IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.35789/2010 (KVOA) BETWEEN:
1. SRI THIMMAIAH S/O. LATE TALAVARI KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT CHANDRASHEKARAPURA VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 2. SRI MUDALAGIRIYAPPA S/O.LATE TALAVARI KARIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.
2(a) SMT.C.K.MEENAKSHI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O.LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA 2(b) SRI KUMAR C.M.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O.LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA 2(c) SRI LOHITH C.M.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O.LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA 2(d) SRI LOKESH C.M.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O.LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA P2(a) TO P2(d) ARE R/AT CHANDRASHEKARAPURA VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT (AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 26.10.2017) ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI N.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. HUCHANNA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
a) SMT.HANUMAMMA W/O.LATE HUCHANNA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS b) SRI VENKATESH S/O.LATE HUCHANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS c) SRI GOVINDA S/O.LATE HUCHANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R1(a) TO R1(c) ARE R/AT CHANDRASHEKARAPURA VILLAGE GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT d) SMT.CHANDRAMMA D/O.LATE HUCHANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT KODIYALA VILLAGE GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT e) SMT. RADHA D/O.LATE HUCHANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT CHANDRASHEKARAPURA VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 2. SRI GOVINDAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.
(a) SMT. RANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O.LATE GOVINDAIAH (b) SRI MURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O.LATE GOVINDAIAH (c) SMT.MALI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D/O.LATE GOVINDAIAH (d) SMT. SHARADA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS D/O.LATE GOVINDAIAH (e) SMT. JAYASHRI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O.LATE GOVINDAIAH R2(a) TO R2(d) ARE R/AT BAGAYATH, THOTADAMANE CHANDRASHEKARAPURA VILLAGE & POST GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 3. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB DIVISION TUMKUR ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.B.SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R2(b); R2(a), R1(a) TO R1(d) ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R1(e) IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 12.08.2013;
NOTICE TO R2(c) TO R2(e) IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 18.01.2018;
SRI M.MUNIGANGAPPA, HCGP FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2010 (ANNEXURE-O) PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMKUR ON IA.NO.2 IN MA.NO.36/1988 AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 19.07.1971 (ANNEXURE-D) PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR SUB DIVISION, TUMKUR IN INH.NO.292/1968-69 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE RE-GRANT OF 2 ACRES 22½ GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.150 OF CHANDRASHEKARAPURA VILLAGE IN FAVOUR OF TALAVARI MUDLAIAH AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The present writ petition is filed by the legal representatives of the second applicant in INH.No.292/1968-69 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner and the Competent Authority under the Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961. Admittedly, the aforesaid proceedings was seeking for regrant of various inam lands available to the family of the applicants-Mudlaiah and Kariyappa, who are the brothers. The said application came to be disposed of by an order dated 19.07.1971, which is at Annexure- D.
2. It is seen that the said order was the subject matter of an appeal in MA.No.90/1971 on the file of the District Judge, Tumakuru. Admittedly, the said appeal was filed by one Huchanaika, who is said to be the rival claimant for grant of the very same land. The said appeal by Huchanaika was disposed of by a judgment dated 08.01.1972 in remanding the same to the office of the Competent Authority namely, the Assistant Commissioner.
3. The original records, which are secured from the office of the third respondent – Assistant Commissioner, Tumakuru would indicate that the proceedings in remanding the matter in INH.No.292/1968-69 went upto 23.06.1979 on which day, the said remanded matter was posted to 21.07.1979. However, it is seen that from 21.07.1979, there was no proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in INH.No.292/1968-69.
When the matter stood thus, the children of the second applicant – Kariyappa had filed an appeal in MA.(VOA)36/1988 challenging the original order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 19.07.1971 in INH.No.292/1968-69. It is necessary to place on record the said order, which was already the subject matter of the appeal in MA.No.90/1971 which was allowed and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner.
4. Therefore, in the present set of facts filing of this petition against the order dated 20.10.2010 in MA.(VOA)36/1988 itself is erroneous inasmuch as when the said appeal was filed, the order impugned in the said appeal was not at all in existence where it has already reached quietus. In earlier appeal in MA.No.90/1971 where the proceedings in INH.No.292/1968-69 was reopened for fresh consideration. In that view of the matter, this Court would observe that the present petition filed by the legal representatives of the second applicant in INH.No.292/1968-69 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Tumakuru does not survive for consideration.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as it does not survive for consideration. While dismissing, liberty is reserved to both the parties namely, petitioners and respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) and 2(a) to 2(e) to pursue the proceedings which was reopened in INH.No.292/1968-69, which was ordered to be reopened by the District Court, Tumakuru in its order dated 08.01.1972 in MA.No.90/1971.
6. It is further observed that as and when the parties to the proceedings approach the Assistant Commissioner in INH.No.292/1968-69, the same shall be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.
Sd/- JUDGE LB