IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.38384 OF 2013 (KVOA) BETWEEN:
SRI SANJEEVAPPA S/O. LATE MADDURAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS BATTARA MARENAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK – 571 001.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI R.NATARAJ, ADV.) AND:
1. THE TAHSILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI – 571 001.
2. SMT. HANUMAKKA S/O. LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
3. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O. LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
4. SRI. MOHANRAJ S/O. LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
5. SMT.ANJINAMMA D/O. LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT BATTARA MARENAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK – 571 001.
(BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R.1, SRI G.RAMESH, ADV., FOR C/R.3, SRI G.PAPIREDDY, ADV., FOR R4 R.2 & R.5 ARE SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT DEVANAHALLI IN M.A.NO.127/2011 DT.8.7.2013, ANNEX-J AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner herein is one of the sons of original Baravardar Maddurappa, who is said to be having Talavari inam right in respect of land bearing Sy.No.4 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas of Battaramarenahalli village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk.
2. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of the judgment dated 8.7.2013 passed in MA No.127/2011 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, which is at Annexure-J, where the challenge to re-grant proceeding under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 was rejected on the ground of limitation. However, the petitioner herein being one of the sons of Baravadar is said to have initiated original suit in O.S.NO.432/2012 on the file of Civil Judge, Devanahalli, for partition of the properties falling to the estate of the deceased Maddurappa.
3. In that view of the matter, this Court find that the challenge to the dismissal of MA No.127/2011 cannot be sustained and it is further observed that dismissal of the appeal challenging the order of the Tahsildar under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 would not come in the way of seeking share in the estate of Maddurappa, if he is not able to demonstrate that he is his legal heir.
With the said observation, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE