government of Mysore acquired another piece of land and, 
E 
F 
G 
H
208 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
again; the compensation was paid to the daughter of the First 
Princess. Another portion of "Beaulieu" estate was acquired in 
the year 1959 and compensation was paid to K. Basavaraj Urs. 
[Paras 10 and 11) [213-B-C] 
B 
4. A bare reading of section 67 of the KLR Act shows that 
public roads, streets, lanes etc., and all lands which are not the 
properties of others, belong to the Government. Where the 
property is recorded in the ownership of any other person or 
persons who are legally capable of holding property, the 
provisions of Section 67 will not apply. Section 67 cannot be 
· used to dispute the title of persons who have been holding 
C 
property for more than 100 years. It is not believable that, in the 
year 1900, the Maharaja of Mysore and his Dewan colluded to 
commit fraud on the State of Mysore with a view to favour the 
First Princess. As is clear from the facts, various acquisitions 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
took place out of "Beaulieu" estate. More than 20 acres of the 
total 24 acres and 12 gunthas were acquired by the Govemment 
of Mysore both prior to and after the independence of the country. 
Nobo'dy raised any objection. If the land belonged to the State, 
why would the State acquire its own property? this question has 
not been answered. Various transactions took place after the 
year 1~71 and portions of this estate were sold/transferred from 
one person to another. Entries in the Revenue Record were 
made, but
the State never raised any objection. The sale deeds 
were registered without demur. It was only in the year 2004 that 
some official of the Karnataka Public Service Commission filed a 
complaint in this regard. [Paras 15, 16) [215-G; 216-B-D] 
5. After 104 years of the execution of the original 
conveyance deed, and after acquiring various lands out of this 
very estafii, the State cannot be permitted to urge that the-original 
conveyance deed is fraudulent or that the subsequent transfers 
arc all collusive and, as such, void. A dispute of title of property 
between the State and individuals cannot be decided in terms of 
Section 67. Merely because the Secretary of the Karnataka Public 
Service Commission had, in bis complaint, opined that the deed 
of conveyance executed more than 100 years back was 
fraudulently claimed to be in favour of the First Princess, was not 
sufficient ground to proceed under Section 67. It could not be
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN v. THE DEPUTY 
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE 
held that all subsequent transactions relating to the estate 
property were fraudulent. Fraud must be pleaded and proved; it 
cannot be presumed. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 
67 were without jurisdiction. The proceedings are beyond the 
period of limitation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of 
the instant case, the allegation of fraud cannot be believed, 
especially in view of the contemporaneous evidence and the 
subsequent acquisitions out of this very estate, both by the 
Maharaja of Mysore before independence and by the State of 
Mysore after independence. [Paras 17, 18, 19] [216-E-H; 217-
A-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4937 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2014 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bangalore in W. A. No. 643 of 2009 
WITH 
C. A. No. 4939 of2017. 
K. J\. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Ms. Shradhha 
Deshmukh, Senthil Jagadeesan, Zeeshan Diwan, Govind Manoharan, 
Ms. Shruti Iyer, Ms. Savita Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. 
209 
A 
B 
c 
D 
J. N. Raghupathy, V. N. Raghupathy, Parikshit P. Angadi, Advs. 
E 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
' 
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Leave granted. 
• 
I. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these . F 
civil appeals, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 
2. The relevant facts are that, by a Conveyance Deed dated 
25.08.1900, one Lancelot
Ricketts sold his property known as "Beaulieu" 
measuring 24 acres and 12 gunthas situated in Bengaluru. This 
conveyance deed was executed in favour of the Dewan of Mysore. It is 
not disputed that thereafter, on various occasions, portions of this Estate 
were acquired by the erstwhile State of Mysore, both before and after 
independence. 
3. This "Beaulieu" Estate is apparently located in the heart of 
Bengaluru city. It appears thatthe Office of the Karnataka Public Service 
G 
H
210 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
{2017] 4 S.C.R. 
Commission had a boundary adjoini'ng "Beaulieu" estate in which a hotel 
under the name of Atria was being run. There were a number of other 
commercial buildings and residences, including the residence of appellant 
M. Shankaranarayanan in this estate. 
4. A complaint was sent by the Secretary of the Karnataka Public 
Service Commission on 14.05.2004 that, in the year 1900~ the property 
had been transferred by the original owner Lancelot Ricketts in favour 
of the Dewan of Mysore. However, it was fraudulently shown that the 
property had actually been purchased forthe First Princess of Mysore 
out of her personal funds. It was alleged that the original. conveyance · 
deed dated 25 .08.1900 had been executed only in favour of the Dewan 
of Mysore. Furthermore, no stamp duty was paid on the sale deed and, 
therefore, it was complained that the sale was either totally illegal or that 
the sale was in favour of the State of Mysore and "Beaulieu" estate 
was notthe personal property of the First Princess. In the same complaint, 
it was also mentioned that, in the year 1956, the Government of Mysore 
acquired 6 acres of "Beaulieu" estate and, in those proceedings, 
Rajkumari Leelavathi Devi was notified as the owner of the estate. In 
the year 1959, some ot~er portions of the.estate were·acquired and this 
time K. Basavaraj Urs was shown as the owner. It was complained 'thai 
the acquisition of20 ·acres and 9
gurithas ofland, out of the 24 acres and 
12 gunthas, was a fraudulent acquisition and would not confer any rights 
1;1pon the owners. 
5. As a result of this complaint, summary proceedings under 
Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the 
KLR Act') were initiated against the occupants of the land. Aggrieved 
by this action, one of the parties -Smt. Asha Chakko, who is appellant in 
Civil Appeal No. 4939 of 2017 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 12595 of 
2014] filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, whereas 
the.other partjes filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The learned 
Single Judge quashed the order passed by the State ofKarn11taka on the 
ground that the State had no jurisdiction to pass the same. 
· 
· 
6. The•State of Karnataka preferred an appeal against the 
judgment of the learned Single Judge before the Division· Bench of the 
High Court. The appellant M. Sankaranarayanan applied for transfer of 
his appeal, which had been filed before the Appellate Tribunal, to the 
High Court. This prayer was rejected by the Karnataka High Court. 
Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court in SLP (C) No. 25034
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN v~ THE DEPUTY 
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 
of 2011 for transfer of his case. This petition was allowed and the 
operative portion of the order reads as follows: 
"3. The appellant applied to the High Court for transfer of 
Appeal No. 690 of2005, titled as M. Sankaranarayanan vs. Deputy 
Commissioner and others: filed by him before the Karnataka 
Appellate Tribunal (KAT) to the High Court for hearing the same 
along with Writ Appeal No. 64 3 of2009. The High Court dismissed 
the application. While dismissing the application; the High Court 
observed that the appeal pending before, the KAT has to be heard 
and decided by the Tribunal itself ~nd it cannot be clubbed with 
~he writ appeal. 
4. Having regard to the fact that the controversy in Writ 
Appeal No. 643 of2009, which is pending before the High Court, 
is broadly identical to the appeal which has been preferred by the 
appellant before KAT, we are of the view that the High Court 
failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by transferring the 
appeal pending before the KAT to itself to avoid multiplicity of 
arguments as well as the conflict of judgments. 
5. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the 
Appeal No. 690 of2005, titled as "M. Sankaranarayanan vs. Dy. 
Commissioner, Bangalore and others'"pe'nding before the KAT 
be transferred to the High Court for its hearing and disposal along 
with Writ Appeal No. 643 of2009, titled as "State ofKarnataka 
and another
vs. Asha Chakko and.others". The Registrar, KAT 
shall transfer the record and proceedings of Appeal No. 690 of 
2005 to the High Court as expeditiously as may be possible and 
not later than four weeks from the date ofreceipt of copy of this 
order. No costs." 
The writ appeal filed by the State of'Kamataka in the case of 
Smt. Asha Chakko was allowed m~inly on the ground that the writ petition 
was not maintainable, since the petitioner had an efficacious alternative 
remedy of approaching the 'Tribunal. As far as transferred appeal of 
appellant M. Sankaranarayapan is concerned, the High 'Court held that 
since the appeal had been filed before the Tribunal, it would be proper to 
remit it back to the Tribunal for .decision. Aggrieved by the judgment of 
the learned Division Bench, these two appeals have been filed. 
7. We have heard Shri K. K. Venugopal, lea.med Senior Counsel 
for the appellants and Shri J. N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel for the 
211 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
212 
A 
B 
c 
D 
, E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
State ofKarnataka, arlength. The main contention of Shri Venugopal is 
that this is a case where the action of the State Government is hopelessly , 
tin:ie-barred. The acquisition took place in 1900 and the State Government 
co,uld 'not have issued notices after more than 100 years claiming that 
the property belonged to the State of Karnataka. It is further submitted 
that the very basis of the complaint is false because a careful consideration 
! 
of the sale deed of 1900 clearly shows that this was a sale deed which is 
executed in favour of the First Princess. The second contention is that 
the State had no jurisdiction to initiate proceeding under Section 67 of 
the KLRAct. 
8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the original 
conveyance deed itself. No doubt, the conveyance deed shows that it 
had been executed to the Dewan of Mysore by Lancelot Ricketts, 
however, at the bottom of the conveyance deed, there is a note that the 
same has been registered and a fee ofRs.128.50 had been paid. There 
is a memo on record which has been produced from the Archives of the 
Sta.te and this shows that the Dewan of Mysore put up a memo before 
the Maharaj a of Mysore. In this memo, it is stated that, as desired by 
His Highness, the Dewan of Mysore had arranged to purchase Mr. 
Lancelot Ricketts's house forthe First Princess Jayalakshammanni Avaru. 
There are details of the account of the First
Princess, cash balance and 
pension due to her and how the money for purchase of this house was to 
be appropriated out of the funds of the First Princess. This memo was 
put up on 03.08.1990 and approved on 04.08.1990. It would be apposite 
to mention that, on the side of this memo, there is a note that His Highness 
before conveying approval may explain the matter to and secure the 
clearance of the First Princess. This was done and approval given on 
04.08.1990, where-after the conveyance deed was executed on 
25.08.1900. 
9. The matter does not end here. As mentioned hereinabove, the 
total area was 24 acres and 12 gunthas. In the year 191 8-19, 
correspondence was exchanged between the Government of Mysore 
and the Controller of Palace of Mysore with regard to some encroachment 
upon the land of the First Princess. Finally, the Government agreed to 
pay compensation ofRs.2,300/- for the same to the First Princess.Again 
in 1948 it appears that the State wanted to acquire some portion of the 
estate. On 11.12.1948, a letter was written by the Huzur Secretary to 
the Government of Mysore that since the land was part of"Beaulieu"
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN v. THE DEPUTY 
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 
estate which belonged to the First Princess, all correspondence for 
acquisition of the same be addressed to her. On 06.08.1949, 12680 square 
yards, out of'Beaulieu' estate were acquired for a sum ofRs.1,95,000/-
and the compensation was paid to the First Princess. 
I 0. It would be pertinentto mention that the First Princessmarried 
one Sri Kantharaje Urs in the year 1918 and they had a daughter Smt. 
Leelavathi Devi. Smt. Leelavathi Devi became the owner of"Beaulieu" 
estate af(er the death of her parents and, after her death, her husband 
K. Basavaraj Urs succeeded to the property. 
11. On 02.08.1956, the Government of Mysore acquired another 
piece of land and, again, the compensation was paid to Rajk'umari 
Leelavathi Devi, the daughter of the First Princess. Another portion of 
"Beaulieu" estate was acquired in the year 1959 and compensation was 
paid to K. Basavaraj Urs. 
12. As Rajkumari Leelavathi Devi and K. Basavaraj Urs had no 
children of their own, they had adopted one K.B. Ramachandraraj Urs, 
~ho became the owner of the property after the death of his parents. 
He executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant M. Sankaranarayanan 
on 12.12.1973. The entry in the Revenue Record was also made in 
1973. 
13. As far as the case of Smt. Asha Chakko is concerned, K.B. 
Ramachandraraj Urs sold a portion of the property to Smt. M. Meenakshi 
Amma vi de sale deed dated 15. 04.1971. M.
Meenakshi Amma, thereafter, 
executed a will in favour of Dr. Ammu Nair, who was recorded as owner 
of that portion of the property. Dr. Ammu Nair willed the property in 
favour of Asha Chakko, Nikhilanand Nair and Nityanand N. Nair. 
14. After the complaint dated 14.05.2004, the Government of 
Karnataka issued a notice under Section 67(2) of the KLR Act. Asha 
Chakko, Nikhilanand Nair and Nityanand N. Nair filed a writ petition 
before the High Court challenging the notice and the learned Single Judge 
of the High Court vide order dated 05.02.2009 passed in W.P. No. 16974 
of2005 allowed the writ petition in the following terms: 
"24. Having regard to the admitted circumstances in the 
present case, where the properties originally sold in the year 1900 
by Shri. Lancelot Ricketts has been divided and sub divided and 
sold to several parties over the years by various individual and a 
213 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
214 
A 
B 
c 
D· 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
p011ion of which has been acquired by the petitioners,. under 
registered documents, apart from compulsory· acquisition 
proceedings in respect of other portions of the property whereby 
the government itself has consistently acknowledged the ownership 
of individual, they cannot be ousted by recourse to section 67. 
This would be so even on the principal, that fraud would vitiate 
all. 
25. Reliance sought to be placed on the judgment of the 
Division Bench of this court in respect of land granted by the 
Government for temporary cultivation and subsequent alienation 
by the grantees in favour of the appellants, in that case, had only 
resulted in enquiries having been conducted and entries made in 
the revenue records in favour of the appellants having been 
rounded off and the name of the Government having been 
substituted. The dispute as regards title, was not adjudicated and 
any observations as regards title were held to be inconsequential. 
'The said judgment would not be relevant to the facts of the present 
case. 
26. Further, Section 67(2) does not provide for an order of 
eviction being passed. In the light of section 67(3) providing for 
time, to a claimant in respect of any Government property, of one 
year, the impugned order directing that the respondents be evicted 
and that they hand over the property in their possession to the 
Government within 21 days of service of the o~der is also
without 
jurisdiction." 
It was held that the authority could not have come to the conclusion 
that the deed of conveyance executed on 25.08.1900 was fraudulently 
claimed by Lancelot Ricketts in favour of the First Princess. It was also 
held that no presumption could be raised that the erstwhile royal family 
had soughtto play frauq and, therefore, the learned Single Judge quashed 
the entire proceedings. As we have already mentioned above, the State 
of Karnataka filed an appeal and that appeal has been allowed only on 
the ground that the proper remedy for the writ petitioner(s) was to 
approach the Appellate Tribunal. 
15. Section 67 of the KLR Act reads as follows: 
"q7. Public roads, etc., and all lands which are not the property 
of others belo1,1g to the Government.- ·
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN v. THE DEPUTY 
215 
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 
(1) All public roads, streets, Janes and paths, bridges, ditches, 
dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of the sea 
and of harbours and creeks below ~igh water mark and of 
rivers, streams, nallas, lakes and tanks and all canals and 
water-courses and all standing and flowing waters, and all 
lands wherever situated which are not the. property of 
individuals or of aggregate of persons legally capable of 
holding property, and except in so far as any rights of such 
persons may be established, in or over the same, and except 
as may be otherwise provided in any law for the time being in 
force, are and are hereby declared to be with all rights in or 
over the same or appertaining thereto, the property of the 
State Government. 
Explanation.- In this section, "high water mark" means the 
highest point reached by ordinary spring tides at any season 
ofthe year. 
(2) Where any property or any right in or over any property is 
claimed by or on behalf of the State Government or by any 
person as against the State Government, it shall be lawful for 
the Deputy Commissioner or a Survey Officer not lower in 
rank than a Deputy Commissioner, after formal inquiry to 
pass an order deciding the claim. 
(3) Any person aggrieved by an order made un~er sub-section. 
(2) or in appeal or revision therefrom may institute a civil suit 
contesting the order within a period of one year from the
date of such order and the final decision in the civil.suit shall 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
be binding on the parties." 
F 
A bare reading of the section shows that public roads, streets, 
lanes etc., and all lands which are not the properties of.others, belong to. 
the Government. Where the property is recorded in the ownership of 
any other person or persons who are legally capable of holding property, 
the provisions of Section 67 will not apply. Section 67 cannot be used to 
G 
dispute the title of persons who have been holding property for more 
than 100 years. Prior to the conveyance deed being executed on 
25.08.1900, the Dewan of Mysore had put up a note to His Highness the 
Maharaja of Mysore that the estate property is being bought for the 
First Princess and the payment was to be made out of her personal 
H
216 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
funds. He had 'also requested the Maharaj a to apprise the First Princess 
about the facts and then obtain her approval. It is not believable that, in 
the year 1900, the Maharaja of Mysore and his Dewan colluded to commit 
fraud on the State of Mysore with a view to favour the First Princess. 
16. As is clear from the facts narrated above, various acquisitions 
took place out of"Beaulieu" estate. More than 20 acres of the total 24 
acres and 12 gunthas were acquired by the Govermnent of Mysore both 
prior to and after the independence of the country. Nobody raised any 
objection. If the land belonged to the State, why would the State acquire 
its own property? This question has not been answered. Various 
transactions have taken place after the year 1971 and po11ions of this 
estate have been sold/transferred from one person to another. Entries in 
the Revenue Record were made, but the State never raised any objection. 
The sale deeds were registered without demur. It was only in the year 
2004 that some official of the Karnataka Public Service Commission 
filed a complaint in this regard. In the meantime, hotels, commercial 
buildings and residences had come up on various portions of the estate. 
17. After 104 years of the execution of the original conveyance 
deed, and after acquiring various lands out of this very estate, we cannot 
pennit the State to.urge that the original conveyance deed is
fraudulent 
ortlrnt the subsequent transfers are all collusive and, as such, void. There 
are many bona fide purchasers and, even otherwise, we are not inclined 
to hold that the original transaction was invalid. 
18. Fm1hermore, a bare perusal of Section 67 clearly indicates 
that it only applies to public roads, streets, lanes etc. or to such lands 
which are not the property of individuals, or an aggregate of persons 
legally capable of holding property. A dispute of title of prope11y between 
the State and individuals cannot be decided in tenns of Section 67. Merely 
because the Secretary of the Karnataka Public Service Commission 
had, in his complaint, opined thatthe deed of conveyance executed more 
than I 00 years back was fraudulently claimed to be in favour of the First 
Princess, was not sufficient ground to proceed under Section 67. It could 
not be held that all subsequent transactions relating to the estate property 
were fraudulent.. Fraud must be pleaded and proved; it cannot be 
presumed. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge 
was justified in holdingthatthe proceedings under Section 67 were without
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN v. THE DEPUTY 
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.) 
jurisdiction. We are also of the view thatthe proceedings are beyond the 
period of limitation. 
19. The Division Bench of the High Court held that, in terms of 
Section 67, the aggrieved parties can file either a civil suit or an appeal 
against the order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 
49 of the KLR Act. It did not decide the claim on merits. In the peculiar 
facts and circumstances of the present case, where the dispute regarding 
title has been raised after more than I 00 years and when there is 
evidence to show that the land was bought for the benefit ofFirst Princess, 
the allegation of fraud cannot be believed, especially in view of the 
contemporaneous evidence and the subsequent acquisitions out of this 
very estate, both by the Maharaja of Mysore before independence and 
by the State of Mysore after independence. The notice being without 
jurisdiction could be quashed in proceedings under Article 227 of the 
Constitution oflndia. 
20. In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view 
that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the 
judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is held that the "Beaulieu" estate 
was purchased by the Dewan of Mysore on behalf of the First Princess 
and the consideration was paid from the personal funds of First Princess. 
Therefore, the State of Karnataka has no right over the property. 
Consequently,
the appeals are allowed and the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the High Court is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge 
is restored and the appeal filed by the appellant M. Sankaranarayanan 
which was transferred to the High Court is decided in terms of the 
judgments passed by the learned Single Judge and this Court. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeals allowed. 
217 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F