Case: Sri M. Sankaranarayanan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore

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 that the Office of the Karnataka Public Service Commission had a boundary adjoining "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 for the 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 not the 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 other portions of the estate were acquired and this time K. Basavaraj Urs was shown as the owner. It was complained that the acquisition of 20 acres and 9 gunthas of land, out of the 24 acres and 12 gunthas, was a fraudulent acquisition and would not confer any rights upon 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 parties filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The learned Single Judge quashed the order passed by the State of Karnataka 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 of 2011 for transfer of his case. This petition was allowed and the operative portion of the order reads asThe appellant applied to the High Court for transfer of Appeal No. 690 of 2005, titled as M. Sankaranarayanan v. 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. 643 of 2009. 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 and it cannot be clubbed with the writ appeal.4. Having regard to the fact that the controversy in Writ Appeal No. 643 of 2009, 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 of 2005, titled as "M. Sankaranarayanan v. Dy. Commissioner, Bangalore and others" pending before the KAT be transferred to the High Court for its hearing and disposal along with Writ Appeal No. 643 of 2009, titled as "State of Karnataka and another v. 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 of receipt of copy of this order. Nowrit appeal filed by the State of Karnataka in the case of Smt. Asha Chakko was allowed mainly 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. Sankaranarayanan 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.

Court's reasoning:
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 Government 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 portions 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 permit the State to urge that the original conveyance deed is fraudulent or that 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. Furthermore, 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 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 his 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 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 holding that the proceedings under Section 67 were without jurisdiction. We are also of the view that the 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 100 years and when there is evidence to show that the land was bought for the benefit of First 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 of India.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.