Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.25895/2011 (KVOA) BETWEEN:
1. SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH.
- SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY L.Rs 1(a) ANJANMURTY S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
1(b) VARALAKSHMI D/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
1(c) RAVI S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
2. SRI. ANJANAPPA S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED 52 YEARS.
3. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
4. SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
5. SRI. NARAYAN S/O LATE CHIKKAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT THORENAGASANDRA VILLAGE MATHAHALLI POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.R. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2. THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 5TH FLOOR, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009.
3. SRI. LAKKAHANUMAIAH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR 4. SRI NANJAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR.
5. SRI NANJAPPA S/O LATE HULIYAPPA MAJOR.
6. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
7. MANJUNATH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
8. SHEKAR S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT THORENAGASANDRA VILLAGE MATHAHALLI POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI. PRABHAKAR L SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8 SERVED AND UNREPRESNTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (BANGALORE RURAL DIST.) IN M.A.NO.4/08 DATED:04.11.2010 AS PER ANNEX-G.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Land bearing Sy.No.23 measuring 2 acres 31 guntas situated at Thorenagasandra village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was originally Talvari inam land. Petitioners’ great grand father late Sri Nanjappa was said to be performing talvari duties in the village and was said to be a barabardar of the land in question. Said late Sri Nanjappa had four sons by name Sriyuths Anjanappa, Sanjeevaiah, Huliyappa and Hanumanthappa. On the demise of Sri Nanjappa, his sons Sri Sanjeevaiah and Sri. Huliyappa are said to have continued talwari noukaries (duties) in the village and are said to have been personally cultivating the land. For better understanding of factual matrix, geneology of the family of original propositus late Sri.Nanjappa, it would be apt and appropriate to extract the genealogical tree and it reads:
GENEOLOGICAL TREE NANJAPPA (DEAD)
Chickkagangaiah Hanumantharayappa Anjanappa Nagaraj (Dead) Lakkahanumaiah Nanjappa Chandrappa Narayan Nanjappa Krishnappa (Dead) Smt. Lakshmi (Wife) Manjunath Shekar 2. Petitioners 1 to 3 are the sons of late Sri Sanjeevaiah, petititioners -4 to 5 are grand sons of late Sri Sanjeevaiah and sons of Sri Chikkagangaiah. Respondents-3 and 4 are sons of late Sri Hanumanhappa , respondent 5 is the son of late Sri Huliyappa and respondents-6 to 8 are wife and sons of late Sri Krishnappa who is the son of late Sri. Huliyappa. In other words, petitioners-1 to 5 represent the branch of late Sri Sanjeevaiah and respondents 3 and 4 represent the branch of Sri late Hanumanthappa and respondents-5 to 8 represent the branch of late Sri Huliyappa. As already noticed herein above, on the demise of barabardar, his sons Sri Sanjeevaiah and Huliyappa are said to have performed the duties of talvari in the village and they have been cultivating the land in question to an extent of 1 acre 27 guntas by Sri Sanjeevaiah and 1 acre 4 guntas by Sri Huliyappa and his sons. Father of respondents-3 and 4 i.e., late Sri Hanumanthappa is said to have never performed the duties of talvari and was said to be not cultivating the land in question. It is also the case of the petitioners that during his childhood, Sri Hanumanthappa has left the village and in order to demonstrate that Sriyuths Sanjeevaiah and Huliyappa have been cultivating the land in question, RTC extracts of the land bearing Sy.No.23 has been produced as per Annexure-B series. They have also paid taxes as per Annexure-C series and record of rights of the land in question as per Annexure-D would indicate that it is issued in the name of the father of petitioners-1 to 3.
3. On Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 coming into force, inam lands stood vested with the Government and seeking regrant of said land, father of petitioners-1 to 3 late Sri Sanjeevaiah and father of respondent No.5 late Sri Huliyappa filed applications before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition. Said Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 28.11.1960 - Annexure-E ordered for regrant of 2 acres 31 guntas of land in favour of late Sri Huliyppa. Thereafter father of petitioners late Sri Sanjeevaiah and late Sri Huliyappa got divided said property on the basis of cultivation of their respective portions. However, original records which have been produced by the Government Advocate, when perused, would disclose that above said Sri Sanjeevaiah and Sri Huliyappa, sons of late Sri Nanjappa were registered as holders of the land to an extent of 1 acre 16 guntas and 1 acre 15 guntas of Sy.No.23. Thus, order of regrant had attained finality since there was no challenge to said order. Original records made available by the learned Government Advocate would also disclose that holder of minor inam was ordered to be registered as holder under section 8 of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954.
4. When this was the factual position, the Special Tahsildar yet again, exercising the power under the same enactment has regranted the said land in favour of the petitioners and respondents-3 to 5 by granting 34 guntas each in favour of children of Sri Sanjeevaiah, Sri Huliyappa and Sri Hanumanthappa - Petitioners 1 to 5 and respondents 3 to 5 herein. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed an appeal before II Additional District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in M.A No.4/2008 under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act (‘Act’ for short), inasmuch as, power which came to be exercised by the Tahsildar was under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. Hence, this writ petition.
5. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths B.R.Vishwanath, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners, Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents-1 and 2 and Sri Prabhakar L Shastry, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-3. Respondents-4 to 8 are served and unrepresented.
6. It is the contention of Sri B.R.Vishwanath, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that impugned orders are without jurisdiction and once application for regrant of the land in question having been filed by the petitioners father and same having been considered, adjudicated and examined, question of re-examining said issue under different enactment i.e., Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 would not arise and without noticing the fact that land in question being a talvari land, which village office was protected under Section 1(3)(d) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, power has been exercised by the Tahsildar under the Act as though said talvari land continued to be as such without considering the fact that land was not available for conferment of tenancy rights in respect of minor inam holder. Hence, he prays for impugned orders being set aside. He would rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions.
(1) 1969(2) Mys.L.J. 237 P SITARAMAYYA vs STATE OF MYSORE Next >