Page 1

1

‘REPORTABLE’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4937 OF 2017 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20459 of 2014]

Sri M. Sankaranarayanan ... Appellant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore & Ors. ... Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4939 OF 2017 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12595 of 2014]

Asha Chakko & Ors. ... Appellants

Versus

State of Karnataka & Anr. ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Deepak Gupta, J.

Leave granted.

1. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these

civil  appeals,  they  are  being  disposed  of  by  this  common

Judgment.  

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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

Page 4

4

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

as follows:

“3. The  appellant  applied  to  the  High  Court  for transfer  of  Appeal  No.  690  of  2005,  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. 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

Page 5

5

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 vs. 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  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 of receipt of copy of this order.   No costs.”

The writ 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.  

7. We  have  heard  Shri  K.  K.  Venugopal,  learned  Senior

Counsel for the appellants and Shri J. N. Raghupathy, learned

Counsel  for  the  State  of  Karnataka,  at  length.    The  main

contention of  Shri  Venugopal  is  that  this  is  a  case  where  the

action of the State Government is hopelessly time-barred.  The

Page 6

6

acquisition took place in 1900 and the State Government could

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 KLR

Act.

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 of Rs.128.50

had  been  paid.   There  is  a  memo on  record  which  has  been

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 First Princess Jayalakshammanni Avaru.

There  are  details  of  the  account  of  the  First  Princess,  cash

Page 7

7

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 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 which belonged to the First Princess, all  correspondence

for acquisition of the same be addressed to her.   On 06.08.1949,

Page 8

8

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.

10. It  would  be  pertinent  to  mention  that  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.  

11. On 02.08.1956, the Government of Mysore acquired another

piece of land and, again, the compensation was paid to Rajkumari

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, who 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.

Page 9

9

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  vide  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 of 2005 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 portion 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

Page 10

10

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 order 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 sought to play fraud

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:

“67. Public roads, etc., and all lands which are not the property of others belong to the Government.—

Page 11

11

(1) All  public  roads,  streets,  lanes  and  paths, bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks  below  high  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 of the 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 under 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 be binding on the parties.”

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 dispute the title of  persons who

have been holding property for more than 100 years.  Prior to the

Page 12

12

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

funds.   He had also requested the Maharaja 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

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

Page 13

13

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.

Page 14

14

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.

Page 15

15

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.  

................................J. (MADAN. B. LOKUR)

................................J. (DEEPAK GUPTA)

New Delhi, April 10, 2017.