Karnataka High Court
Sri B V Venkatesh Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.42159 OF 2017 (KVOA)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B.V. VENKATESH REDDY
S/O LATE KONDA REDDY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
SRI B.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE VENKATESH REDDY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
1(A) SRI HARIBABU
S/O B.V. RAMAKRISHNAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDING AT THONDEBHAVI VILLAGE
GAURIBIDANUR TALUK
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SUB-DIVISION, CHICKBALLAPURA
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
GAURIBIDANUR TALUK
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.
4. SRI. RANGAPPA
S/O LATE PENDDANNA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
4(A) SRI. THIMMAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
4(B) SRI NAGAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
5. SRI NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
5(A) SRI CHINNAPPA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5(B) SRI GANGADHARAPPA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
3
6. SRI HONNURAPPA
S/O LATE KENCHAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
6(A) SRI ASHWATHAPPA
S/O LATE HONNURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
6(B) SRI SRINIVASAPPA
S/O LATE HONNURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
(VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 16.12.2019 THE
RESPONDENT NO.6(B) IS THE LRS OF
RESPONDENT NO.6(A)).
7. SRI THIMMAIAH
S/O LATE KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
8. SRI THIPANNA
S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
8(A) SRI GANGADARAPPA
S/O LATE THIPPANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
9. SRI THIMMAIAH
S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
4
10. SRI NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
10(A) SRI NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
11. SRI GIDDAPPA
S/O LATE ANJINAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
11(1) SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O LATE GIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
11(2) SRI VENKATESHAPPA
S/O LATE GIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
11(3) SRI ANJINAPPA
S/O LATE GIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
THONDEBHAVI VILLAGE
THONDEBHAVI HOBLI
GAURIBIDANUR TALUK
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI HATTARAKIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R8(A) AND R11(1,2 & 3);
R4(A), R4(B), R5(A), R5(B) R6(B) R9, R10(A) ARE SERVED;
5
V/O DATED 25.07.2018, NO FURTHER STEPS NEED BE
TAKEN IN R/O DECEASED R-7;
V/O DATED 16.12.2019 R6(B) IS LR OF R6(A))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE ANNEXURE-A AND B DATED
23.11.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLAPURA, MADE IN M.A.NO.5/2014 AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner concerned by order dated 20.9.1978 granted half a share to Rangappa and Narayanappa and 2 acres 18 guntas of land to Honnurappa, Thimmaiah, Thippanna, Narayanappa and Thimmaiah in S.No.271 and regrant of 1.00 acre of land in Sy.No.271 was deferred as it was alienated in to Kondareddy, the great- grandfather of the present petitioner.
2. The vendor of the petitioner's great-grand father filed an application for re-grant of the remaining extent of 1.00 acre of land in Sy.No.271. The Tahsildar by order dated 6 15.5.1989 regranted the land in favour of the original land holder and directed the Revenue Authority to mutate the name of B V Ramakrishna Reddy- son of Venkatareddy, the purchaser of the said 1.00 acres of land.
3. The respondents No.11(1) to 11(3) filed an appeal in MA No.5/2014 under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 before the learned Principal District Judge, Chikkaballapur challenging the order of re-grant dated 20.9.1978 insofar as it related to the rejection of the claim of the said respondents for re-grant of land in Sy.No.271. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner concerned with a direction to reconsider the application for re-grant submitted by the respondents No.11(1) to 11(3) in respect of the land in Sy.No.271 after giving notice to the legal representatives of the holders of the land. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7
5. The great-grandfather of the petitioner purchased 1.00 acre of land in Sy.No.271 from Rangamma through a registered sale deed dated 20.4.1968. The said original holders of land filed an application for re-grant and the Tahsildar concerned after holding an enquiry passed the order dated 15.5.1989 re-granting 1.00 acre of land in Sy.No.271 in favour of the original landholder and further directed the Revenue Authority to mutate the name of B V Ramakrishna Reddy, the purchaser of the said land in question by applying the doctrine of feeding back as enunciated by this Court in the case of Lakshmana Gowda -vs- State of Karnataka reported in 1980 SCC OnLine Kar 176.
6. The learned District Judge has set aside the initial order of re-grant dated 20.9.1978 insofar as it relates to Sy.No.271 measuring to an extent of 6 acres 36 guntas and the order dated 15.5.1989 regranting 1.00 acre of land in Sy.No.271 in favour of the vendor of the petitioner's great-grandfather is not interfered. Hence, , the petitioner is not an aggrieved person to challenge the order passed by the learned District Judge. The 8 impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is confined to an extent of 6 acres 36 guntas in Sy.No.271 (new Sy.No.271/1). It is made clear that the enquiry to be conducted by the Assistant Commissioner concerned in light of the impugned order is confined only to an extent of 6 acres 36 guntas in S.No.271 and not in respect of 1.00 acre of land in Sy.No.271 (new Sy.No.271/1).
7. The Assistant Commissioner concerned is expected to conclude the enquiry within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkm