Karnataka High Court
Sri. Harish Kumar vs Karnataka Institute Of Leather ... on 23 January, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, M.G.S. Kamal
-1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B.VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT APPEAL No.1115 OF 2022 (LR)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL No.1125 OF 2022(GM-RES)
WRIT APPEAL No.1167 OF 2022(GM-RES)
WRIT APPEAL No.1168 OF 2022(LR)
WRIT APPEAL No.1170 OF 2022 (LR)
WRIT APPEAL No.1171 OF 2022(LR)
WRIT APPEAL No.1267 OF 2022(KLR/RR/SUR)
WRIT APPEAL No.398 OF 2023(LR)
WRIT APPEAL No.474 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
WRIT APPEAL No.489 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
WRIT APPEAL No.1458 OF 2023 (LR)
IN WA No.1115/2022
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. K S SURENDRA BABU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA,
R/AT NO.9, 100 FEET ROAD,
BANASHANKARI, 2ND STAGE,
4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560085.
-2 -
2 . SRI. K.S. SUBBARAJU
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA,
R/AT NO.485, 2ND CROSS, 2ND BLOCK,
BANASHANKARI IST STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 050.
SRI. M.S. MOHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O LATE K.N. SRINIVASA GUPTA
SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LEGAL HEIR AND WIFE
3. SMT RAJARAJESHWARI
W/O M S MOHAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT NO.54/4, SRI VASAVI BHAVAN,
RAGHUPATHI NAYAKAN PALYAM,
ERODE, TAMILNADU-638 002.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRL. SECY TO GOVT
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
-3 -
3. SRI. R V BHASKAR
AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN,
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANA SHETTY,
4. SRI R V SUDHIR
AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN,
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANA SHETTY,
5. SRI R V GIRIDHAR
AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN,
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANA SHETTY,
6. SRI R V SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN,
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANA SHETTY,
7. SRI A. MUDALAPPA
AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN,
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANAPPA,
DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
SINCE DECEASED BY LR's
RESPONDENT No.11 IN
WRIT PETITION.24123/2012
RESPONDENT No.8 TO 15 IN PRESENT
APPEAL ARE THE LR's OF DASEGOWDA
8. SMT. VENKATAMMA
1ST WIFE OF DASE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN,
9. SMT KEMPAMMA
2ND WIFE DASE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN,
-4 -
10 . SRI RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
11 . SRI VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
12 . SRI BYRA HANUMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
13 . SRI KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
14 . SRI RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O NOT KNOWN,
15 . SRI MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
SL.NO.8 TO 15 RESIDING AT
NO.228,
MUDDINAPALYA MAIN ROAD,
OPP.GOVT SCHOOL,
BENGALURU-560091.
16 . SRI GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
-5 -
17 . SRI BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
18 . SMT CHENNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
W/O RANGAPPA,
SL.NO.16, 17 & 18 ARE
R/O MUDDENAPALYA VILLAGE,
VISHWANEEDHAM POST,
YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560091.
19 . THE CHAIRMAN
LAND TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560001.
20 . SRI RUDRA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O H S SADASHIVAIAH,
21 . SRI CHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA,
22 . SRI NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O BASAPPA,
23 . SRI GANGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O NAGARAJU,
-6 -
24 . SRI MUDDUHANONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O JAYANNA,
25 . SRI CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAJAPPA,
SL.NO.20 TO 25 ARE
R/O ULLALU UPA NAGARA,
ULLALU,
YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560091.
26 . SRI K S VISHWAKIRAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA,
R/AT NO.9, 100 FEET ROAD,
BANASHANAKRI 2ND STAGE,
4TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560085.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG A/W
SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA AGA FOR
C/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 19;
SRI. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6;
SRI. ASHOK K.L., ADVOCATE FOR R7;
SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R15;
SRI. D. ASHWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R16 TO R18;
SRI. SRISHAILA HUBLI, ADVOCATE FOR R20;
SRI. SRIDHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R21 TO R25;
V/O DATED:20.07.2023, NOTICE TO R26 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
-7 -
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO i)ALLOW THE
ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND; ii) CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT PASSED IN W.P. NO.24123/2012
DATED:11/10/2022, RESTORING THE ORDER
DATED:30/06/2010, PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL
RESPONDENT NO.19, IN LRF NO. 70, 87, 91 IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE & ETC.
IN W.A. No.1125/2022
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT RAJARAJESHWARI
W/O M S MOHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT NO. 54/4,
SRI VASAVI BHAVAN
RAGHUPATHI NAYAKAN PALYAM
ERODE, TAMILNADU - 638 002.
2 . SRI K S SUBBARAJU
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA
R/AT 485, 2ND CROSS
2ND BLOCK,
BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 050.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE)
-8 -
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU -560 001
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
CAR WEST,
INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
6. THE POLICE HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
NO.59, RICHMOND ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 025
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
-9 -
7. MR. Y. MANJUNATH
S/O. YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT No.24, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG A/W
SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R6;
V/O DATED: 30.11.2022, NOTICE TO R-7 IS D/W)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO i)ALLOW THE
ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND ii)CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT PASSED IN WP NO.56154/2017 DATED:11/10/2022
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION No.56154/2017 PASSED BY THE
SINGLE LEARNED JUDGE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC.
IN W.A. No.1167/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HARISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
2. SMT B V VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
3. SMT B V PARVATHAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
-10 -
4. SMT B V CHANDRAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
5. SMT. B V MANJULA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
No.1 TO 5 ARE
R/T NO.33, 12TH "E'' CROSS,
AGRAHARADASARAHALLI
MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 079.
6. SRI MALLESHKUMAR
S/O LATE LINGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
7. SMT LAKSHMI
D/O LATE LINGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
8. SMT NANJAMMA
W/O DOLLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
SL.NO. 6 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT
No.42, 'E' 42, 2ND CROSS,
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 023.
9. SRI. H.DAYAKAR
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
-11 -
10 . SRI H JANARDHAN
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
11 . SRI H. RAMCHANDRA
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
12 . SRI H CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
SL.NO.9 TO 12 ARE
R/T ULLALU VILLAGE
YESWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK -560 056.
13 . SRI GOVINDA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
14 . SRI VENKATAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
15 . SRI DAYANANDA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
SL.NO. 13 TO 15 ARE RESIDING AT
No.13, 'E' STREET, 2ND CROSS,
GOPALAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
-12 -
16 . SRI. D. KRISHAN MURTHY
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
17 . SRI D. LOKESH
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
18 . SRI D. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
19 . SRI D PRAKASH
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
20 . SMT SARASWATHI
D/O LATE GOVINDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
SL.NO.16 TO 20 ARE
RESIDING AT NO 20, "E" STREET,
2ND CROSS, GOPALAPURA,
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
21 . SRI ANAND @ ANANDA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
22 . SMT LAKSHMI
D/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
-13 -
23 . SRI LAKSHMAMAMA
D/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
24 . SMT KOMALA
D/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
SL.NO.21 TO 24 ARE
R/AT NO.11, "E" STREET, 7TH CROSS,
GOPALAPURA BENGALURU-560 023.
25 . SRI SHANKARA
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
26 . SRI BALACHANDRA
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
27 . SRI NARASIMHA RAJU
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
28 . SMT PADMAVATHI
D/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
29 . SMT HEMAVATHI
D/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
-14 -
30 . SRI NAGARAJ
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
SL.NO.25 TO 30 ARE
R/AT NO.6 'B' STREET, 2ND CROSS
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560023.
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR REGISTERED
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI R CHANDRU ,
S/O LATE RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A NO.204, 2ND FLOOR
AHUJA CHAMBERS, NO.1
KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF LEATHER TECHNOLOGY
(AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE PROMOTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA)
KADUGONDANAHALLI
ARABIC COLLEGE POST
BANGALORE - 560 045
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
-15 -
M.S. BUILDING
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE CITY DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560 009.
SRI M VENKATARAMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
4. V HARISH KUMAR
S/O LATE M VENKATARAMAIAH
MAJOR, R/O No. 33, 13TH 'E' STREET
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI
MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 079.
5. SMT VENKATAMMA
W/O YELLAPPA
MAJOR
No. 24 , 2ND CROSS
2ND MAIN HOSAHALLI
VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE.
6. Y. NAGARAJ
S/O YELLAPPA, MAJOR,
VHBS LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE.
-16 -
Y RAMAKRISHNA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
7. R SHOBHA,
D/O Y.RAMAKRISHNA,
W/O M.C. KESHAVAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/A NO.11/1, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
VALMIKINAGAR,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 026.
8. R SHARAVATHI
D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA,
W/O RANGASWAMY,
R/O NO.24, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, HOSAHALLI,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560032.
9. R VIJAYKUMAR
S/O Y. RAMAKRISHNA,
R/O NO.24, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, HOSAHALLI,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560032.
10 . Y. MANJUNATH
S/O YELLAPPA NO.24,
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
HOSAHALLI
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560040.
-17 -
11 . SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT,
RAMANAGAR
BANGALORE,
R1 DISTRICT -562 159.
12 . COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
O/O THE POLICE COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU - 560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG A/W
SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR C/R-2, 3, 11 & 12;
SRI. SHRISHAIL A. HUBLI, ADVOCATE FOR R5, 7 TO 10)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 11/10/2022, PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.3937/2010(GM-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WP
NO.3937/2010(GM-RES) BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND PASS
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER/s.
IN WA No.1168/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI HARISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
2. SMT B V VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
-18 -
3. SMT. B.V. PARVATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
4. SMT. B.V. CHANDRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
5. SMT. B V MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT NO.33, 12TH 'E' CROSS,
AGARAHARADASARAHALLI
MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU-560 079.
6. SRI MALLESHKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE LINGAMMA
7. SMT LAKSHI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
D/O LATE LINGAMMA
8. SMT NANJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
W/O DOLLAIAH
SL No. 6 TO 8 ARE
R/AT NO.42, 'E' 42, 2ND CROSS,
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU-560 023.
-19 -
9. SRI. H. DAYAKAR
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
10 . SRI. H. JANARDHAN
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
11 . SRI H. RAMCHANDRA
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
12 . SRI H CHANDASHEKAR
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
SL.NO.9 TO 12 ARE
R/AT ULLALU VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 056
13 . SRI. GOVINDA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
14 . SRI VENKATAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
15 . SRI DAYANANDA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
-20 -
SL.NO.13 TO 15 ARE
R/AT NO.13, "E" STREET,
2ND CROSS, GOPALAPURA
BENGALURU-560023
16 . SRI D KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
17 . SRI D LOKESH
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
18 . SRI D MANJUNATH
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
19 . SRI D PRAKASH
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
20 . SMT SARASWATHI
D/O LATE GOVINDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
SL.NO.16 TO 20 ARE
R/AT NO.20, "E" STREET,
2ND CROSS, GOPALAPURA
BENGALURU-560023
21 . SRI ANAND @ ANANDA MURTHY
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
-21 -
22 . SMT LAKSHMI
D/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
23 . SRI LAKSHMANA
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
24 . SMT KOMALA
D/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
SL.NO.21 TO 24 ARE
R/AT NO.11 "E" STREET,
7TH CROSS, GOPALAPURA
MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560023
25 . SRI SHANKARA
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
26 . SRI BALACHANDRA
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
27 . SRI NARASIMHA RAJU
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
28 . SMT PADMAVATHI
D/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
-22 -
29 . SMT HEMAVATHI
D/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
30 . SRI NAGARAJ
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
SL.NO.25 TO 30 ARE
R/AT NO.6 B STREET,
2ND CROSS, GOPALAPURA,
MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023.
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR REGISTERED
GENERAL POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI R CHANDRU
S/O LATE RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.204, 2ND FLOOR,
AHUJA CHAMBERS
NO.1, KUMARAKRUPA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRL. SECY. TO GOVT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
-23 -
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. SAROJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
W/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA
4. SRI M.S. MOHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA
5. SRI. K.S. SURENDRA BABU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA
6. SRI K.S. VISHWAKIRAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA
7. SRI K S SUBBARAJU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 7 ARE
R/AT NO.9, 100 FEET ROAD,
BANASHANKARI
2ND STAGE 4TH BLOCK
BANGALORE-560083.
8. SRI R V BHASKAR
MAJOR
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANA SHETTY
-24 -
9. SRI R V SUDHIR
MAJOR
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANA SHETTY
10 . SRI R V GIRIDHAR
MAJOR
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANA SHETTY.
11 . SRI. R .V SHANKAR
MAJOR
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANA SHETTY.
12 . SRI A MUDALAPPA
MAJOR
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA.
DASEGOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
13 . SMT. VENKATAMMA
1ST WIFE OF LATE DASEGWODA
14 . SMT. KEMPANNA
2ND WIFE OF LATE DASEGWODA
15 . SRI. RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA
16 . VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48YEARS
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA
-25 -
17 . BYIRAHANUME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47YEARS
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA
18 . KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA
19 . RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA
20 . MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA
RESPONDENTS No.13 TO 20
R/AT NO. 228,
MUDDINAPALYA MAIN ROAD,
OPP., GOVT SCHOOL
BANGALORE 560 091.
21 . SRI GANGAPPA
MAJOR
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
22 . SRI BYRAPPA
MAJOR
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
23 . SMT CHENNAMMA
MAJOR
W/O MUDDINAPALYA
-26 -
R/A VISHWANEEDAM POST
MAGADI ROAD
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE-560091.
24 . THE CHAIRMAN
LAND TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560009.
25 . RUDRA MURTHY
S/O H.S. SADASHIVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
26 . CHANDRAN
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
27 . NARASAPPA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
28 . GANGARAJU S/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
29 . MUDDUHAHONNAIAH
S/O JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
30 . CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
-27 -
31 . SRI. Y.MANJUNATH
S/O YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/A NO.24, 2ND CROSS
2ND MAIN, HOSAHALLI
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 040.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL AAG A/W
SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR C/R1 & 2;
SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL
A/W SMT. NILOUGER AKBAR, AGA FOR
RESPONDENTS No. 1 TO 3, 5 & 6;
PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MAHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2022 PASSED IN WP
No.24123/2012(LR) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WP
No.24123/2012(LR) AND PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
ORDER/S WHICH THE HON'BLE COURT DEEMS IT FIT IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-28 -
IN W.A. No.1170/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HARISH KUMAR
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2. SMT B V VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
3. SMT B V PARVATHAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
4. SMT B V CHANDRAMMA
D/O LATE VENAKTARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
5. SMT B V MANJULA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
No.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT
No.33, 12TH "E" CROSS
AGRAHARADASARAHALLI
MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 079.
6. SRI MALLESHKUMAR
S/O LATE LINGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
-29 -
7. SMT LAKSHMI
D/O LATE LINGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
8. SMT NANJAMMA
W/O DOLLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
SL.No.6 TO 8 ARE R/AT
No.42, "E" 42, 2ND CROSS
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 023.
9. SRI H DAYAKAR
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
10 . SRI H JANARDHAN
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
11 . SRI H RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
12 . SRI H CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
SL.No.9 TO 12 ARE R/AT
ULLALU VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 056.
-30 -
13 . SRI GOVINDA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
14 . SRI VENKATAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
15 . SRI DAYANANDA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
SL.No.13 TO 15 ARE R/AT
No.13, "E" STREET, 2ND CROSS
GOPALAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 023.
16 . SRI D KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
17 . SRI D LOKESH
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
18 . SRI D MANJUNATH
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
19 . SRI D PRAKASH
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
-31 -
20 . SMT SARASWATHI
D/O LATE GOVINDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
SL.No.16 TO 20 ARE R/AT
No.20, "E" STREET, 2ND CROSS
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 023.
21 . SRI ANAND @ ANAND MURTHY
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
22 . SMT LAKSHMI
D/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
23 . SRI LAKSHMANA
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
24 . SMT KOMALA
D/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
SL.No.21 TO 24 ARE R/AT
No.11, "E" STREET, 7TH CROSS
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 023.
25 . SRI SHANKARA
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
-32 -
26 . SRI BALACHANDRA
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
27 . SRI NARASIMHA RAJU
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
28 . SMT PADMAVATHI
D/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
29 . SMT HEMAVATHI
D/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
30 . SRI NAGARAJ
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
SL.No.25 TO 30 ARE R/AT
No.06, "B" STREET, 2ND CROSS
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 023.
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
REGISTERED GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI. R. CHANDRU
S/O LATE RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A NO.204, 2ND FLOOR
AHUJA CHAMBERS
-33 -
NO.1, KUMARAKRUPA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE THASILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
K G ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA
@ DODDANNA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
DASEGOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
3. VENKATAMMA
1ST WIFE OF LATE DASEGOWDA
4. KEMPAMMA
2ND WIFE OF LATE DASEGOWDA
-34 -
5. SRI RANGASWAMY
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
6. SRI VENKATE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA
7. BYIRAHANUME GOWDA
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA
8. KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE DASEGWODA
9. RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA
10 . MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA
11 . SMT CHANNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
W/O LATE RANGAPPA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
12 . SRI BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
-35 -
13 . SRI. GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
RESPONDENT No.3 TO 13
R/AT MUDDENAPALYA VILLAGE
VISHWANTANEEDAM POST
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 091.
NAGARATHNAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs
14 . SRI. BHASKAR R.V.,
S/O LATE VENKATA CHALAPATHI
MAJOR
15 . SRI SRIDHAR R V
S/O LATE VENKATA CHALAPATHI
MAJOR
16 . SRI GIRIDHAR R V
S/O LATE VENAKTA CHALAPATHI
MAJOR
17 . SRI SHANKAR R V
S/O LT VENKATACHALAPATHI
MAJOR
RESPONDENT No.14 TO 17
ARE R/AT 37/55
SURVEYOR ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU - 560004.
-36 -
18 . SRI RAJA SATISH
S/O LATE GOVINDA RAJU
MAJOR
R/AT NO 214, 45TH CROSS
8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGLAURU - 560 082.
19 . SRI DALI MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O MUNI OBALAPPA
R/A ULLAL VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 110.
20 . SMT LAKSHMINARASAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O SHIVANNA, R/A NO 24
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040.
21 . SMT B V RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
D/O LATE VENAKTARAMAIAH
R/AT NO 33, 12TH 'E' CROSS
MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU 560023.
22 . SRI KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE LINGAMMA
-37 -
23. SMT MAHADEVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
D/O LATE LINGAMMA
RESPONDENT No.22 TO 23
R/AT NO E-42, 2ND CROSS
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560023.
24 . SRI H CHANDRAKEERTHI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
R/A ULLAL VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 110.
25 . SMT VENKATAMMA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
W/O LATE YELLAPPA
26 . SRI Y NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O LATE YELLAPPA
27. SRI Y RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE YELLAPPA
28 . SRI Y. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE YELLAPPA
-38 -
RESPONDENT No.25 & 28
ARE R/AT No.24
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.
29 . SRI RAMAKRISHNA
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O LATE THIMMASIAH
30 . SRI D MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O LATE DASAPPA
31 . SRI D GOVINDARAJU
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O LATE DASAPPA
32 . SMT BHAGYAMMA
AGED 43 YEARS
D/O LATE DASAPPA
33 . SMT PARVATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
D/O LATE DASAPPA
RESPONDENTS No.30 TO 33
R/A No.11, 'E' STREET, 7TH CROSS
GOPALAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 023.
34. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
D/O LATE DASAPPA
-39 -
35 . SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
36. SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
37 . PUTTALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
W/O LATE MARISWAMY
38 . SMT. M. SUDHA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
D/O LATE MARISWAMY
39 . SRI M. HARISH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
W/O LATE MARISWAMY
40. SRI. M ARAN @ ARUN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
W/O LT MARISWAMY
R/AT NO 36, ULLALA MAIN ROAD
OPP ULLAL LAKE
BENGALURU - 560 110.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG
A/W SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA AGA FOR C/R-1 & 2;
SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R10;
-40 -
V/O DATED:14.07.2023, NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS - 11,
12, 14 TO 25, 27, 29 TO 36 ARE DISPENSED WITH;
V/O DATED:22.08.2023 NOTICE TO R-13 IS
DISPENSED WITH;
SRI. SHRISHAIL A. HUBLI, ADVOCATE FOR R-28;
SRI. ABHINAY Y.T. ADVOCATE FOR R-37 TO R-40)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 11/10/2022, PASSED IN WP NO.10174/2021
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION
NO.10174/2021 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPEAL
NO.121/1978 DATED 30/06/2015 AND PASS ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE ORDER/s. WHICH THE HON'BLE COURT DEEMS IT
FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN W.A. No.1171/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI HARISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
2. SMT B V VENKATALAKSHMAMMA,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
3. SMT B V PARVATHAMMA,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
-41 -
4. SMT B V CHANDRAMMA,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
5. SMT B V MANJULA,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
No.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.33, 12TH E CROSS,
AGRAHARADASARAHALLI,
MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 079
6. SRI MALLESHKUMAR,
S/O LATE LINGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
7. SMT LAKSHMI,
D/O LATE LINGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
8. SMT NANJAMMA,
W/O DOLLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
SL.NO.6 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT
No.42, 'E' 42, 2ND CROSS,
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 023
9. SRI H DAYAKAR,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
-42 -
10 . SRI H JANARDHAN,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
11 . SRI H RAMACHANDRA,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
12 . SRI H CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
SL.NO.9 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT
ULLALU VILLAGE
YESWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560 056.
13 . SRI GOVINDA,
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
14 . SRI VENKATAPPA,
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
15 . SRI DAYANANDA,
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SL.NO.13 TO 15 ARE
RESIDING AT NO 13, 'E' STREET,
2ND CROSS, GOPALAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
-43 -
16 . SRI D KRISHNA MURTHY,
S/O LATE DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
17 . SRI D LOKESH,
S/O LATE DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
18 . SRI D MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
19 . SRI D PRAKASH
S/O LATE DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
20 . SMT SARASWATHI,
D/O LATE GOVINDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
SL.NO.16 TO 20 ARE RESIDING AT
NO 20, 'E' STREET, 2ND CROSS,
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
21 . SRI ANANDA @ ANANDA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH,
22 . SMT LAKSHMI,
D/O LATE PUTTAIAH ,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
-44 -
23 . SRI LAKSHMANA,
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
24 . SMT KOMALA,
D/O LATE PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
SL.NO.21 TO 24 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.11, 'E' STREET, 7TH CROSS,
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560023.
25. SRI SHANKARA,
S/O LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
26 . SRI BALACHANDRA,
S/O LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
27 . SRI NARASIMHA RAJU,
S/O LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
28 . SMT PADMAVATHI,
D/O LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
29 . SMT HEMAVATHI,
D/O LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
-45 -
30 . SRI NAGARAJ,
S/O LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
SL.NO.25 TO 30 ARE
R/A NO.6, 'B' STREET, 2ND CROSS,
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 023.
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY
THEIR REGISTERED GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI R CHANDRU,
S/O LATE RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/A NO.204, 2ND FLOOR,
AHUJA CHAMBERS, NO.1
KUMARA KRUPA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR .K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF LEATHER TECHNOLOGY
(AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE PROMOTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA )
KADUGONDANAHALLI,
ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
BANGALORE-560 045,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
-46 -
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA @
DODDANNA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
SRI. DASEGOWDA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
3. SRI. RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
4. VENKATEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
5. BYIRAHANUME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
6. KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
7. RAGHU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
-47 -
8. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
9. SMT CHANNAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
W/O LATE RANGAPPA,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
10 . SRI BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
11 . SRI GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
RESPONDENTS NOS.3 TO 11,
ARE RESIDING AT MUDDENAPALYA VILLAGE,
VISHWANTANEEDAM POST,
YESHWANTHURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK -560 091.
NAGARATHNAMMA,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
12 . SRI BHASKAR R V,
S/O LATE VENKATA CHALAPATHI,
MAJOR,
13 . SRI SRIDHAR R V,
S/O LATE VENKATA CHALAPATHI,
MAJOR,
-48 -
14 . SRI GIRIDHAR R V,
S/O LATE VENKATA CHALAPATHI,
MAJOR,
15 . SRI SHANKAR R V,
S/O LATE VENKATA CHALAPATHI,
MAJOR,
RESPONDENT NOS. 12 TO 15
ARE RESIDING AT NO.37/55,
SURVEYOR ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
16 . SRI RAJA SATISH,
S/O LATE GOVINDA RAJU,
MAJOR,
R/A NO.214, 45TH CROSS,
8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 082.
17 . SRI DALI MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O MUNI OBALAPPA,
R/A ULLAL VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 110.
18 . SMT LAKSHMINARASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
W/O SHIVANNA,
R/A NO.24, 2ND CROSS
-49 -
2ND MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
19 . SMT B V RATHNAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,
R/A NO.33, 12TH 'E' CROSS,
MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023.
20 . SRI KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE LINGAMMA,
R/AT NO.E-42, 2ND CROSS,
GOPALPURA, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 023.
SMT. MAHADEVAMMA,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S
21 . SOWMYA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
D/O LATE MAHADEVAMMA,
22 . NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
S/O LATE MAHADEVAMMA,
23 . SRI H CHANDRAKEERTHI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH,
RESPONDETNS No.21 TO 23
R/A ULLAL VILLAGE,
-50 -
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 110.
SMT VENKATAMMA,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S,
24 . MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATAMMA,
SRI. Y. NAGARAJ,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS,
25 . SHASHIKALA,
D/O LATE NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
26 . VEDHA,
D/O LATE NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
27 . CHAMPA,
D/O LATE NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
28 . AJAY,
S/O LATE NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SRI Y RAMAKRISHNA,
DEAD BY HIS LRS,
-51 -
29 . SHOBHA,
D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
30 . SHARAVATHI,
D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
31 . VIJAYKUMAR,
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESPONDENT No.24 TO 31
NO.24 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
HOSAHALLI COLONY,
NEAR PLAGUE MARAMMA TEMPLE,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
32 . SRI Y MANJUNATHA,
S/O LATE YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
NO.24 2ND CROSS 2ND MAIN,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
SRI RAMAKRISHNA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S,
33 . SRINIVAS,
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4 'D' STREET
-52 -
2ND CROSS, GOPALAPURA
MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU-560 023.
SRI D MURTHY,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S,
34 . BHAGYAMMA,
W/O LATE D MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
35 . D RAVI,
S/O LATE D MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
36 . SRI D GOVINDARAJU,
S/O LATE DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
37 . SMT BHAGYAMMA,
D/O LATE DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
38 . SMT PARVATHAMMA,
D/O LATE DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESPONDENT No.34 TO 38
R/AT NO.11 'E' STREET,7TH CROSS
GOPALAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 023.
-53 -
39 . SMT PARVATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
D/O LATE PUTTAIAH,
40 . SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH,
RESPONDENT No.39 & 40
R/AT NO.11 'E' STREET 7TH CROSS,
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 023.
SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S,
41 . AKKAYAMMA,
W/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
42 . BHARATH KUMAR,
S/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
43 . SUJAY KUMAR,
S/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
44 . BHAVYA SHREE,
D/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
-54 -
RESPONDENTS No.41 TO 44
RESIDING AT ANJANNAGAR,
MANTANAKURCHI, SONDEKOPPA POST,
NELMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 130.
45 . SMT PUTTALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE MARISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
46 . SMT M SUDHA,
D/O LATE MARISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
47 . SRI M HARISH,
W/O LATE MARISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
48 . SRI M ARAN @ ARUN,
W/O LATE MARISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESPONDENT No.45 TO 48,
RESIDING AT NO.36,
ULLALA MAIN ROAD,
OPP ULLAL LAKE,
BENGALURU-560 110.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1,
SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG A/W
SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR C/R-2,
SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADV. FOR R-3 TO 8,
-55 -
SRI. SHRISHAIL A. HUBLI, ADV. FOR R29 TO 33,
SRI. ABHINAY. Y.T. ADV. FOR R45 TO R48,
V/O DATED 14.07.2023, NOTICE TO R-9 T R-17, R-19, R-21 TO
R-23 & R-33 TO R-35 ARE DISPENSED WITH,
V/O DATED 22.08.2023, NOTICE TO R-18, R-20, R-24 TO R-28 &
R-36 TO R-44 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2022 PASSED IN W.P. No.
14662/2019 (LR) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE W.P. No.
14662/2019 (LR) BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE IN APPEAL
No.121/1978 DATED 30.06.2015, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL
AND PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER/S WHICH THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN W.A. No.1267/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K.S.SURENDRA BABU,
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.9, 100 FEET ROAD,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 085.
2. SRI. K S SUBBARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA,
R/AT NO.485, 2ND CROSS
-56 -
2ND BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 050.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. LEELA .P. DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2 . SRI. Y MANJUNATHA,
S/O YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.24, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040.
3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4 . SRI K.S. VISHWAKIRAN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA,
R/AT NO.9, 100 FEET ROAD,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
-57 -
4TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 085.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG A/W
SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, ADDL.GOVT. ADV. FOR C/R1 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN
W.P.NO.8615/2011 DATED 11.10.2022 AND ALLOW THE ABOVE
WRIT APPEAL AND ETC.
IN W.A.No.398 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
Y.MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE SRI. YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO 24, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANGARA,
BENGALURU-560 040.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HUBLI SHRISHAIL AYYAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-58 -
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. SMT. SAROJAMMA,
W/O LATE K N SRINIVAS GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT No.9, 100 FEET ROAD,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 085.
4. SRI M S MOHAN KUMAR,
S/O LATE K.N. SRINIVASA GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT No.9, 100 FEET ROAD,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 085.
5. SRI K S SURENDRA BABU,
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO 9, 100 FEET ROAD,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 085.
6. K S VISHWAKIRAN,
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO 9, 100 FEET ROAD,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
4TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 085.
-59 -
7. SRI K S SUBBARAJU,
S/O LATE K N SRINIVASA GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO 9, 100 FEET ROAD,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 085.
8. SRI R V BHASKAR,
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANA SHETTY,
AGE MAJOR,
9. SRI R V SUDHIR,
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANA SHETTY,
AGE MAJOR,
10 . SRI R V GIRIDHAR,
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANA SHETTY,
AGE MAJOR,
11 . SRI R V SHANKAR,
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANA SHETTY,
AGE MAJOR,
12 . SRI A MUDLAPPA,
S/O LATE RAJA VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGE MAJOR,
DASEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS.
SMT VENKATAMMA,
13 . 1ST WIFE OF DASE GOWDA,
AGE MAJOR,
-60 -
14 . SMT KEMPAMMA,
2ND WIFE OF DASE GOWDA,
AGE MAJOR,
15 . SRI RANGASWAMY,
S/O DASE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
16 . SRI VENKATEGOWDA,
S/O DASE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
17 . SRI BYRA HANUMEGOWDA,
S/O DASE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
18 . SRI KEMPEGOWDA,
S/O DASE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
19 . SRI RAGHU,
S/O DASE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
20 . SRI MANJUNATH,
S/O DASE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
THE RESPONDENTS No.8 TO 10 ARE
R/AT No.228, MUDDINAPALYA MAIN ROAD,
OPP. GOVT. SCHOOL,
BENGALURU-560 091.
-61 -
21 . SRI GANGAPPA,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
22 . SRI BYRAPPA,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
23 . SMT CHENNAMMA,
W/O RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
THE RESPONDENTS 21 TO 23 ARE
R/AT MUDDINAPALYA VILLAGE,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 091.
24 . THE CHAIRMAN,
LAND TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 001.
25 . SRI RUDRA MURTHY,
S/O H S SADASHIVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
26 . SRI CHANDRAN,
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
27 . SRI NARASAPPA S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
-62 -
28 . SRI GANGARAJU,
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
29 . SRI MUDDUHONNAIAH,
S/O JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
30 . SRI CHANDRAPPA,
S/O LATE RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG A/W
SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, ADDL.GOVT. ADV. FOR C/ R1,R2
& R23 )
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2022 IN WP No.24123/2012 AND
CONNECTED CASES TO THE EXTENT IT PERTAINS TO ORDER
ALLOWING THE WP No.24123/2012 ii) DISMISS THE W.P.
No.24123/2012 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT & ETC.
IN WA. No.474/2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. M. VENKATARAMAIAH,
S/O MUDALAGIRIYAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR,
-63 -
V. HARISH KUMAR,
S/O LATE M. VENAKTARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT No. 33, 13TH 'E' STREET,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 079.
Y. NAGARAJ,
S/O LATE. YELLAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR
2 . DR. N. AJAY,
S/O LATE. Y. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT No.24, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 040.
Y. RAMAKRISHNA
SINCE DECEASED
3 . R. SHOBHA,
W/O M.C. KESHAVAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O. 11/1, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
VALMIKINAGAR, MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 026.
4. R. SHARAVATHI,
W/O RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/T No. 24, 2ND CROSS,
-64 -
2ND MAIN, HOSAHALLI,
VIJIAYANGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
5. R. VIJAYAKUMAR,
S/O RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/T No. 24, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 040.
6. Y. MANJUNATHA,
S/O LATE SRI. YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT No.24, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN,
HOSAHALLI,
VIJAYANGARA,
BENGALURU-560 040.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HUBLI SHRISHAIL AYYAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
-65 -
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF
LEATHER TECHNOLOGY,
KADUGONDANAHALLI,
ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
BENGALURU-560 045,
BY ITS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG A/W
SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, ADDL.GOVT. ADV. FOR C/R1,
SRI A. RAVISHANAKAR, ADV., FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO i)SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 11/10/2022 IN WRIT PETITION
NO.24123/2012 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.10017-21/2010.
ii) ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO. 24123/2012 C/W WRIT
PETITION No.10017-21/2010 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS & ETC.
IN W.A. No.489/2023
BETWEEN:
Y. MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE SRI. YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT No.24, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN,
HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 040.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HUBLI SHRISHAIL AYYAPPA, ADVOCATE)
-66 -
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M S BUIDING,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3 . THE SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4 . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
5 . THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
C.A.R WEST, INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
6 . RUDRA MURTHY,
S/O H.S. SADASHIVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
-67 -
7 . CHANDRAN,
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
8 . NARASAPPA,
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
9 . GANGARAJU,
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
10 . MUDDUHAHONNAIAH,
S/O JAYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
11 . CHANDRAPPA,
S/O LATE RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESPONDENTS No.6 TO 11 ARE
R/AT ULLALU UPA NAGARA,
ULLALU, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG A/W
SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, ADDL.GOVT. ADV. FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2022 DISMISSING THE
-68 -
W.P.NO.52118/2017 WHILE PASSING THE COMMON ORDER IN
W.P.NO.24123/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES AND ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION NO.52118/2017 FILED BY THE APPELLANT &
ETC.
IN W.A. No.1458/2023:
BETWEEN:
SMT. MANGALAGOWRI,
W/O LATE MUNNINARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT G2, FLAT NO. 62/19,
2ND MAIN ROAD,PRASHANTHNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY .M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. VENKATARAMANAPPA @ DODDANNA
S/O LATE HANUMADSAPPA,
-69 -
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
(A) SRI. DASEGOWDA
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,
1. VENKATAMMA, 1ST WIFE
2. KEMPAMMA, 2ND WIFE,
3. RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
4. VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
5. BYIRAHANUMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
6. KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
7. RAGHU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
8. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
(B) SMT. CHANNAMMA
AGED 69 YEARS,
WIFE OF LATE RANGAPPA,
DAUGHTER OF LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
(C) SRI. BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
-70 -
SON OF LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
(D) SRI. GANGAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
SONE OF LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
THE LEGAL HERIRS OF
RESPNDENT 3(A) TO 3(D)
ARE R/AT MUDDENAPALYA VILLAGE,
VISHWANTHANEEDAM POST,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560 091.
4. SMT. NAGARATHRANAMMA,
WIFE OF RAJA VENKATARAMA SHETTY,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
(A) SRI. BHASKAR R V
AGED MAJOR,
S/O LATE VENKATA CHALAPATHI,
(B) SRI. SHRIDHAR R.V.
AGED MAJOR,
S/O LATE VENKATA CHALAPATHI,
(C) SRI. GIRIDHAR R.V.,
AGED MAJOR
S/O LATE VENKATA CHALAPATHI,
(D) SRI. SHANKAR R.V.
AGED MAJOR
S/O LATE VENKATA CHALAPATHI,
-71 -
THE LEGAL HEIRS OF RESPONDENT 4(A) TO 4(D)
R/AT NO. 37 /55, SURVEYOR ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
(E) SRI. RAJA SATISH,
AGED MAJOR
SON OF LATE GOVINDARAJU,
RESIDING AT No.214, 45TH CROSS,
8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 082.
5. SRI. DALI MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O MUNI OBALAPPA,
R/AT ULLAL VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BENGLAURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 101.
6. SMT. LAKSHMINARASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
W/O SHIVANNA
R/AT NO. 24, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.
7. SRI. HARISH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,
8. SMT. B V VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,
-72 -
9. SMT. B V PARVATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,
10 . SMT. B V CHANDRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,
11 . SMT. B V RATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,
12 . SMT. B V MANJULA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,
THE RESPONDENT No.7 TO 12
ARE R/AT NO. 33, 12TH 'E' CROSS,
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 023.
13 . SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE LINGAMMA,
14. SRI. MALLESH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O LATE LINGAMMA,
15. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
D/O LATE LINGAMMA,
-73 -
16. SMT. LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
D/O LATE LINGAMMA,
17. SMT. NANJAMMA,
W/O DOLLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESPONDENT No.13 TO 17 ARE
R/AT No. E-42, 2ND CROSS, GOPALAPURA
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 023.
18. SRI. H DAYAKAR,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
19. SRI. H JANARDHAN,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
20. SRI. H RAMACHANDRA,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
21. SRI. H CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH ,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
22. SRI. H CHANDRAKEERTHI,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH ,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
-74 -
RESPONDENT No.18 TO 22 ARE
R/AT ULLALU VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560 110.
23. SMT. VENKATAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
WIFE OF LATE YELLAPPA,
24. SRI. Y.NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SON OF LATE YELLAPPA,
25. SRI Y RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
SON OF LATE YELLAPPA,
26. SRI Y MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
SON OF LATE YELLAPPA,
RESPONDENT NOS.23 TO 26 ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 24, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
27. SRI GOVINDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
SON OF LATE THIMMAIAH,
28. SRI RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
SON OF LATE THIMMAIAH,
-75 -
29. SRI. VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
SON OF LATE THIMMAIAH,
30. SRI DAYANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
SON OF LATE THIMMAIAH,
RESPONDENT NOS.24 TO 27 ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 13,E STREE, 2ND CROSS,
GOPALAPURA, BENGALURU-560 023.
31. SRI D MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
SON OF LATE DASAPPA,
32 . SRI D KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
SON OF LATE DASAPPA,
33. SRI D GOVINDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
SON OF LATE DASAPPA,
34. SRI D LOKESH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
SON OF LATE DASAPPA,
35. SRI D MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
SON OF LATE DASAPPA,
-76 -
36. SRI D PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
SON OF LATE DASAPPA,
37. SMT BHAGYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF LATE DASAPPA,
38. SMT PARVATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF LATE DASAPPA,
39. SMT SARSWATHI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF LATE DASAPPA,
RESPONDENT NOS.31 TO 39 ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 20, E STREET, 2ND CROSS,
GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 023.
40. SMT PARVATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF LATE PUTTAIAH,
41. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
SON OF LATE PUTTAIAH,
42. SRI ANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
SON OF LATE PUTTAIAH,
-77 -
43. SMT LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF LATE PUTTAIAH,
44. SRI LAKSHMANA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
SON OF LATE PUTTAIAH,
45. SMT KOMALA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF LATE PUTTAIAH,
RESPONDENTS NOS.40 TO 45 ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 11,E STREET, 7TH CROSS,
GOPALAPURA,MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 023.
46. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SON OF LATE MALLAIAH,
47. SRI SHANKARA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SON OF LATE MALLAIAH,
48. SRI BALACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
SON OF LATE MALLAIAH,
49. SRI NARASIMHA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SON OF LATE MALLAIAH,
-78 -
50. SMT PADMAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF LATE MALLAIAH,
51. SMT HEMAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF LATE MALLAIAH,
52. SRI NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SON OF LATE MALLAIAH,
RESPONDENTS NOS. 46 TO 52 ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 6, B STREET,
2ND CROSS,
GOPALAPURA,MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 023.
RESPONDENTS NOS.5 TO 52
REPRESENTED BY THEIR REGISTERED
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI. R. CHANDRU,
SON OF LATE RAMAPPA,
AGED 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.204, 2ND FLOOR,
AHUJA CHAMBERS No.1,
KUMARAKRUPA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
53. SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
WIFE OF LATE MARISWAMY,
-79 -
54. SMT M SUDHA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WIFE OF LATE MARISWAMY,
55. SRI M HARISH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
SON OF LATE MARISWAMY,
56. SRI M ARAN,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WIFE OF LATE MARISWAMY,
RESPONDENTS NOS.53 TO 56 ARE
RESIDING AT N0. 36, ULLALA MAIN ROAD,
OPP ULLAL LAKE,
BENGALURU-560110.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG A/W
SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, ADDL.GOVT. ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.10174/2021 AND WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT No.2 THE
TAHASILDAR TO EFFECT THE KATHA IN THE NAME OF THE
APPELLANT AS PER THE WILL DATED 19.12.1988 DOCUMENT
No.3 WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-80 -
JUDGMENT
These writ appeals arise out of a common order dated 11.10.2022 by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed Writ Petition No.24123/2012 and Writ Petition No.10174/2021 filed by the State of Karnataka and set aside the orders passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 10.06.2010 in LRF Nos. 70, 87, 91 and 60/1959-60 and Appeal No.121/1978 dated 30.06.2015 and consequently rejected the applications in LRF Nos. 70, 87, 91 and 60/1959-60 and LRF Nos.15 and 93/1958- 60; Writ Petition No.3937/2010 and Writ Petition No.14662/2019 are partly allowed while confirming the Government Order dated 22.02.2010, by which the earlier Government Order dated 28.01.2010 was withdrawn and further, Writ Petition No.10017/2010, Writ Petition No.8615/2011, Writ Petition No.41518/2011, Writ Petition No.58596/2015, Writ Petition No.52118/2017, Writ Petition No.56154/2017 filed by the private parties are dismissed.
-81 -
2. Facts leading to filing of these writ appeals briefly stated are;
IN WA.NOS.1115 OF 2022, WA NO.1125 OF 2022 and WA NO.1267 OF 2022 The contention of the appellants is that the father of the appellants namely, K.N.Srinivasa Gupta had purchased an agricultural property in Sy.No.3 to an extent of 40 Acres out of 145 Acres 37 Guntas through a registered Sale Deed dated 12.09.1958. The appellants' father and their predecessor-in-title were in peaceful enjoyment of the said land and the purchase of the land was made subject to the condition that the purchaser shall pay Kandayam to the vendor-Inamdar as the said land was an Inam land. It is further contented that the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, came into force on 19.03.1955 and vesting of the land in question took place on 01.02.1959.
3. After the vesting of the land, the father of the appellants submitted an application under Section 5 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1954, before the Special Deputy Commissioner for
-82 -
Inams Abolition for grant of occupancy rights in his favour in respect of different survey numbers including Sy.No.199. The Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams conducted an enquiry and rejected the claim insofar as Sy.Nos. 199, 208 and 66 are concerned, by an order dated 14.08.1964. While rejecting the claim insofar as Sy.No.199, the Special Deputy Commissioner held that it is not a cultivable land, but is a Gomala land as the villagers had claimed that the said land was required for grazing purpose. However, insofar as other survey numbers are concerned, the Special Deputy Commissioner granted occupancy rights in favour of the father of the appellants. The appellants further contend that the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams, by an order dated 25.05.1967 which is a Sunday, in the case of Venkataramanappa who had made a similar claim in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.3, New No.199 to an extent of 36 acres, held that the property claimed by Venkataramanappa is not a Kharab or Gomala Land and the same is in possession and enjoyment of the Jodidars and subsequent purchasers. He has further proceeded to hold that the character of the land as Gomala or Kharab was lost as it had
-83 -
been in continuous cultivation even prior to its vesting under the Inams Abolition Act.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, the father of the appellants preferred appeals before the Mysore Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 3090/1965 and 2296/1968. The Tribunal, after considering the entire documents produced by the father of the appellants, allowed the appeals on 30.01.1970 and set aside both orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams and remanded the matter for fresh disposal.
5. The appellants further contend that after the remand, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams once again took up the matter and rejected the claims of both the appellants' father and Venkataramanappa, by an order dated 17.01.1978, on the ground that they had failed to establish their possession. The father of the appellants -K.N.Srinivasa Gupta died on 07.06.1993 leaving behind the appellants herein as his legal heirs to succeed to his estate. In the meanwhile, certain developments took place in the property in question and a Public
-84 -
Interest Litigation was filed by a Society called 'Uchitha Niveshana Nivasigala Sangha' in W.P.No.18218/1987 before this Court in which the State Government and the father of appellants were parties. This Court rejected the said Writ Petition, by an order dated 08.11.2001, on the ground that the father of the appellants -K.N.Srinivasa Gupta and Venkataramanappa were claiming their rights under the Inams Abolition Act.
6. The appellants herein had challenged the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.88/2002. The Tribunal allowed the said appeal by its order dated 08.01.2007 and set aside the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner by holding that the property in Sy.No.199 is not a Gomala land as there were no records to prove that it is a Gomala Land. Further, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh enquiry and disposal. The said order passed by the Tribunal was never challenged by any of the parties including the Government and hence, it has
-85 -
attained finality. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5684-5686/1999 dated 28.04.2005, Land Tribunal was constituted by the State Government and hence, the claim made by the appellants was transferred to the Land Tribunal. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal directed that a survey be conducted and sketch be prepared. Accordingly, survey was conducted by the concerned officers of the State Government and a report was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner on 25.08.2010 identifying the boundaries in respect of the claim made by the father of the appellants - K.N.Srinivasa Gupta. The Tahsildar and the Survey Authority, after conducting survey, had recorded a finding that out of 40 Acres of land, 21 Acres 24 guntas was vacant. Based on the survey report, the Land Tribunal, by an order dated 10.06.2010, proceeded to grant occupancy rights in favour of the appellants who are the legal representatives of K.N.Srinivasa Gupta limiting it to the extent of vacant land available in Sy.No.199 in terms of the Sketch prepared by the Tahsildar. The Land Tribunal, after the remand order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, conducted a fresh enquiry and held that the appellants are
-86 -
entitled for occupancy rights only to an extent of 21 acres 24 guntas since the said extent was vacant.
7. In view of the said order passed by the Land Tribunal, the appellants herein made a representation before the concerned authorities for transfer of revenue entries in their names. Since respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to act on their representation, the appellants herein preferred a writ petition before this Court in Writ Petition No.8615/2011 seeking a direction to the concerned authorities to consider the representation and to change the revenue entries insofar as the property granted by the Land Tribunal is concerned. It is further contended that when the matter was pending adjudication before this Court, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein preferred W.P.Nos.24123/2012 and 10174/2021 questioning the order passed by the Land Tribunal. It is contended that the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 11.10.2022, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the father of the appellants -
-87 -
K.N.Srinivasa Gupta had purchased the land in question after vesting of the land and had no right in it. The father of the appellants -K.N.Srinivasa Gupta had purchased the land on 12.09.1958; the vesting is on 01.02.1959 and hence, as on the date of sale in his favour, there was no vesting. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to decide the issue as to whether the land in question is Gomala land or Inam land and has committed gross error in not duly considering the correct date of vesting of the land in the State Government. This happened because the learned Single Judge did not advert to the Vesting Notification dated 13.01.1959 while passing the impugned order and has not determined the most crucial issue. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2022 passed in W.P. No.24123/2012, the appellants have approached this Court by filing the above writ appeals.
8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State Government filed Writ Petition No.24123/2012 challenging the order dated 10.6.2010 passed by the Land Tribunal by which, it has confirmed occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.199 situated at
-88 -
Ullal Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, in favour of the appellants herein under Section 9 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, mainly on the ground that the same is contrary to Section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act by seeking the following reliefs:-
a) Call for records of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore in L.R.F.No.70, 87, 81 and 60/1959-60.
b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction and set aside the order dated
10.06.2010 passed by the Respondent No.15 in L.R.F.Nos.70, 87, 91 and 60/1959-60 produced herewith as Annexure-A.
c) Grant such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
-89 -
WA NOS.1267/2022 and 1125/2022
9. These Writ Appeals arise out of an order dated 11.10.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.8615/2011 and Writ Petition No.56154/2017 respectively by which, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the Writ Petitions.
10. The case of the appellants in W.A.No.1267/2022 is that as per the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 08.01.2007 in Appeal No.88/2002, the Land Tribunal took up the issue involved in LR.F.Nos.70, 87, 91 and 60/1959-60, held a detailed enquiry and by its order dated 10.06.2010, granted the land in Sy.No.199 to an extent of 40 acres out of 84 acres 3 guntas jointly in the name of the appellants including their mother late Sarojamma (while she was alive), by taking the premium likely to be incurred towards the said grant. On the strength of the said order of the Land Tribunal, the appellants, along with others, made an application before respondent No.1 - Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, on 30.06.2010 requesting to enter their names in the Revenue Records including the RTC as
-90 -
joint Khatha holders to an extent of 40 acres in Sy.No.199. Even though the said representation was made on 30.06.2010 itself, the Tahsildar has failed to consider the same. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Tahsildar, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.8615/2011 seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the representation dated 30-06-2010 of the Petitioners vide (Annexure-D) and enter the names of the Petitioners jointly in the revenue records with respect of the land bearing survey No.199 to an extent of 40 acres situated at Hullalu Village, Yeswanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, by taking necessary fees likely to be incurred towards the same in the interest of justice and equity.
(ii) Issue such other writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
-91 -
11. W.A.No.1125/2022 has been filed challenging the dismissal of W.P.No.56154/2017. The case of the appellants is that by suppressing the filing of W.P.No.24123/2012 by the State Government and W.P.No.8615/2011 by the appellants herein and without the knowledge of the appellants, on the basis of the recommendation of the Government dated 11.10.2017, the respondents authorities had allotted land bearing Sy.No.199 to an extent of 20 acres in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 7 for construction of Administration Block, Conference Hall and Parade Ground which was the very same property granted in favour of Legal Representatives of K.N.Srinivasa Gupta by the Land Tribunal. It was further contended that pursuant to the order dated 11.10.2017, the respondent authorities had released an amount of Rs.100 lakhs under the order dated 07.11.2017 for carrying on the construction. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the said writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ in nature of certiorari by quashing a order dated 11.10.2017 passed in No.HD 127/PBL 2017,
-92 -
Bengaluru by respondent No.1 which is produced and marked as ANNEXURE-R.
b) To issue a writ in nature of certiorari by quashing a order dated 07.11.2017 passed in No. HD127/PBL 2017, Bengaluru by respondent No.1 which is produced and marked as ANNEXURE-S. WA NO.1167/2022, WA NO.1168/2022, WA NO.1170/ 2022 and 1171/2022
12. The appellants in the above appeals are subsequent purchasers from Venkataramanappa. They filed applications for impleading in W.P.Nos.24123/2012, W.P.No.3937/2010, W.P. No.10174/2021 and W.P.No.14662/2019. The said applications came to be allowed on 10.12.2021 and these appellants were arrayed as respondents. Thereafter, the appellants filed statement of objections and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. The other respondents have not filed any objections.
-93 -
WA NO.398/2023, WA NO.474/2023 AND WA NO.489/2023
13. The contention of the appellant in WA No.398/2023 is that his father Yellappa had purchased a land to an extent of 5 acres out of 36 acres in Sy.No.199 of Ullalu Village, Bengaluru North, from Sri Venkataramanappa through a registered sale deed. The appellant got impleaded as a respondent in W.P.No.24123/2012 which was filed by the State Government and prayed for dismissal of the said writ petition.
14. The appellants in W.A.No.474/2023 contend that they had filed W.P.No.10017/2010 challenging the order dated 22.02.2010 passed by the State Government providing police protection to the Karnataka Institute of Leather Technology in respect of the land in Sy.No.199. The said writ petition was dismissed by the order dated 11.10.2022. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed this appeal seeking to quash the said order.
-94 -
15. W.A.No.489/2023 has been filed challenging the dismissal of W.P.No.52118/2017 which was filed by him seeking quashment of the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the State Government granting some extent of land in Sy.No.199 in favour of the Police Department.
W.A.NO.1458/2023
16. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.10174/2021 which was filed by the State Government challenging the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.121/1978 claiming that the appellant's husband late Munninarasaiah purchased 2 acres of land in Sy.No.199 of Ullalu Village from Venkataramanappa. Her husband bequeathed the said property by way of a Will dated 19.12.1988.
17. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
-95 -
18. The learned Single Judge observed that for a claimant to be eligible to seek grant of occupancy rights, under Section 5, as permanent tenant, the claimant has to fulfill the requirement of having been in possession of the land for at least twelve years prior to the date of application or should be able to prove that he is entitled to tenancy during the subsistence of a contract which is co-extensive with the duration of the tenure of the Inamdar. Both these requirements or either of them are disproved on the own showing of the claimants and therefore, the claimants could not have maintained an application under Section 5. Though the appellants filed application under Section 5 of the Act, the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights under Section 9 to a claimant who had filed application under Section 5, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be justified. The learned Single Judge further held that the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 was first published in the official gazette on 19.03.1955. The Act sought to abolish personal inams and certain miscellaneous inams through out the State except Bellary District. The vesting of the inam lands happened on the appointed date, by notification issued under
-96 -
sub-section (4) of Section 1. Admittedly, the two sale transactions claimed by Venkataramanappa and Srinivasa Gupta have happened on 13.12.1957 and 12.09.1958, after the date of vesting, in terms of the 1954 Act. On the other hand, the cases proceeded on the footing that the sale transactions took place prior to the date of vesting i.e., 01.02.1959 under the 1958 Act. If the date of vesting, in terms of 1954 Act, is taken into consideration, the lands having vested in the State in the year 1955, the Inamdar or his successors in interest could not have sold the lands as they had no right to sell the vested lands.
19. Insofar as the factual finding whether land is gomal or otherwise, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that it is noticeable that at the very first instance, in the order dated 14.08.1964, the Special Deputy Commissioner had held that the land is gomal. Thereafter, the matters were remanded twice and by insertion of sub-rule (3A) as on 08.01.1975, the Rules, 1956 made it mandatory for impleadment of such officer as the State Government notified, as a party respondent in an application filed by the Inamdar under Section 9. Obviously, on realizing the
-97 -
need for impleading the State Government as a respondent, in every application made by the Inamdar, the insertion by way of amendment were made to the Rules. During the proceedings, it was pointed out from the records that the "State of Mysore" was subsequently, impleaded as a party respondent. But, it was not mentioned as to who was the officer who represented the State. No information is available as to the officer of the State to whom notice was issued. It is therefore obvious that the interest of the State was not safeguarded. At the first instance, when a factual finding is given to state that the land in question is gomal, then, any material contrary to the said finding were required to be placed before the authority. No such material is said to have been placed, either before the Special Deputy Commissioner or the Tribunal.
20. The learned Single Judge further held that the original claimants namely, Sri Srinivas Gupta and Sri Venkataramanappa admittedly purchased the lands on 13.12.1957 and 12.09.1958, long after the inam lands were vested in the State, in terms of the 1954 Act, and since they did
-98 -
not derive any title to the lands in question, they could not have claimed occupancy rights under Section 9. Insofar as claim under Section 5 is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the claimants do not fulfill the requirements of a permanent tenant as discussed earlier, their applications were required to be rejected. It is also pertinent to notice that the Tribunal, in the case of Sri Srinivasa Gupta, proceeded on a wrong footing that application was filed under Section 9 and therefore conferment of occupancy rights were granted under Section 9. That is why no special reasons are assigned by the Tribunal to confer occupancy rights under Section 9. Consequently, the learned Single Judge, by his order dated 11.10.2022 allowed W.P.No.24123/2012 and W.P.No.10174/2021, while setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal Nos.LRF 70, 87, 91 and 60/1959-60 dated 10.06.2010 and Appeal No.121/1978 dated 30.06.2015. Consequently, the applications in LRF Nos. 70, 87, 91 and 60/1959-60 and LRF Nos.15 and 93/1958-60 also stand rejected. Further, W.P.No.3937/2010 and W.P.No.14662/2019 are partly allowed
-99 -
while confirming Government Order dated 22.02.2010, by which the earlier Government Order dated 28.01.2010 was withdrawn. W.P.No.10017/2010, W.P.No.8615/2011, W.P.No.41518/2011, W.P.No.58596/2015, W.P.No.52118/2017, W.P.No.56154/2017 are dismissed.
21. Mr. D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in WA Nos.1115/2022, 1125/2022 and 1267/2022 who are respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P.No.24123/2012 and petitioners in W.P.No.8615/2011 and WP 56154/2017 submits that the learned Single Judge has arrived at an erroneous conclusion that Srinivasa Gupta purchased the land in question after vesting of the lands and have had no right over the lands. Srinivasa Gupta has purchased the land on 12.09.1958 and the vesting notification is dated 01.02.1959. As on the date of sale in his favour, there was no vesting. The learned Senior Counsel submitted the following points:
-100 -
a) Srinivasa Gupta approached the Special Deputy Commissioner for grant of occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1954. The Special Deputy Commissioner conducted an enquiry and rejected the claim made by Srinivasa Gupta on 14.08.1964 insofar as Sy.Nos.199, 208 and 66 of Ullalu Village are concerned and few of the survey numbers were granted in favour of Srinivasa Gupta. The land in question in these appeals is Sy.No.199 (old Sy.No.3). The reasoning given by the Special Deputy Commissioner for rejecting the claim in Sy.No.199 are as under:-
"The revenue authorities have reported that there are 765 big and 500 small heads of cattle in the village and the Gomal is grossly inadequate hence the claim of the petitioner is rejected."
b) Aggrieved by the order of Special Deputy Commissioner, Srinivasa Gupta filed an appeal before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.3090/1965. During the pendency of the said appeal, the very same Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams passed an order on 25.05.1967 i.e., on a Sunday, in the case of Venkataramanappa who had made a similar claim in
-101 -
respect of property bearing Sy.No.3, New No.199 to an extent of 36 acres, holding that the property claimed by Venkataramanappa is not Kharab or Gomala land and the same was in possession and enjoyment of Jodidars and subsequent purchasers. It was further held that the character of Gomala or Kharab was lost as it has been in continuous cultivation even prior to the vesting under the Inams Act. Srinivasa Gupta filed another appeal before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.2296/1968. Both the appeals were clubbed and the Tribunal, after considering the entire documents produced by the father of the appellants, allowed the appeals on 30.01.1970 by setting aside both the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams and remanded the matter for fresh disposal.
c) The learned Senior Counsel submits that after the remand, the Special Deputy Commissioner once again took up the matter and rejected the claim of the appellants' father and Venkataramanappa by an order dated 17.01.1978 on the ground that the claimants have failed to establish their possession. In
-102 -
the meanwhile, K.N.Srinivasa Gupta passed away on 07.06.1993 leaving behind the appellants herein as his heirs. Thereafter, the appellants challenged the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.88/2002. The Appellate Tribunal, on considering the case of the appellants herein, has proceeded to allow the appeal by an order dated 08.01.2007 by setting aside the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner holding that Sy.199 is not a Gomala land and there were no records to prove that it is a Gomala Land, and the matter was remitted to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh enquiry and disposal. The said order was never challenged by any of the parties and hence, the same attained finality. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the order dated 25.05.1967 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in favour of Venkataramanappa was also not challenged by the State Government or its entities. By mentioning the above points, the learned Senior Counsel highlighted the apathy on the part of the State and submits that there is no substance in the claim of the State that the land in question is a Gomal land.
-103 -
d) The learned Senior Counsel submits that in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5684-5686/1999 dated 28.04.2005, Land Tribunal was constituted by the State Government and hence, the claim made by the appellants was transferred to the Land Tribunal. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal directed to conduct a survey and prepare a sketch. Accordingly, survey was conducted by the Tahsildar and Survey Authority of the State Government and a report was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner on 25.08.2010 identifying the boundaries in respect of the claim made by Srinivasa Gupta and that, out of 40 acres of land, an extent of 21 acres 24 guntas was vacant. Based on the Survey Report, the Land Tribunal, by an order dated 10.06.2010, has proceeded to grant occupancy rights in favour of the appellants who are the legal representatives of Srinivasa Gupta limiting it to the extent of vacant land available in Sy.No.199 in terms of the Sketch prepared by the Tashildar. The Land Tribunal, after the remand order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, conducted a fresh enquiry and held that the appellants are
-104 -
entitled for grant of occupancy rights only to an extent of 21 acres 24 guntas since the said extent was vacant.
e) The learned Senior Counsel also invited our attention to the copies of the ordersheets maintained by the Land Tribunal with regard to the detailed procedure and investigation conducted during the proceedings.
22. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the written submissions filed before this Court and highlighted the following points:
A. ON TITLE FLOW OF APPELLANTS' PROPERTY MEASURING 40 ACRES IN SY NO:199 (PART OF OLD SY. NO:3) i. The entire Ullal Village, to an extent of 908 acres 29 guntas, was Inam land belong to one Hunsur Mastri Malikarjuna as evidenced by the Final Quit Rent Register (ANNEXURE-R8, Pg.446 in W.A No.1115/2022).
ii. One Narayan Rao Mane acquired the land bearing Sy.No.3 (New No.199) totally measuring 908 acres and 29 guntas in Ullal
-105 -
Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, through a registered Sale Deed dated 24.06.1939 from the Inamdar Hunsur Mastri Mallikarjuna. Narayan Rao Mane subsequently sold Sy.No.3 (which included New Sy.No.199) measuring 145 acres 37 guntas along with other properties to Smt. Rajakumari Gupta W/o Sri Din Dayal Gupta and Smt. Nagaranthamma under a registered Sale Deed dated 10.11.1947. K.N.Srinivasa Gupta (Appellants' father) along with his brothers purchased 40 acres in Sy No.3, new Sy.No.199 in Ullala Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk from Nagarathnamma vide registered Sale Deed dated 12.09.1958. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY -:
The schedule of Sy.No.3 measuring 40 acres as per registered Sale Deed dated 12.09.1958 is as under:
East by : 20 feet road & Land of Venkataramanappa Etc., West by : Kodigehalli Boundary North by : Lands of Narasappa & Muddarasiah South by : The land belonging to the vendors
(iii) Sri Venkataramanappa purchased 36 acres from Smt. Nagarathnamma in Sy.No.3 of Ullal Village vide Sale Deed dated 13.12.1957 and the said land bounded on East by District Road
-106 -
and Akkayamma land; West by our landed property; North by our landed property and Akkayamma land; and South by Road formed newly in our land. The above mentioned schedule of property does not match Sy.No. 199 at all.
(iv) The appellants' land of 40 acres is entirely different from the claim of venkataramanappa's 36 acres. To substantiate the said difference in schedule, the LRs of Venkataramanappa filed statement on 05.01.2010 before the Land Tribunal in LRF Nos.70, 87, 91 & 60/1959-60 stating that the appellants' land of 40 acres is different from the land of Venkataramanappa's 36 acres in Sy.No.3, new No.199.
(v) The purchasers of Venkataramanappa are now claiming that 36 acres is within the 84 acres in Sy.No.199; sketch was prepared on the orders of the Land Tribunal dated 25.09.2009; the ADLR has clearly mentioned in his report that Venkataramanappa's 36 acres is not part of 84 acres in Sy. No.199 and whereas the appellants' 40 acres is part of 84 acres in Sy.No.199. The purchasers of Venkataramanappa are misguiding the Court telling Sy.No.199 is 120 acres. There are
-107 -
clear records showing that the total extent is only 84 acres. They were not able to locate the land purchased by their vendor. Moreover, they purchased the land from Venkataramanappa multiple times from the years 1959 to 1962 in bits and pieces and again sold the same in 1986 for the reasons best known to them after the land was vested with the Government and hence, all the sale deeds are null and void.
(vi) On the orders of the Land Tribunal, the Survey Authorities of Bangalore North had prepared a sketch for Sy.No.199 in presence of appellants and Venkataramanappa and submitted report that the appellants' land of 40 acres in Sy.No.3, new No.199 is within the boundaries of the sale deed dated 12.09.1958. Subsequently, the said sketch was upheld by various authorities such as Tahsildar, AC, DC, JDLR and others in their reports to the Principal Secretary, Revenue.
(vii) Tippany copy of Sy.Nos.28 and 29 of Ullal Village in which the names of Narasappa & Muddarasiah are reflecting situated towards the North of the Appellants' property schedule.
-108 -
(viii) The sale deed dated 08.01.1957 numbered 7548/1956-57 for Sy no 26 showing that eastern boundary of their land matching the schedule of property in their sale deed dated 12.09.1958 B. ON SY.NO.3 RENUMBERED AS SY.NO.199
(i) The Ullalu Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, is a 'Kayamgutta Village', as per the Government Notification No.RD3 MIN 58 dated 13.01.1959 as per Section 1(4) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 from 1st February 1959 and the same is vested with the Government. Further, the preparation of revised survey and settlement manual was sanctioned in Government Order No.RD 11 SYS 60 dated 27th April 1960 and the Survey Settlement happened after 1960 only. Thereafter, as per the Survey Settlement Rules, the Village Map was published in the year 1963.
-109 -
(ii) After the land is vested with the Government, the land in Sy.No.3 of Ullalu Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, totally measuring 145 Acres 37 guntas of land, at the time of the village detailed survey and as per the Survey Tippani, it was sub-divided and 84 Acres 03 guntas of land and was assigned Sy.No.199 (old Sy.No.3 - the entire land is the Inamthi land). It is pertinent to note that any survey work or sketches produced prior to the date of vesting is against the law as the control of the Government over the land comes only after the date of vesting.
(iii) Sy.No.3 of Ullalu village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North taluk is about 145-37 acre of land as per the rough re- survey. At this juncture, the system of giving Maji No. or old Sy.No. at the preliminary stage was existing and accordingly, in Maji Sy.No.3, totally 16 new survey numbers have been formed C. REGARD CLAIM BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT SY NO.199 IS GOMAL LAND.
(i) The Government has not produced any proof to show that Sy. No.199 land is a gomala land or reserved for grazing purpose
-110 -
other than an unreliable rough survey tippany sketch. Further the land is held to be cultivable land on the date of vesting. The Inmadar was paying the rent for entire village.
(ii) In this regard, the learned senior counsel submitted that it is pertinent to examine provisions of Section 39 of the Land Revenue Code (Mysore) Act IV of 1888 which deals with reservation of lands for free pasturage as under:
"Section 39: Land may be assigned for special purposes and where so assigned shall not be otherwise appropriated without the sanction of government"
Since Ullala Village is Inam Village and before reserving any Sy. No. as Gomal land, the Deputy Commissioner's permission is mandatory and in the present case, there is no order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the first instance of the land in question been called as Gomala land was in regrant proceedings of lands purchased by Sriniwas Gupta in case No.15 and 93/1959-60 dated 14th August 1964. The Special Deputy Commissioner mentions that because the villagers have petitioned to reserve this land as gomala land
-111 -
for grazing purpose, this land is gomala land. His order does not mention any standing order of a revenue authority as per Section 39 of Mysore Revenue Code, 1888 and as such, order was never passed.
(iii) In this claim of Gomala vs inam land, the appellants place reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Mysore in the case of MUNIBACHAPPA AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS, as reported in ILR 1954 MYS 222. In the said judgment, the High Court of Mysore has clearly mentioned that the survey records could not be the sole basis for determining whether or not the lands were reserved as gomal land.
(iv) To substantiate his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that Sy.No.199 is not gomala land as per The Karnataka Revenue Survey Manual (Vol-2) in Chapter VI which states the fixation of Gomal Area as under:
-112 -
(b) Fixation of Gomal Area- Gomal or gairan area is to be fixed out of the unoccupied grass growing land as per standing orders
(v) The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the appellants also challenged the judgment passed in W.P.No.56154/2017 dated 11.10.2022 seeking quashment of the orders dated 07.11.2017 and 11.10.2017 issued by the 1st respondent produced at Annexures-R and S to the writ petition by filing WA No.1125/2022 on the ground that the Home Secretary has illegally granted land to the Police Department and they are claiming possession. Hence, the appellants requested to allow W.A.No.1125/2022 and sought consequent direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, to restore possession from the Police Department as per the Land Tribunal's order.
23. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out various observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order which are contrary to the facts and records available. He submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the issue as to whether the lands are Inam lands or not. Once the
-113 -
Tribunal had passed the order dated 08.01.2007 and the State Government accepted the same without any challenge, it has attained finality and therefore, the learned Single Judge could not have reopened the issue.
24. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the appellants herein filed an application under Section 5 of the Inams Abolition Act seeking grant of occupancy rights claiming that they are the Permanent Tenants as defined under the Act. The father of the appellants herein purchased the land on 12.09.1958 on the condition that he should pay Kandayam and at the time of purchase, he had paid the rent for an year and thereafter, the said land was vested with the Government. The date of the vesting of land with the Government took place on 01.02.1959. Immediately after the vesting, the father of the appellants- Srinivasa Gupta filed an application before the authority seeking occupancy rights. Therefore, the applicability of Section 79 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code as held by the learned Single Judge will not arise.
-114 -
25. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the learned Single Judge has not taken into account the argument placed before the Court with regard to the Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour Srinivasa Gupta under Section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act. It is the specific contention of the appellants that the Tribunal has granted the occupancy rights under Section 9 of the Act, though the application was made under Section 5 of the Act and it is a typographical error. The learned Single Judge has failed to look into erroneous contention of the State that Land Tribunal allotted the land under Section 9 of Inams Abolition Act, but the application of Sriniwas Gupta was made under Section 5 of the Act does not hold much merit as the Apex Court in (2003)9 SCC 234 declared that mere mention of a wrong provision of law by itself is not sufficient to invalidate the exercise of that power.
26. The learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, has made contradictory observations. In one breath, the learned Single Judge observes that Jodi Inam land is an undisputable fact and at the end of the order, he allowed the
-115 -
writ petition saying that the subject land is a Gomala Land by relying upon the questionable sketch. Further, learned Single Judge has failed to make a distinction between the claim of Srinivasa Gupta and Venkataramanappa who had sold the lands many times, though the lands claimed from them is different from one another.
27. The learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the fact that the rights of the tenant and Inamdar under Sections 5 and 9 respectively of the Inams Abolition Act were fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, prior to the 43rd amendment to the Constitution of India. Even after 39th amendment though it ceased to be a fundamental right, it continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300A read with 31b of the Constitution. The fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India cannot be ignored while deciding the dispute between the parties.
-116 -
28. The learned Single Judge has grossly erred in treating the case of Venkataramanappa as casting a shadow on the case of Srinivasa Gupta when the property in question is totally different as per the survey conducted by the Land Tribunal and said survey is upheld by the higher officers of the Department of Revenue. Venkataramanappa in various cases, including in the reply to the impleading application filed by the appellants before the KAT in their appeals, had stated that their property is different from the property of Srinivas Gupta..
29. The learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that the State Government has been represented before the Appellate Authority. It was a party to the proceedings and contested the case. Without considering this aspect, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the State Government was not a party before any of the authorities, while deciding the issue.
30. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that due to the above said grounds and facts presented before this Court, the
-117 -
order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in law and W.P.No.24123/2012 is liable to be dismissed and prays that the Writ Appeals be allowed as prayed.
31. Sri Vijay Kumar K, the learned counsel for the appellants in WA No.1167/2022, WA No.1168/2022, WA No.1170/2022 and WA No.1171/2022, by reiterating the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeals and the contents of written synopsis, has submitted that;
a) The subject lands are situated at Ullal Village, (K.G.Hullalu) Yeshwanthapura Holbi, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District i.e., land bearing Sy. No. 199, all the Inam lands situated at Ullal village are vested with the government, Vide notification bearing No. RD3. MIN. 58, dated 13.01.1959. Therefore Ullal village was a Jodi Inam village and vested with the government in view of the coming into force of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. The said Act came into effect on 13.01.1959, the Venkataramanappa has
-118 -
purchased the said land under a sale deed dated 13.12.1957. The finding of the learned single judge that Venkataramanappa did not derive any title to the lands in question since he purchased the lands on 13.12.1957 long after the Inams lands vested with the state is incorrect.
b) As per the Sale Deed dated 13.12.1957, Venkataramanappa had purchased the land in Sy.No.199 (old Sy.No.3) of Ullal Village from their vendor Raja Venkataramana Shetty and Rajakumari Gupta. The original owners received a sum of Rs.3000/-. It is further mentioned that from the date of the sale deed onwards, per acre one and half rupee taxes, in all Rs.54/-, shall have to be paid by the purchaser every year to the vendors. Therefore, as per Section 5(2) of the Inams Abolition Act, every tenant entitled to be registered an occupant of any land under sub-section (1), shall be liable to pay the Government as premium for acquisition of ownership of that land, an amount equal to 20 times such
-119 -
land revenue. Therefore, Venkataramanappa was registered a permanent tenant.
c) The then Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore, in case Nos.70, 87 & 91/1959-60 dated 28.05.1967, the petitioner Venkataramanappa is registered as permanent tenant in respect of Sy.No.66 (18 guntas) and Sy.No.199 (36 acres) under the Inams abolition Act with premium. The said findings are not challenged by the State.
d). The finding at para No.26 of the impugned order is that "during the proceedings, the State of Mysore was subsequently was impleaded as a party respondent. But it was not mentioned as to who was the officer who represented the State. No information is available as to the officer of the State to whom the notice was issued. It is therefore obvious that the interest of the State was not safeguarded". The Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore, himself is a Competent Authority to
-120 -
decide whether the land in question is a gomala land or not.
e). The index of land, Records of Right and Mutation Register are in the name of Venkataramanappa who was cultivating the said lands. The evidence of Venkataramanappa and the evidence given by the Raja Venkatachalapathi on behalf of the jodidar Nagarathanamma that these lands were under the cultivation of the jodidar prior to the purchase by Venkataramanappa and after purchase, the lands are in possession and enjoyment of Venkataramanappa. This piece of evidence clearly demonstrate that Venkataramanappa was in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and he was cultivating the same.
f) The Karnataka Institute of Leather Technology (for short KILT), one of the respondent herein, has filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.3937/2010 questioning the order bearing No. RD 589 LJB 2007 dated 28.01.2010
-121 -
wherein the Deputy Commissioner and State of Karnataka are arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2. The said respondents filed statement of objections stating that the land in question i.e., 36 acres in Sy.No.199 of Ullalu village which was in possession of Jodidhar has been excluded and the remaining land measuring 84 acres 3 guntas has been classified as gomala land. The land measuring 36 acres in Sy.No.199 is not a gomala land. The said land is also not part and parcel of the land measuring 84 acres 3 guntas in Sy.No.199 of Ullalu village, Yeshwanthapura Hobil, Bangalore North Taluk.
g) The subject matter of the land in question is a sarkari gomal land. As per Section 9 of the Act, Inamdars are entitled for occupancy rights in respect of the lands except the communal lands, waste lands, gomala land, forest land, tank beds, mines, quarries, rivers etc. When such being the case, the records and the contentions taken by the State in W.P.No.3937/2010 are contrary to the grounds urged in the writ petition and therefore the
-122 -
respondents have suppressed true and material facts and they have not approached this court with clean hands. Therefore, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed.
h). The land bearing old Sy.No.3, new No.199 of Ullalu Village is an Inam land. One Narayana Rao Mane and his family members have sold the entire Ullalu village in favour of Smt. Rajkumari Gupta W/o Deen Dayal Gupta and Nagarathnamma w/o Raja Venkataramana Shetty on 10.11.1947 under the registered Sale Deed. The said Sale Deed was registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru and registered as document No.2334/1947-48, Book No. 1 and possession of all the lands situated in Ullalu Village measuring 908 acres 25 guntas was delivered in their favour. The said Rajkumari Gupta and Nagarathnamma were in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. Rajakumari Gupta and Nagarathnamma, for want of their family and legal necessities, have sold 36 acres of land in the land bearing Sy.No.3, new No.199 situated at Ullalu Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli in favour
-123 -
of Venkataramanappa S/o Hanumadasappa on 13.12.1957 and delivered possession of 36 acres of land in favour of the purchaser. The recitals of the sale deed clearly describes that physical possession of 36 acres of cultivable land was handed over to the purchaser. The Land purchased by Venkataramanappa is bounded as follows:
East: District Road and Akkayyamma property West: Remaining Portion retained by the Vendor. North: Remaining portion retained by the Vendor and Akkayyamma Property.
South: Newly formed Road in the property belonging to Vendor.
i) When the Mysore (Personal & Inam's Abolition) Act, 1954 came into force, the entire Ullalu Village was vested with the Government by virtue of the Notification bearing No. RD 3 MIN 58, dated 13.01.1959. Thereafter, as per the order passed in M.L. Raj Urus Vs State of Karnataka in
-124 -
MFA No.37/1962 dated 16.12.1963, an order came to be passed that the successor in interest of Jodidhar is entitled to be registered as tenant with premium and as per Section 5 of the Act, the successor in interest of Jodidhar can be registered as permanent tenant of the land.
(j) The Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam's Abolition, by the order dated 25.05.1967, granted occupancy rights in favour of Venkataramanappa in respect of 36 acres of land in SY.No.199. At the time of grant, Venkataramanappa had already sold the entire 36 acres of land in favour of the above said 10 persons. In view of the execution of the sale deeds, the Purchasers are entitled for benefit of grant in terms of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act.
k) That, one Srinivasa Gupta and his brothers have purchased western portion of the land bearing old Sy. No.3, New Sy.No. 199 measuring 40 acres on 12.09.1958,
-125 -
vide document No.3977/58-59. Land purchased by Srinivasa Gupta is bounded as under:
East: 20 Feet Road and land of Venkataramanappa West: Kodigehalli Boundary North: Land of Narasappa and Madduralah. South: Lands belonging to the vendors.
l) The land purchased by Venkataramanappa and the land purchased by Srinivasa Gupta and his brothers are entirely two different properties and boundaries to both the properties clearly establishes that the property purchased by Venkataramanappa is situated in the Eastern side of land bearing Sy.No.199 and the land purchased by Srinivasa Gupta and his brothers is situated on the Western side of the land bearing Sy.No. 199 and adjacent to Kodigehalli boundary.
m) The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the land bearing Sy.No.199 is not a Government land, it is an
-126 -
inam land and the same is in possession and cultivation of the appellants and their vendors from the last 100 years. The Government cannot grant private land to any Department. After coming to know about the grant made in favour of KILT and Police Department, the appellants and others have made a representation to the Revenue Department requesting to change the Khatha in the name of the appellants and also for cancellation of grant made in the name of KILT and Police Department. Accordingly, the Revenue Department built a file in case No. RD 589 LGB 2007. In the meantime, 10 purchasers filed a suit in the year 2008 in O.S. No.528/2008 on the file of the Civil Court, Bangalore. Subsequently, on 22.02.2010 in the meeting held in the presence of Chief Secretary, it was decided to cancel the grants made to the KILT and Police Department. In the meanwhile, Under Secretary to the Government directed the appellants to withdraw all the cases filed against the KILT. Accordingly, the appellants have withdrawn the suit. The appellants have also given a representation to the Legislative Committee requesting to
-127 -
cancel the grants made to KILT and Police Department and also requesting to effect the revenue records in favour of them in respect of 36 acres of land bearing Sy.No.199. The said representation is registered as Application No. 53/2010. Thereafter, on 28.01.2010, the Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to the Government has decided to cancel the grant made in favour of the KILT and Police Department as per Annexure-W. The Legislative Committee, after obtaining the report from all the concerned departments and also perusing all the Court proceedings in the pending litigation, has taken a decision on 22.02.2010 directing the Revenue Department to set aside the grant made to KILT and Police Department and to revert back the land to its legitimate owners i.e., the appellants and other purchasers.
n) It is well settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the Court and/or Statutory Authority had the requisite jurisdiction to pass such order.
-128 -
o) The issue whether the application for occupancy rights is under Section 5 or Section 9 is merely procedural in nature and does not decide the substantial question as to the nature of the lands.
p) The issue as to whether the lands are Inam lands or not has reached finality once the Tribunal passed the order dated 08.01.2007 and the State Government accepted the said order without any challenge. Therefore, the learned Single Judge could not have reopened the issue.
q) Admittedly, there is nothing on record to establish that the lands in question are gomala lands and all the documents available on record show that the lands are Inam Lands.
r) The right of the tenant and Inamdar under Sections 5 and 9 respectively of the Inams Abolition Act, were fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India prior to the 43rd amendment to
-129 -
the Constitution of India. Even after 39th amendment, though it ceased to be a fundamental right, it continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300A read with 31b of the Constitution. The fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India cannot be ignored while deciding the dispute between the parties.
32. Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent -State submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal as the same suffer from lack of clarity and are also contrary to the finding of facts that the lands in question being gomal lands could not have been granted to the claimants as the same is expressly barred under Section 7 of the Act. It is contended that in the case of Sri Srinivasa Gupta, though application was made under Section 5 of the Act, occupancy rights are granted by the Tribunal under Section 9 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act provides for permanent tenants to seek occupancy rights whereas, Section 9 enables the Inamdar to file an application. It is submitted that though an objection
-130 -
was raised that the land is a gomal land, neither the State nor the Officer appointed by the State Government were impleaded as party respondents to the proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted that there was no opportunity for the State Government to place necessary material before the fact finding authority as to whether the land in question is a gomal land or not. It is contended that though it is admitted by Sri Venkataramanappa that he had sold the lands which were acquired by him and a finding was given by the Special Deputy Commissioner that he had lost the right to file an application under Section 5 of the Act or to maintain it after having disposed of the lands, the Tribunal has allowed the appeals without giving cogent reasons and the learned single judge has rightly set aside the order of the Tribunal. The learned Additional Advocate General requested this Court to remand the matter to the Land tribunal citing lack of clarity in the order of Land Tribunal and also in the documents available.
-131 -
33. Learned Counsel Sri A. Ravishankar appearing on behalf of KILT has defended the order of the learned Single Judge. He submits that series of orders were passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner by considering the applications filed at the hands of the subsequent purchasers who had purchased various parcels of land from Sri Venkataramanappa. All those applications were dismissed. That being the position, it is submitted that the applications filed by Sri Venkataramanappa were hit by the principles of res judicata. The miscellaneous petition seeking condonation of delay which was filed nearly 20 years after the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, could not have been entertained without considering the objections raised to the applications. In fact, it is submitted that when the Tribunal admitted the application for condonation of delay, it was made clear that the question of limitation is kept open to be considered along with the main matter. No satisfactory reasons are assigned in the order passed by the Tribunal while allowing the application for condonation of delay of 22 years. It is further contended that KILT has been put in possession after a specific order of de-reservation was passed by the Deputy Commissioner
-132 -
de-reserving the gomal land. KILT has put up huge structures and has been utilizing the building and the premises for imparting education and training in leather technology. It is submitted that though this Court rejected the application for impleadment of KILT in the proceedings before the Tribunal, nevertheless, the Division Bench has made it clear that since the interest of KILT in the land in question is established, KILT shall be heard in these matters. He further submitted that the KILT has no claim in the land claimed by Srinivasa Gupta. It is further submitted that the KAT, in its order dated 30.06.2015 in Appeal No.121/1978, has granted the land in favour of the purchasers of Venkataramanappa in the absence of any application under the Act by the purchasers of Venkataramanappa, which is beyond its jurisdiction and which was in the exclusive domain of the Land Tribunal and hence, the order of the learned Single Judge has to be upheld and the writ appeals be dismissed.
-133 -
34. Sri Hubli Shrishail Ayyappa, the learned counsel for the appellants in WA No.398/2023, WA No.474/2023 and WA No.489/2023 submits that:-
a) W.P.No.24123/2012 was filed by the State Government challenging the order dated 10.06.2010 after a lapse of nearly two years without explaining the delay caused in filing the said writ petition. He further submits that though the Government had been a party to almost all the cases either before this Court or before the Statutory Authorities, it was quite aware about the land being Inam land and now, all of a sudden, it has contended that the land in question is a gomal land. In all the earlier cases, it was never the case of the 1st respondent that the land in question is a gomal land.
b) In the guise of challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 10.06.2010, the 1st respondent is seeking to unsettle and undo the regrant order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition. Without
-134 -
challenging the said order, the 1st respondent, in order to overcome the aspect of delay of nearly 50 years, indirectly assailed the same by challenging order dated 26.07.2010. He submits that without challenging the regrant order, the 1st respondent cannot frustrate the benefit of regrant order accrued to the original grantee as well as the subsequent beneficiaries who are the purchasers of the said land.
c) The 1st respondent -Government has filed statement of objections in W.P.No.3937/2010 acceding the claim of the original grantee as well as subsequent purchasers by accepting the validity of the regrant order. Now the 1st respondent has chosen to disown its own stand by taking a completely inconsistent stand.
d) The order of grant in favour of KILT was made during the subsistence of interim order passed in W.P.No.18218/1987 directing the parties to maintain status quo of the land. To cover up the illegality of grant order made to KILT, the
-135 -
present exercise of challenging the order dated 26.07.2010 by filing W.P.No.24123/2012 has been undertaken. The said writ petition lacks bona fides and the same is intended to extend the favour to the KILT at the cost of the appellants and other similarly situated persons.
e) While passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge overlooked the voluminous records like the finding of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, the report of A.P.Joshi, the then IAS Officer assigned to investigate and find out the ground reality of the land and various other revenue records like the order of Special Deputy Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. The said material clearly establishes the fact that the land is an inam land. Since the said material has escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge, it has resulted in miscarriage of justice as far as the appellants and other similarly situated persons are concerned.
-136 -
f) The Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition recorded findings that "the lands in Sy.Nos.66 and 199 are not Karab or Gomal lands, they are under cultivation, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment ever since purchase, Jodidar was cultivating these lands prior to the date of vesting of the village in Government, the Petitioner Venkataramanappa is registered as permanent tenant in respect of Sy.No.66 (18 Guntas) and Sy. No.199 (36 Guntas) under Inams Abolition Act with premium". These findings are made by a responsible high Ranking Revenue Authority of the Government, on the basis of records.
g) The learned Single Judge misread the provisions of Sections 5 and 9 of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act and hence, failed to see that the Vendor of the appellants was registered as permanent tenant of the lands in question after due compliance of all the procedural formalities and requirements.
-137 -
h) The learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the 1st respondent has been evincing an undue interest and enthusiasm to benefit the third respondent at the cost of poor appellants. Since the grant made in favour of third respondent was in violation of the interim order passed in W.P.No.18218/87, the same is sought be sustained and justified at any cost. This is clearly evident from the order dated 22.02.2010 passed by the 1st Respondent wherein the attitude of 'pay the Paul and Rob the Peter" was sought be adopted to cover up the illegality in the grant order made in favour of the vendor of the appellants and other purchasers.
i) The 1st respondent has been a party to many proceedings relating to the issue of regrant. But the learned Single Judge failed to see that the 1st Respondent has filed the writ petition suppressing all the facts. The 1st respondent now being aware of the appellants rights and interest over the lands in question, had filed the above writ petition without making him as a necessary and proper party. This
-138 -
appellant was constrained to file impleading application which was allowed by this Court. Even after his impleadment, none of his contentions and grievances were considered whereas, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to pass the impugned order as if the appellant was not at all a party to the proceedings of the Writ Petition. The failure on the part of the learned Single Judge to consider the appellant as one of the affected parties has seriously affected his right and resulted in miscarriage of justice.
j) The learned Single Judge is not justified in disposing of all the writ petitions by connecting them. Without dealing with the issues involved in those petitions, the learned Single Judge has quashed the blanket order. Thus, the learned Single Judge has left many issues unresolved and the writ petitions have been disposed of without effective adjudication.
-139 -
35. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the appeal papers and original records that were produced by the learned Additional Advocate General. In our considered view, the following questions arise for consideration:
a. Whether the land in Sy.No.199 which is part of old Sy.No.3 of Ullal Village is a Private Inam Land or a land earmarked as Gomal land? b. Whether the finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 08.01.2007 in Appeal No.88/2002 that the petition land is a tillable one and not a gomal land, having attained finality can be ignored ?
c. Whether the Sale Deed of Sriniwas Gupta dated 12.09.1959 and Sale Deed of Venkataramanappa does not convey title to them in the view vesting of the land in the State vide notification dated 13.1.1959?
d. Whether the land comprised in Venkataramanappa's Sale Deed is part of new
-140 -
Sy.No.199 which is a part of larger area in old Sy.No.3?
e. Whether the purchasers of Venkataramanappa could derive any interest/right in respect of the land in old Sy.No.3, the subject sale deeds admittedly being post vesting notification? f. Whether the matter needs to be decided on merits or requires to be remanded for fresh consideration?
36. Our observations are as under for the following discussions -:
I) AS TO THE NATURE OF LAND AND THE FINALITY OF TRIBUNAL'S ORDER
(a) There were a plethora of cases at the hands of the Statutory Authorities (Special Deputy Commissioner), Statutory Tribunals (Appellate Tribunal and Land Tribunal) and Writ Courts. All the proceedings have been structured on the premise that the village in question was an Inam village and therefore, the lands situated in the village cannot be anything but Inam
-141 -
lands. True that the Special Deputy Commissioner had twice held that the land was not cultivable and that it was needed for the villagers for the purpose of grazing cattle. In none of these proceedings, there is even a whisper that the petition land is not an inam land and rightly it is so. Merely because a land is held to be not tillable, it does not cease to be an Inam land inasmuch as there is difference between the land that is not tilled and the land which is not tillable. This important aspect of the matter was lost sight of by the Special Deputy Commissioner. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has recorded a finding that the land is an inam land and not a Gomal land vide order dated 08.01.2007 in Appeal No.88/2022 which has attained finality there being no further challenge. The doctrine of res judicata applies to the successive stages of litigation/proceedings that have attained finality.
(b) It hardly needs to be stated that the law relating to Kharab land is well settled. An agricultural land will also include a kharab land provided that such land is tillable. If it is A-Kharab land, then it continues to be in private ownership as if it is any
-142 -
private land. If it is B-kharab land, the owner of the adjoining land can make use of it although the ownership is with the State and no revenue is payable for that. In the case of A-Kharab land which continues with private ownership, revenue is annually payable although the levy is in smaller quantum, obviously because such land being not already put to agricultural use, no income is derived. In the instant case, the Quit Rent Register which was produced before us shows that the Inamdar was paying an annual revenue of Rs.6 in respect of kharab/uncultivable land. The question of paying revenue regardless of the quantum arises only when it is a private land. That being the position the contention that the subject land is not an Inam land and therefore, the 1954 Act is not applicable cannot be countenanced. For the same reason, sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act 1954 which bars grant of occupancy in respect of gomal land is not invocable.
(c) The contention of the State that the villagers needed the petition land for grazing their cattle and therefore the land has been shown to be Gomal in the revenue records is liable to
-143 -
be rejected for following reasons in addition to what has been stated above. All gomal/grazing lands are Government lands; but all Government lands are not gomal lands. The idea of gomal land is applicable only to the Government lands. There is no concept of private gomal land in the Revenue Law of the State. Even a Government land does not become a gomal land unless a due process has been done. Ordinarily before setting apart a Government land as a gomal land, the cattle heads has to be counted, public notice has to be issued to the villagers and the views of subordinate revenue officials are taken. Only thereafter, a specific order is made by the jurisdictional revenue official to the effect that such land is set apart as grazing land for the cattle of the village. Unless all this is demonstrated, a stray entry in the revenue records cannot be acted upon as the gospel truth. This was contemplated under Section 39 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code 1888. This view gains support from the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MUNIBACHAPPA and OTHERS VS STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS, ILR 1954 MYS 222. An argument to the contrary would undermine the sanctity attached to constitutional right to
-144 -
property vide Article 300A. At the time the entry is said to have been made, the right to property was a fundamental right that is prior to 43rd amendment to the Constitution. II) AS TO THE VESTING OF THE LAND BY OPERATION OF LAW AND DATE OF VESTING:
(a) The Inams Abolition Act, 1954 acts like the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 which is a piece of law relating to agrarian reforms contemplated under the Directive Principles of State Policy vide Article 39B and C of the Constitution. There are several Legislations in the State providing for abolition of inams such as, Religious Inams, certain Inams etc. Under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, all tenanted lands vest in the State by operation of law from the date the Act came into force. However, in this regard, there is a marked difference between the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the Inams Abolition Act, 1954. Under the scheme of 1954 Act, a notification providing for vesting of land is a must and thus, the land does not vest merely by an enactment. Unless and until
-145 -
such a notification is issued, the Inamdar continues to be the absolute owner. No law or ruling is brought to our notice to hold to the contrary. We assume that there cannot be a contra ruling.
(b) In the case at hand, the Vesting Notification No.RD 3 MIN 58 came to be issued on 13.01.1959. There is no dispute about this, the same being a matter of official records. The said notification was issued 5 years after the Act came into force; the same is not disputed and it fixes 01.02.1959 as the date of vesting. The Sale Deed of Sriniwas Gupta dated 12.09.1958 and the Sale Deed of Venkataramanappa dated 13.12.1957 apparently precede the date of vesting. Therefore, the buyers have derived title to the lands comprised in the said sale deeds. Therefore the contention to the contrary does not merit acceptance.
(III) AS TO WHETHER THE LAND COMPRISED IN VENKATARAMANAPPA'S SALE DEED IS A PART OF SY.NO.199 COMPRISED IN GUPTA'S SALE DEED DATED 12.09.1958 AND AS TO WHETHER VENDEES OF VENKATARAMANAPPA DERIVED TITLE TO HIS LAND:
-146 -
(a) Any Inam village will have lands in multiple survey numbers and the same needs no deliberation. The Inam land in old Sy.No.3 of Ullal village in all adI mesasured 145 acres and 37 guntas, is not in dispute. Sriniwas Gupta bought 40 acres of land vide Sale Deed dated 12.09.1958 in this survey number.
The Sale Deed describes the land by specifying the boundaries. A little before this, Venkataramanappa had bought 36 acres of land in the same survey number. This Sale Deed also describes the property by specifying the boundaries. Obviously, the lands comprised in these sale deeds are not the same although the Inamdar who sold them is one and the same. At no point of time, the parties litigated on the contraposition. Had the Sale Deed of Sriniwas Gupta been related to land comprised in Venkataramanappa's Sale Deed, he would not have kept quiet for years. Very significantly, Venkataramanappa throughout had taken the stand that the two sale deeds comprised two different pieces of land. It is relevant to reproduce what he had stated before the Land Tribunal in LRF Nos.70, 76, 91 and 60/1959-60. Venkataramanappa's legal representatives clearly stated that their land is different from the land of Sriniwas Gupta.
-147 -
(b) Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that the admitted facts need not be proved. It has been a settled position of law vide Section 30 of 1872 Act that an admission is a substantive piece of evidence and can be treated as conclusive against the maker of the admission or anyone claiming under him, unless a plausible explanation is offered as to why it should not be treated as such. Added, Section 115 of the Evidence Act comes in the way of vendees of Venkataramanappa contending to the contrary because of estoppel enacted in Section 115. Even otherwise, they cannot approbate and reprobate to the disadvantage of Sriniwas Gupta or his legal representatives who happened to be one set of appellants.
(c) Pursuant to the law declared by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5684-5686/1999 vide judgment dated 28.04.2005, all claims of Inamdars were treated by the Land Tribunal, which is a statutory body having the advantage of accumulated expertise. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner happens to be the Ex-officio Chairman of such a Tribunal. Before
-148 -
taking up the matter, the Tribunal got the survey conducted and a report came to be filed in due course supporting the case of Sriniwas Gupta. Noticeably, Venkataramanappa who was a respondent to the proceedings not only did not raise even a little finger against the report, but stated that his land is different from the land comprised in Sriniwas Gupta's Sale Deed. Added, even what is stated in this survey report is affirmed several times by various Revenue Authorities. In fact, during the pendency of the writ petitions, the Deputy Commissioner on the instructions of Revenue Secretary, submitted a report dated 18.05.2018. This report was prepared on the basis of the survey done by Survey Authorities and upheld by JDLR. All this is part of the records. Even to this, the legal representatives/vendees of Venkataramanappa have not filed any objections.That being the position, simply contending to the contrary does not come to their aid. Post the Vesting Notification of 1959, revision survey was undertaken and Sy.No.3 was split into as many as 10 plus survey numbers (as per Maji). During the arguments, learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar appearing for the legal representatives has also demonstrated each side of schedule of
-149 -
property with respect to neighboring land owners, landmarks etc., and hence, justifying JDLR report to higher Revenue Authorities and ultimately to the Revenue Secretary. In the light of all this, it can be safely be stated that the land comprised in Sriniwas Gupta's Sale Deed is piece of land in new Sy.No.199. In view of all this, the other contention whether the vendees of Venkataramanappa have derived title to his land, their sale deeds having being executed post vesting of the land would not assume relevance.
IV) AS TO THE CONTENTION FOR REMAND OF THE MATTER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION-:
(a) The vehement submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the matter, at the most, can be remanded, if at all the impugned order needs to be voided, does not impress us, even the least and reasons are not far to seek.
Firstly, these are not the cases wherein anymore oral evidence is needed. Secondly, both the sides have structured their respective stands exclusively on the basis of documentary
-150 -
evidence. Time was extensively given to both the sides to produce any documents, if they want and accordingly, they have produced voluminous records for our perusal. It is not their case that any oral evidence is required to be led before the Authorities/Tribunals. In a spate of matters which the parties had fought at various levels for more than half a century, no prayer was made for leading additional evidence. It is high time that this age old litigation should come to a halt. Added, the request for remand cannot be readily acceded to. A very strong case has to be made out to justify such a request and that is not made out before us. There are records which reveal that the Appellate Tribunal had twice remanded the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner and nothing concrete happened by that. We do not subscribe to the view that a remand after remand would do justice to the parties. A litigation is not a game of snake and ladder.
(b) The contention that there is dispute as to which Section of Inams Abolition Act, 1954 i.e., Section 5 or Section 9 is the right provision with which the Special Deputy
-151 -
Commissioner's orders broadly fit into. In the judgment of the Apex Court in (2003)9 SCC 234, it is declared that mere mention of a wrong provision of law when power exercised is available even though under a different provision is by itself not sufficient to invalidate the exercise of that power. The same principle applies to the applications/pleadings filed by the parties either before the Authorities or before the Courts. What one needs to ascertain is only the merit involved.
In the above circumstances, we pass the following:
ORDER I. W.A.Nos.1115/2022 and 1125/2022 are allowed. The order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.24123/2012 and W.P.No.56154/2017 is hereby set aside.
(i) W.P.No.24123/2012 filed by the State Government is dismissed as a consequence of which, the order dated 10.06.2010 passed by the Land Tribunal in LRF Nos.70, 87, 91 and 60/1959-60 is restored;
-152 -
(ii) W.P.No.56154/2017 is allowed and the Government Order dated 11.10.2017 passed in No.HD 127/PBL2017 is quashed and the respondents are restrained from interfering with the appellants' possession and enjoyment of the land in question.
II. W.A.No.1267/2022 is allowed and the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and WP No.8615/2011 is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to mutate the entries in the Revenue Records in terms of the order of the Land Tribunal dated 10.06.2010, within a period of eight weeks.
III. As a consequence of above orders/directions, W.A.Nos.1167/2022, 1168/2022, 1170/2022, 1171/2022, 398/2023, 474/2023, 489/2023 and 1458/2023 stand dismissed.
IV. In view of the order passed by us today, CCC No.1208/2023 is delinked and the same shall be listed before the appropriate Bench.
-153 -
V. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SBN