Karnataka High Court
Sri Chikka Venkataramanappa vs Sri ... on 10 September, 2018
Bench: Raghvendra S.Chauhan, B.M.Shyam Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT APPEAL NO. 644 OF 2013 (KVOA)
BETWEEN:
SRI CHIKKA VENKATARAMANAPPA
SON OF PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHENNAHALLI,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. JAIPRAKASH REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI MUNIVENKATASWAMY @ MUNIVENKATASWAMY
SON OF RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT CHENNAHALLI,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
2
2. SRI MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIGA
SON OF THIRUMALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHENNAHALLI,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
3. SRI CHIKKAVENKATAPPA
SON OF THIRUMALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES;
3(A) SRI SRINIVASA,
S/O. LATE CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHENNAHALLI,
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
4. SRI MUNIRAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES;
4(A) SRI CHENNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
4(A)(i) SMT. SAVITHRAMMA,
WIFE OF LATE CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
4(A)(ii) SRI MUNIRAJU
SON OF LATE CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
4(A)(iii) SRI SURESHA
SON OF LATE CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHENNAHALLI,
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 110.
3
4(B) SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA
SON OF LATE MUNIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHENNAHALLI,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 110.
4(C) SRI NARAYANA SWAMY
SON OF LATE MUNIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHENNAHALLI,
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 110.
5. SRI VENKATRAMANAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES;
5(A) SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA,
WIFE OF LATE VENKATRAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
5(B) SRI CHENNAKRISHNA
SON OF LATE VENKATRAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
5(C) SRI RAMESH
SON OF LATE VENKATRAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
5(D) SRI MURALI
SON OF LATE VENKATRAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 5(A) TO 5(D)
ALL ARE RESIDING AT GIDDANAHALLI,
NANDI HOBLI, POST-KESHAVAR,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 110.
4
6. THE TAHASILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 110.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. S. VARADARAJAN, ADV. FOR C/R-1;
SRI S. S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961 PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2012 PASSED IN THE
WRIT PETITION NO.27226/2005 (KVOA) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, B. M. SHYAM PRASAD J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants, who had the benefit of re-grant order dated 25.01.1982 for the land in Sy. No. 58 of Chennahalli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore District under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 ('the KVOA Act' for short), have filed this intra-court appeal impugning the Writ Court's order dated 18.12.2012 in W.P.No.27226/2005 preferred by the first respondent. The Writ Court by the impugned Order has allowed the writ petition and quashed the 5 said re-grant order dated 25.01.1982 as well as the Order dated 14.12.2005 by the First Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short, 'Appellate Court') dismissing the appeal filed by the first respondent in M.A. No.62/2001 impugning the re-grant order dated 25.1.1982.
2. The undisputed facts are that the first respondent's original predecessors-in-title, Mr. Muniveerappa and Mr. Thoti Muniga, were each granted, on 03.02.1964, occupancy rights to lands measuring 20 guntas in Sy.No.58 of Chennahalli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore District under Section 10 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short 'Inams Abolition Act'). These original predecessors-in-title transferred these two extents under the sale deed dated 22.09.1966 in favour of one Narayana Swamy. On the demise of Narayana Swamy, his legal heir and wife transferred the said extents in favour of the first respondent on 6 27.06.1996. Meanwhile, the Tahsildar re-granted these extents vide order dated 25.01.1982 under the provisions of the KVOA Act in favour of the present appellant. The re-grant under the KVOA Act was purportedly on the premise that the Tahsildar issued notice for enquiry on the appellants' application for re-grant to different persons in the concerned village, including to Narayana Swamy. But, Narayana Swamy did not participate in the enquiry. However, those present at the enquiry informed the Tahsildar that Narayana Swamy had surrendered the lands to the appellants, and therefore, a re-grant could be made in favour of the appellant.
3. The first respondent, who had by then acquired title to these extents under the sale deed dated 27.06.1996 executed by Sri Narayana Swamy's wife challenged the order of re-grant in appeal filed in M. A. No.62/2001 on the file of the Appellate Court under the provisions of the KVOA Act. The Appellate 7 Court, placing reliance on the said enquiry and the report therein referred to supra, concluded that the appellant was entitled for re-grant and also concluded that the first respondent's original predecessors-in-title were mere holders of land and they did not possess any title. As such, the Appellate Court concluded that, the subject lands could be re-granted to the appellants under the provisions of the KVOA Act. Therefore, the first respondent impugned both the re-grant order and the Appellate Court's order in the Writ Petition.
4. The Writ Court, considering the undisputed fact that the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent under the Inams Abolition Act was not challenged, held that in the absence of a challenge to the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent, there could not have been a re-grant in favour of the appellant under the KVOA Act. The Writ Court also concluded that once the lands vested with the State Government and the occupancy rights granted 8 in favour of the first respondent's original predecessors- in-title under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, the subject land could not have been treated as 'Serviceinamland' that could be resumed by the State Government under the KVOA Act and later re-granted under the provisions of this Act. Thus, the Writ Court quashed both the re-grant order in favour of the appellant and the appellate Court's order dismissing the first respondent's challenge to such re-grant order.
5. Mr. M. Jaiprakash Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, while arguing in support of the appeal, did not dispute that the grant of occupancy rights under Inams Abolition to the first respondent's original predecessor-in-title had remained unchallenged, but placed reliance on a report by the Tahsildar contending that such report formed the basis for the impugned re-grant under the KVOA Act. The learned counsel's reliance on the Tahalidar's report, which purportedly preceded the impugned re-grant 9 order, is misplaced. Neither the conduct of the enquiry by the Tahaildar nor the contents of the ensuing report is substantiated from the records. Importantly, the impugned re-grant order is untenable for want of jurisdiction in view of the law enunciated by the Writ Court placing reliance on the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in K.S.Ranganna and another vs. State of Karnataka1and Stump Shule and 2 Somappa Private Limited vs. S.M.Chndrappa .
6. Once the lands vest with the State Government under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, a 'khadim tenant' or a 'permanent tenant' or other recognized tenants as defined under such Act can seek grant of occupancy right to such vested lands. The statutory authority constituted under the Inams Abolition Act will decide on such rights and grant occupancy rights to such entitled persons under the 1 1981 (1) KLJ Short Notes 43 21985 (2) KLJ 483 10 provisions of Section 10 Act with right of appeal under Section 28 that Act. After such vesting under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act and the grant of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, the Tahsildar cannot treat the lands vested under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act as 'service inam land' under the provisions of the KVOA Act. This is especially so when it is undisputed that the grant of the occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act remained unchallenged. In view of these settled propositions in law and the undisputed fact of the case viz., that the occupancy rights to the Subject lands were granted to the first respondent's original predecessors-in-title after the subject lands stood vested with the State Government under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act and that the grant of occupancy rights had not been challenged, the Tahasildar could not re-granted the subject lands under the provisions of the KVOC Act. Therefore, no grounds are made out in 11 this appeal for interference with the Writ Court's order. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RD