Full Judgment
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Learned Single Judge by which he has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by him, wherein the appellant had challenged the order dated 25.2.1982 passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy right in favour of one Nagappaiah, since dead, whose heirs have been impleaded as respondents-4 to 8.
2. Admittedly the lands in question were Devadya Inam Lands of the third respondent Mujrai Institution, Pursuant to the notification No. SO.603 dated 4.4.1970 issued by the State Government under Section 1(4) of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') the inam lands in question also came to be vested in the Government. Consequent upon the said vesting, as provided under Section 6 of the said Act, the appellant, late Nagappaiah and respondent-9 filed applications before the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, for registering them as occupants.
3. Sections 6 and 9(1) of the Act, which are relevant for the present case, read as follows:
'Section 6 OTHER TENANTS TO BE TENANTS UNDER GOVERNMENT, - Every tenant of the inamdar other than a kadim tenant or a permanent tenant with effect on and from the date of vesting and subject to the provision of Chapter IV, be entitled to be continued as a tenant under the Government in respect of land of which he was a tenant under the inamdar immediately before the date of vesting,'
'9(1) DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS FOR REGISTRATION OF OCCUPANCY AND CONTINUATION OF TENANCY - The Tribunal shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which a person claims to be registered as an occupant under Sections 4.5.5A, 6A, 7 and 8 as the case may be or in respect of which any person claims to be continued as tenant under Section 6, and decide in respect of which lands the claims should be allowed.'
Under the Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979, Section 9 was amended by substituting the words 'Deputy Commissioner' by the word 'Tribunal'. Keeping in view the said amendment to the Act the applications filed by the appellant, late Nagappaiah and the 9th respondent stood transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal on examining the record of rights found that since on the date of vesting of the inam lands in the Government, late Nagappaiah was the tenant, therefore the occupancy was granted in his favour. The 9th respondent challenged that order by filing Writ Petition No. 1503/82 before this Court but the same came to be dismissed as having abated since the legal representatives of Nagappaiah, who was impleaded as Respondent, were not brought on record. Admittedly, pursuant to the Tribunal's order, the heirs of late Nagappaiah, being respondent No. 4 to 8, were allowed to continue in possession of the lands. The present appellant had filed the present Writ Petition after a lapse of 13 years taking the plea that he had no knowledge of the order passed by the Tribunal. The plea taken was that he had no notice of the proceedings before the Tribunal. But the learned Single Judge disbelieved the plea since the Tribunal had specifically recorded that the notices had been served on the present appellant. Now before us it is contended that the Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979, having been declared ultra vires by this Court in the case of SHRI KUDLI SRINGERI MAHA SAMSTHANAM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, ILR 192 Karnataka 1827 on 24th April 1992. The adjudication by the Tribunal of the respective rights of the appellant and late Nagappaiah had become nonest and now the matter is required to be redetermined by the Deputy Commissioner. In our opinion this plea has to be rejected in view of the de facto doctrine, according to which the subsequent declaration of appointment of an adjudicating body as illegal cannot tell upon the adjudication of an issue between two private litigants. The law in this regard has been fully discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of GOKARAJU RANGARAJU v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, : 1981 CriLJ876 .
4. The other prayer of Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, appearing for the appellant that, since the appellant was enjoying the tenancy till upto 1966-67 and the name of late Nagappaiah was recorded subsequently without notice to him, therefore the Tribunal should not have given any credence to the entries in the R.T.C. extract. In this connection what we find is that the Mujarai Institution being the Inamdar, had been giving the property on yearly lease basis. From the certified copy of the R.T.C. Pahani produced by Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, it is seen that late Nagappaiah was given the land son lease from the year 1966-67 and Eswarappa, the appellant, was a leases of the lands during earlier period. Since as per the revenue records this was the position, therefore on the date of vesting, as rightly concluded by the Tribunal, it was late Nagappaiah who has to be treated as the tenant. In the said view of the matter even if for the sake of argument the plea of the appellant is accepted, that he had no due notice of the proceedings, even a remand of the case will not serve any use full purpose because the ultimate result has to remain the same. In the case of S.L. KAPOOR v. JAGMOHAN AND ORS., : [1981]1SCR746 it has been held by the Supreme Court that:
'Linked with this question is the question whether the failure to observe natural justice does at all matter if the observance of natural justice would have made no difference, the admitted or indisputable facts speaking for themselves. Where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it approves the non-observance of natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs.'
5. In the above view of the matter we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.