IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.15299 OF 2019 (KVOA) BETWEEN :
1. K. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. K. RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 45YEARS 3. K. MOHAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE S/O LATE KANCHI KULLAIAH R/AT KOWDLE VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DIST.-571 428 … PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. KALEEMULLA SHARIFF, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. H.D. SUKANYA, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-01 2. THE THASILDAR MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DIST-571 428 3. PUTTASWAMYGOWDA S/O LATE BILIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 4. GOOLIGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT KONKANA MALLIGERE VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DIST-571 428 5. T. SHIVARAMU S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 6. T. PRAKASHA S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 7. HOMBALEGOWDA @ SHANKAREGOWDA S/O LATE HOMBALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 8. GANGARASAIAH S/O LATE HOMBALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 9. BORAMMA W/O LATE NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 10. GEETHA D/O LATE NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS THE RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 10 ARE R/AT BOLARE VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DIST-571 428 11. HEMAGIRIGOWDA S/O LATE HEMAGIRIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DIST.-571 428 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DTD.17.08.2017 PASSED IN M.A.NO.53/2016 BY THE HON’BLEL IV ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA VIDE ANNX-D AND ORDER DATED 30.08.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-C RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondents No.1 & 2.
2. Heard Shri Kaleemulla Shariff, learned advocate for the petitioners and Shri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA for the State.
3. Shri Kaleemulla Shariff submitted that on 23.04.1971, various pieces of land in various survey numbers situated at Kowdle Village, Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District in the name of petitioners’ father, Shri Kanchi Kullaiah. Petitioner’s father sold the land to private respondents No.3 to 11. Petitioners challenged the same before the Tahasildar and sought restoration of the land on the ground that alienation was within restricted period. In the first round of the litigation, Tahasildar allowed petitioners’ request and land was restored. Private respondents challenged the same before I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya. Learned District Judge remanded the matter for fresh consideration. In the second round of litigation, Tahasildar dismissed petitioners’ application. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners challenged the same before IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya. By judgment and order dated 17.08.2017 in M.A.No.53/2016, learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Tahasildar. Hence, this writ petition.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records.
5. Learned District Judge has recorded a specific finding that land in question have been sold under a Registered Sale Deeds dated 29.02.1988 and 02.08.1989 and the same is after 15 years. The finding recorded by the learned District Judge reads as follows:
“20. In so far as the other sale deeds i.e., sale deed dated 2-7-1987 sold in favour of Shanthamma, in Sy.No. 65 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 04 guntas and she in turn sold to Thammegowda (respondent No.s 3 and 4 family) under the registered Sale Deed dated 2- 8-1989 and another sale deed dated 21-2-1988 in favour of Hemagirigowda (9th respondent) are concerned, on perusal of the year of those sale deeds i.e., 1987 and 1988, those sale deeds were after the lapse of 15 years, because the lands were regranted to the appellants father Kanchikullaiah on 23-4-1971. From 23-4-1971 till the date 2-7-1987, 15 years lapsed and likewise from 23-4-1971 to 29-2-1988 i.e., more than 15 years. Therefore, these appellants cannot contend that the sale deeds in favour of family of Thammegowda (Respondent No.s 3 and 4) and family of Respondent No.9 Hemagirigowda are void.” (sic) 6. The specific ground urged by the learned advocate for the petitioners is that alienations were within inalienable period. The finding of fact recorded by the learned District Judge clearly shows that alienation is after 15 years. In the circumstances, the solitary ground urged in support of this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Learned AGA is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondents No.1 & 2 within four weeks.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV