IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA W.P.No.38348/2014 (KVOA) C/W W.P.NO.38350/2014 (KVOA) C/W W.P.NO.38351/2014(KVOA) IN W.P.NO.38348/2014 BETWEEN:
SMT. PUSHPAMMA, W/O LATE T.P.MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.136, MUNISWAMAPPA ROAD, MUNIREDDYPALYA, J.C.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 006.
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI.LAKSHMANA, S/O ABBAYYAPPA @ ABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.B.SADASHIVAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, D/O LATE C NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.63, 2ND CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 024.
2. TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009.
3. SRI.BALAKRISHNA, S/O KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. J.VENUGOPAL, S/O K.M.JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.103, LAKSHMAIAH BLOCK, 2ND MAIN, 10TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE – 24.
4. SMT. YASHODAMMA, W/O K.M.JAYARAM, D/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.103, 10TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 024.
5. SRI. B.N.VENKATAPPA, S/O LATE NARASIMHA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BIDANAGERE VILLAGE, KUNIGAL TALUK – 572 130.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. D.P.REVATHI, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI. M.MUNIGANGAPPA, HCGP FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 25.01.2016) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.03.2014 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BANGALORE IN M.A.NO.9/2009 AS PER ANNEXURES– A & B BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC., IN W.P.NO.38350/2014 BETWEEN:
SMT. PUSHPAMMA, W/O LATE T.P.MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.136, MUNISWAMAPPA ROAD, MUNIREDDYPALYA, J.C.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 006.
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI.LAKSHMANA, S/O ABBAYYAPPA @ ABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.B.SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. YASHODAMMA, W/O K.M.JAYARAM, D/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.103, 10TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 024.
2. TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009.
3. SRI.BALAKRISHNA, S/O KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. J.VENUGOPAL, S/O K.M.JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.103, LAKSHMAIAH BLOCK, 2ND MAIN, 10TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE – 24.
4. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, D/O LATE C NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.63, 2ND CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 024.
5. SRI. B.N.VENKATAPPA, S/O LATE NARASIMHA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BIDANAGERE VILLAGE, KUNIGAL TALUK – 572 130.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.P.SHIVAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.MUNIGANGAPPA, HCGP FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 25.01.2016) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.03.2014 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BANGALORE IN M.A.NO.11/2009 VIDE ANNEXURES- A & B [I.E., JUDGMENT AND DECREE] AND ETC., IN W.P.NO.38351/2014 BETWEEN:
SMT. PUSHPAMMA, W/O LATE T.P.MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.136, MUNISWAMAPPA ROAD, MUNIREDDYPALYA, J.C.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 006.
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI.LAKSHMANA, S/O ABBAYYAPPA @ ABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.BALAKRISHNA, S/O KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. J.VENUGOPAL, S/O K.M.JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.103, LAKSHMAIAH BLOCK, 2ND MAIN, 10TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE – 24.
2. TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009.
3. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, D/O LATE C NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.63, 2ND CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 024.
4. SMT. YASHODAMMA, W/O K.M.JAYARAM, D/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.103, 10TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 024.
5. SRI. B.N.VENKATAPPA, S/O LATE NARASIMHA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BIDANAGERE VILLAGE, KUNIGAL TALUK – 572 130.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI M.MUNIGANGAPPA, HCGP FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 25.01.2016) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.03.2014 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BANGALORE IN M.A.NO.12/2009 AS PER ANNEXURES– A & B [I.E., JUDGMENT AND DECREE] BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner who is common in all these writ petitions is impugning the order dated 04.03.2014 passed in M.A.No.9/2009 by the XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, wherein the appeal filed by the first respondent herein in challenge to the order of the second respondent-Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk dated 3.12.2008 in HOA CR 65/2005-06 is allowed setting aside the order of the Tahsildar, consequently, the title of the first respondent to a portion of the land in Survey No.37 of Gangenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, is accepted. Similar appeals filed in M.A.No.11 and 12/2009 are allowed by the very same Court by passing similar order in each of the appeals separately.
2. The facts leading to the aforesaid three appeals and the challenge to the impugned orders in these writ petitions are common which are as under:
The litigation between the parties to these three writ petitions would date back to proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-Division, Bengaluru, in HOA(S) 183-331/68-69 dated 11.8.1970. Admittedly, the said proceedings is between the State and six persons as respondents who had filed applications seeking re-grant of land under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, where all the respondents claimed themselves as hakdar thoties claiming descent from the original barawardar thoties having right to seek re-grant under Thoti Inam. Admittedly, the first respondent in the aforesaid case is Doddamunisamappa s/o. Beerappa. There is one more person of the same name namely Doddamuniswamy s/o.Doddmuniyappa, 5th respondent in the aforesaid proceedings. Admittedly, they are members of the different branches of the same family. The said proceedings continued and in an order being passed on 11.8.1970 where an extent of 50% in 6 acres 33 guntas in Survey No.37 was jointly ordered in favour Doddamunisamappa s/o.Beerappa and his brother Chikkamunisamappa represented by his wife Muniyamma that means they secured jointly 3 acres 16 ½ guntas in Sy.No.37 of Gangenahalli Village. The said extent as ordered in the said proceedings was to be divided equally between them whereunder Doddamunisamappa would get 1 acre and 28 ¼ guntas and his sister-in-law i.e. his brother Chikkamunisamappa’s wife would get 1 acres and 28 ¼ guntas, which was subjected to various litigations thereafter.
3. The material on record would indicate that Doddamunisamappa during his life time after the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 11.8.1970 executed a Will in favour of one Pushpamma where he would state that she is daughter of his younger brother’s first wife and he would bequeath 1 acres 37 guntas under registered Will dated 6.12.1973. Thereafter in and around in 1978-
79 in the very same land in respect of which he had executed a Will in favour of petitioner-Pushpamma he had formed residential layouts and sold several sites in favour of different persons. The first respondents in these three writ petitions are the purchasers of site bearing No.4 measuring 30 x 40 ft; site bearing No.8 measuring 80 x 30 ft. and another two sites bearing Nos.8A and 8B together measuring 54 x 88 ft. respectively These four plots are the subject-matter of dispute between the petitioner who is common in all these three petitions and first respondents in these petitions.
4. The petitioner herein filed an application under Section 5 of the KVOA Act seeking resumption relying upon the Amendment Act 22/2003 where permission was accorded to seek resumption of land if it is conveyed to third parties within 15 years from the date of grant or from the date of commencement of the amendment Act 22/2003, which was considered and allowed by the competent authority namely Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk in HOA (CR) No.65/2004-05 by order dated 8.11.2005 which was the subject-matter of challenge in three Misc. Appeals as stated supra filed by the first respondent in each of these three writ petitions where defence that was taken by them was that the Amendment Act 22/2003 would not take away the benefit which is available to first respondents respectively in these petitions under the Amendment Act No.13/1978 where there was an express concession provided under Section 5(1) which reads as under:-
“In Section 5 of the principal Act,-
(1) in sub-section(3), for the words “without the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner and such sanction shall be granted only on payment of an amount equal to fifteen times the amount of full assessment of the land’ the words, brackets and figures “for a period of fifteen years from the date of commencement of Section 1 of the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition(Amendment)Act, 1978” shall be substituted;”
5. According to the first respondent, the original order of grant included permission for sale subject to payment of 18 years assessment in advance. According to them, the said amount was paid on 30.1.1968 as seen from the calculation of assessment at Page 6 of the list of documents produced along with these petitions where at the left hand site of the challan the amount of assessment payable for the next 18 years is calculated at Rs.8/- per year which would come to Rs.144/- out of which Rs.72/- is paid by Doddamunisamappa being 50% of his share on 30.1.1968. Learned counsel for the first respondent in all these three petitions would try to assert that the provisions of the amended Act 22/2003 to KVOA Act, 1961 will not take away the benefit which had been given to her under the earlier amendment Act 13/1978, which is referred to supra. The said contention is accepted by the learned District Judge while considering the aforesaid three appeals which were filed by the first respondents’ in these three writ petitions and accordingly, the appeals were allowed.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant before the Tahsildar who is claiming to be the legal heir of Doddamunisamappa has come up in these writ petitions impugning the order of the learned District Judge in M.A.Nos.9, 11 and 12/2009, which were disposed of by separate orders dated 4.3.2014. Though several grounds are raised in these three writ petitions they are common. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the Amendment Act. 22/2003 tried to assert that in the light of the said amendment, Section 5 would go back to the date of grant and thereby putting restrictions regarding sale of land within 15 years from the said date without reference to the first amendment which was brought to KVOA Act in the year 1978 vide amendment Act 13/1978.
7. He would further assert that in the light of the amendment Act 22/2003 coming into force, the order of resumption passed by the Tahsildar is justifiable and therefore the common petitioner-Pushpamma who is a legatee under the Will dated 6.12.1973 would step into the shoe of grantee Doddamunisamappa and as such she is entitled to resumption of the land in her favour. He would also assert that any transaction which is done by Doddamunisamappa during his life time after execution of the Will dated 6.12.1973 in conveying sites formed in the land which was granted in his favour would not enure to the benefit of the purchasers. In the aforesaid circumstances therefore the said sites be resumed and handed over to the petitioner. He also tried to assert that the sale deeds executed in favour of the first respondents’ in all these three writ petitions is not maintainable among other reasons that the sites which were sold in their favour were formed in the agricultural land without proper conversion of the same from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose. Therefore, the said sale is not valid in the absence of conversion required under Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961. Further the alienation has taken place in respect of first respondents’ in each of these three petitions between 1.12.1979 to 31.3.1980. Therefore, it is within 15 years from the date of re-grant in favour of Doddamunisamappa, which has taken place on 11.8.1970. Therefore, the said sale is not valid pursuant to the amendment Act 22/2003 to KVOA Act, 1961.
8. Per contra the learned counsel for the first respondent in all these petitions would state that in the first place Pushpamma is not the legal heir of Doddamunisamappa, as could be seen from the recitals in the Will she is the daughter of his brother’s first wife. Therefore, she is not Class-I heir to claim herself as the legal heir of Doddamunisamappa as contemplated under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore, she cannot claim herself as the legal heir of the Doddamunisamappa to take the benefit of resumption under the provisions of the Amendment Act 22/2003 to KVOA Act, 1961. Secondly, though Doddamunisamappa executed a registered Will dated 6.12.1973, his right in the property has not extinguished but is available to him until his death. As such, during his life time and subsequent to 1978 he has executed three sale deeds on 6.12.1979 in respect of site measuring 40 x 30 ft; another sale deed dated 1.12.1978 in respect of site measuring 30 x 80 ft and one more sale deed dated 31.3.1980 conveying the sites bearing Nos.8A and 8B.
9. Therefore, these three sale deeds are subsequent to 1978 i.e. when the amended provision of Section 5 came into force after introduction of Act No.13/1989 to KVOA Act, 1961. Whether the blanket restriction regarding non-alienation of 15 years is diluted in recognizing the right of the grantee to convey the land in favour of third parties subject to payment of 15 years assessment in the upfront. In the instant case he would state that the said permission was granted to Doddmunisamappa in the order of re-grant dated 11.8.1970 and pursuant to that he had paid 50% of the total assessment of Rs.144/- which amounts to Rs.72/- and that is the extent of tax which was payable to 50% of his share in respect of the land granted in his favour. Therefore, he has complied provisions of Section 5 under the amendment Act.13/1978. There was no embargo or restriction regarding sale. Therefore, the right which was vested in him earlier to the amendment Act cannot be taken away by the subsequent amendment Act. Therefore, the sale deed executed by him between 1978 to 1980 is in pursuance to the amendment Act, is valid.
10. Further, he would contend that once Doddamunisamappa has sold the said extent of land the same was not available to Pushpamma to seek resumption of the same. Even assuming that there is resumption, she can seek it as a legal heir and not as a legatee under the Will. The right to seek resumption is available to the grantee or legal heir and not to the legatee under the Will. In addition to the aforesaid averment he would state that besides the Will which was executed in favour of Pushpamma to the extent of 1 acre 37 guntas as against his share of 1 acre 28 1/4 guntas of regrant, he has executed one more Will on 13.12.1982 in favour of one Ramachandra, who was one of the parties in the earlier proceedings which was initiated by Pushpamma where some portion of the very same land is bequeathed in favour Ramachandra. Therefore, that Will supersede the earlier Will.
11. Therefore, the subsequent Will registered in favour of Ramachandra where some portion of the very same land is bequeathed in favour Ramachandra would not be available to her unless she establishes that dehors the Will that is executed in favour of Ramachandra on 13.12.1982, some extent of the land which was held by her and which was the subject-matter of bequeath in her favour is still available to her. She can agitate the same in a civil suit in the competent Court of law. The same cannot be pursued by her unless her right and title to the re-granted land is crystallized in the form of title on her. That not having been done she cannot approach the Tahsildar or this Court against the order of the learned District Judge setting aside the order of resumption.
12. Further, he would contend that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale deeds executed by Doddamunisamappa between 1.12.1978 to 31.3.1980 being the sites formed in the agricultural land could not have been sold since they are not converted by relying upon the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Shree Renuka Sugars Limited .vs. Union of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution, by its Secretary and others 2011(5) KCCR SN 659, Head Note C and in the case of M. Kokila .vs. State of Karnataka and others 2009(6) Kar.L.J.590 Paragraph 5 is countered by the counsel for the first respondent by relying upon the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Vishwa Bharathi House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. .vs. Bangalore Development Authority [ILR 1990 KAR 1479] where at Paragraph 15 Their Lordships have held as under:-
“15. In regard to the contention whether the petitioner is bound to obtain conversion of the lands from agricultural purpose to the residential purpose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER .VS.
NARAYANAPPA. It was held in the said case that if a land falls within the Outline Development Plan or Comprehensive Development Plan prepared for Bangalore Metropolitan planning area, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, ceases to have any power under Section 95 of the Act in view of the over- riding effect given to the provisions of the Planning Act by Section 76-M thereof over all other laws which includes the Land Revenue Act. The case of the petitioner is that there is an entry both in the Outline Development Plan and the Comprehensive Development Plan showing the lands in question as residential in character. Applying the ratio of the decision aforesaid, I hold that the necessity to obtain conversion once again is totally obviated. But, if the petitioner intended to put the land to any different purpose other than residential, it is only then a necessary application has to be made before the Competent Authority under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and only after sanction is given, the petitioner could use the land for any purpose other than residential.”
13. Therefore, it is contended that the conversion is not required since Gangenahalli village is included under CDP and ODP and therefore, the said land is no longer an agricultural land and there was no need to secure conversion unless the vendor wanted to convey it for any purpose other than residential purpose. Since the sale in favour of the first respondents’ in each of these writ petitions is for residential purpose the aforesaid observation of the learned Single Judge in the decision reported in ILR 1990 KAR 1479 at Paragraph 15 would protect the interest of the first respondents’ in these writ petitions.
14. In addition to that he would also state that the intention of the legislature in bringing amendment to KVOA Act in the year 2003 is to ensure that bharwardhars and thoti inams who are basically persons belonging to weaker sections of the Society should not be lured to part with agricultural land which is re-granted in their favour and take away their livelihood. In the instant case, by the time the land was re-granted, due to urbanization it was not fit for agricultural activities. Therefore, the amendment Act 22/2003 which was brought to the KVOA Act should be seen as protecting the cultivation right of the barwardhars and thotis who were re-granted land to ensure their livelihood and not with an intention that the said lands are used by them to dabble in real estate activities. That was not the intention either under the KVOA Act or the subsequent amendments which have come into place by amendment Act.13/1978 and 22/2003. Therefore, if the contention of the petitioner is accepted it is nothing but defeating the very purpose of the original Act as well as the amendment Acts which are framed to protect the interest of the applicants but not to promote their real estate activities in the guise of seeking resumption. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Judge in M.A.Nos.9, 11 and 12/2009 is in the background of aforesaid fact situation and the same does not merit consideration in these petitions.
15. Learned Government Pleader Sri. M. Munigangappa has filed objections on behalf of the State. Though State is a formal party, he has tried to assert that the order of the Tahsildar in passing the resumption is justified which is unnecessarily disturbed by the learned District Judge while considering the appeals in M.A.Nos.9, 11 and 12/2009 which requires to be quashed in these proceedings.
16. After giving careful consideration to the aforesaid arguments, this Court is of the opinion that admittedly in these proceedings what was considered for re-grant in favour of Doddamunisamappa was 1 acre 28 ¼ guntas in Survey No.37 of Gangenahalli Village for which he was legal heir of original Barwardar of Thoti Inam is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Pushpamma is not his own daughter or adopted daughter. She is fostered by him. In fact she is the daughter of his younger brother’s first wife. Therefore, she is not the Class-I heir as contemplated under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Further, it is not in dispute that the re-grantee Doddamunisamappa executed a Will on 6.12.1973 bequeathing 1 acre 37 guntas in Survey No.37 of Gangenahalli Village in favour of Pushpamma which is more than the extent which was re-granted in his favour. Therefore, the said bequeath as such is not valid in excess of the extent which was re-granted in his favour.
17. It is seen that thereafter he has continued to deal with the said property by forming residential layouts and selling the sites to various persons and in the process he has sold three sites bearing No.4, 8 and 8A and 8B as one unit. In respect of the said sites he has executed sale deeds on 6.12.1979, 1.12.1978 and 31.3.1980.
Admittedly these three sites were sold by him pursuant to Amendment Act No.13/1978 coming into force on 7.8.1978. Admittedly, the amended provisions of Section 5(1) in the said amendment Act would permit the re- grantee to sell the land which was re-granted in his favour subject to the condition that he pays 15 times of the assessment upfront and after taking necessary permission from the competent authority. In the instant case in the order of re-grant dated 11.08.1970 itself, there is an inbuilt permission to sell the land subject to payment of 18 times assessment which is paid by the petitioner at the rate of Rs.72/-, his share being 50% in the total extent of land granted in his favour and in favour of his brother represented by his wife.
18. The receipt dated 30.1.1968 for having paid Rs.72/- is produced along with the list of documents in these writ petitions which is not disputed. Therefore, as on the date when the sale deeds dated 1.12.1978, 6.12.1979 and 31.3.1980 were executed, the amended provisions of Section 5(1) pursuant to amendment Act 13/1978 being in place, the sale in favour of the first respondents’ in each of these petitions cannot be held to be invalid is rightly accepted by the learned District Judge in M.A.Nos.9, 11 and 12/2009. Therefore, to that extent the order of the Tahsildar in resumption proceedings vide HOA (CR) No.65/2004-05 dated 8.11.2005 is erroneous and is rightly set aside by the learned District Judge.
19. Now coming to the other technicalities that are raised i.e., in the judgment rendered in Shree Renuka Sugar Mills Limited’s case which is a short note relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court has held that development of agricultural land without seeking conversion is in violation of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. However, while deciding the same, the Division Bench has not given its opinion as to whether the conveyance is valid or otherwise. Therefore, the said judgment would not support the grounds urged by the petitioner in these petitions. Similarly in another judgment which is relied upon by the petitioner in the case of M. Kokila .vs. State of Karnataka and others wherein at Paragraph 5, the Division Bench of this Court on yet another action discussed the usage of agricultural land for the purpose of carrying out mining activity without taking permission under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961, which does not deal with the conversion for sale of the agricultural property to non-agriculture use. Therefore, the said judgment also does not support the case of the petitioner. However, the judgment which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the first respondents in these petitions reported in ILR 1990 KAR 1479, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dealt with the very same matter at Paragraph 15 which is culled out supra, which clearly indicates that when once the land is identified as residential in character in ODP and CDP, there is no necessity to seek conversion under Section 95 of the Act and such is finding is rendered by the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of The Special Deputy Commissioner .vs. Narayanappa [ILR 1998 KAR 1398] .
20. Therefore, this Court would accept the sale deeds which were executed by the original grantee Doddamunisamappa in favour of the first respondents in all these three writ petitions between December 1978 to Mar 1980 are valid inasmuch as by that time the entire Gangenahalli area was included in ODP and CDP which were in place under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and as such the said sale deeds cannot be nullified. Besides the above observations, this Court would also accept the submission on behalf of the counsel for the first respondent in all the three writ petitions that unless the petitioner-Pushpamma approaches the Civil Court in a suit for declaration to establish herself as the legal heir of deceased Doddamunisamappa and that she has valid title to the regranted land in Survey No.37 as against the subsequent Will which is executed by the very same Doddamunisamappa in favour of another cousin brother of Pushpamma namely Ramachandra, she could not have approached the Tahsildar seeking resumption of land as admittedly she is not the Class-I heir of Doddamuniswamappa as contemplated under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
21. Therefore, it was a pre-condition which she was required to comply, which has not been done by her. Therefore, the application which was filed by her seeking resumption was without any basis or title inasmuch as not recognizing her as the legal heir of deceased Doddamunisamappa and further filing of the application on the basis of the earlier registered Will dated 6.12.1973 in suppressing the subsequent Will of Doddamunisamappa in favour of Ramachandra on 13.12.1982 in respect of the very same land is also erroneous. Therefore, viewed from any angle the finding of the learned District Judge in setting aside the order of resumption passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk in proceedings No.HOACR.65:04-0, by the judgment dated 4.3.2014 passed separately in Appeal Nos.9, 11 and 12/2009 is justifiable and does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs.
In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, LCR is ordered to be sent to the Registrar, City Civil Court.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.