Bangalore District Court
Narayanaswamy H M vs Tahsildar Bangalore North Taluk on 23 January, 2025
KABC010075532007
IN THE COURT OF XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 23rd day of January 2025
Present : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S., B.A.(L)., LL.B.,
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-14)
M.A.No.26/2007
APPELLANTS :1. Sri.H.M.Narayanaswamy,
S/o. Late Muniswamaiah,
Aged about 73 years,
R/at; Herohalli Village,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Magadi Road, Bangalore - 97.
Since dead represented by his LRs
1(a) Sri.N.Srinivasa Murthy,
S/o Late H.M.Narayana Swamy,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at No.155,
Herohalli Village,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru - 560 091.
1(b) Sri.N.Narasimha Murthy,
S/o Late H.M.Narayana Swamy,
Aged about 57 years,
Residing at No.50,
Herohalli Village,
Vishwaneedam Post,
2
M.A.No.26/2007
Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru - 560 091.
1(c) Smt.Vasantha, W/o Late N.Raju,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.50,
Herohalli Village,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru - 560 091.
1(d) Sri.N.Muniraju,
S/o Late H.M.Narayana Murthy,
Aged about 52 years,
Residing at No.50,
Herohalli Village,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru - 560 091.
2 Rangappa,
S/o Doddanarayanappa,
Dead by his LRs.
2(a) Sri.Nagaraj,
S/o.Late Muniswamaiah,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.444,
Shivamandira Main Road,
1st cross, Udaya Nagar,
Dooravani Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 016.
(By Sri.T.H.Narayana, Advocate for
Appellants No.1(a) to (d) and
Sri.Ramesha M.S., Advocate for
Appellant No.2(a)
3
M.A.No.26/2007
V/s
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Tahsildar,
Bangalore North Taluk,
K.G.Road, Bangalore - 9.
2. B.M.Munikrishna,
Since dead by Lrs.
2(a). Munilakshmamma,
W/o Munikrishna,
Aged about 62 years,
Since dead LRS are on record as
R-2(b) to 2(g).
2(b). M.Padmavathi,
D/o Munikrishna,
Aged about 39 years,
2(c). M.Hamsaveni,
D/o Munikrishna,
Aged about 37 years,
2(d). M.Hemavathi,
D/o Munikrishna,
Aged about 34 years,
2(e). M.Kusuma,
D/o Munikrishna,
Aged about 32 years,
2(f). M.Mohan,
D/o Munikrishna,
Aged about 30 years,
2(g). M.Tulasi Bai,
D/o Munikrishna,
4
M.A.No.26/2007
All are residing at No.264/11,
Manunath Nilaya, 8th Cross,
9th Main Road,
Sampangiramanagara,
Bangalore - 560 027.
3. Smt.Nagama,
W/o Late Munidasappa,
Since dead rep.by her, LR's.
4. Vankataramaiah,
Since dead by his LR's
5. V.Muralikrishna,
S/o Late M.V.Vankataramaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
6. V.Devaraja,
S/o Late M.Venkataramaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
7. V.Thulasidas,
S/o Late M.Vankataramaiah,
Aged about 38 years,
8. V.Balaraj,
S/o Late M.Vankataramaiah,
Aged about 28 years,
9. M.Srinivas,
Since dead represented by his LR's
10. M.Lakashami Ramadas,
Aged about 28 years,
C/o 1226, 11th Cross,
Mahalakshmipuram, 11th Main
W.C.Road. Bangalore - 560 086.
5
M.A.No.26/2007
11. M.Krishnamurthi,
Aged about 50 years.
12. M.Rajashekar,
Aged about 46 years.
Respondents No.3 to 12 are
R/at C/o No.1226, 11th Cross,
11th Main, Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore - 560 086.
13. T.N.Munivenkatappa,
S/o Late Doddanarayanappa,
Aged about 70 years,
C/o. A.Narayanaswamy,
A.Narayanapura,
Bangalore - 560 016.
14. Muniganti Narasimhaiah,
Since dead represented by his LR's
15. Smt.Muniyamma,
W/o Late Maniganti
Narasimhaiah, R/at Aerchalli,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Yashwanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
16. Sri.Ugra Narasimiah,
S/o Late Maniganati
Narasimhaiah,
R/at Aerchalli,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Yashwanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
6
M.A.No.26/2007
17. Smt.Govindamma,
D/o Late Arasappa,
Aged about 73 years,
R/at No.245, 8th Cross,
Marry Maclain School Road,
Wilson Garden,
Bangalore - 560 030.
18. Sri.Vishanth,
S/o Late Arasappa,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at Aerchalli,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
19. Sri.Nagaraj,
S/o Late Arasappa,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at Aerchalli,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
(Sri.Rajeswara P.N., Advocate for
respondent No.2(a) to (f),
Sri.K.Subramanya, Advocate for
respondent No.2(g), Sri.Goutam,
Advocate for respondents No.5 to 8
and 10 to 12, Sri.J.S.Dinesh,
Advocate for respondent No.16,
Sri.K.P.Appaiah, Advocate for
respondent No.17, Smt.H.Shanthi,
Advocate for respondent No.19.
7
M.A.No.26/2007
Date of institution of the
05.06.2007
appeal.
Miscellaneous Appeal under
Section 3(2) of the
Nature of the appeal
Karnataka Village Office
Abolition Act, 1961
Date on which the 23.01.2025
Judgment was pronounced
Years Months Days
Total duration
17 07 18
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.)
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
Respondents No.1 and 6 in HOACR(N)7/2004-05 on the file of the 1st respondent herein have filed this Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Village Abolition Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 10.05.2007 passed by the 1 st respondent herein in the said proceedings.
2. Before the 1st respondent herein, respondents No.2 to 12 herein were respectively applicants No.1 to 11, the deleted the 2nd appellant and respondents No.13 to 16, the 8 M.A.No.26/2007 1st appellant and respondents No.17 to 19 herein were the respondents in HOACR(N)7/2004-05 on the file of the 1 st respondent herein. To avoid the confusion, the ranks of parties hereinafter are referred as per the ranks before the 1st respondent herein.
3. Before the 1st respondent herein, one B.Arasappa filed an application dated 17.01.1987 for re-grant of the land bearing Sy.No.3, measuring 1 acre 28 guntas of Srigandhadakavalu Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru Taluk (hereinafter referred as "Inam land" in short) contending that one Bhavanasiga was enjoying the said Inam land by doing 'Chakari'. He died. After his death, his son Pillappa was enjoying the said Inam land by doing Chakari. He died without male children. His wife Munikadiramma was enjoying the said Inam land by doing Chakari. They had two children viz., Lakshmamma and Ramakka. As they had no male children, after the death of Munikadiramma, Lakshmamma was enjoying the said Inam land by doing Chakari. Lakshmamma also had no male children. Therefore, her daughter Muniyamma was enjoying 9 M.A.No.26/2007 the said Inam land by doing Chakari. Muniyamma also died. Muniyamma had two children viz., the applicants B.Arasappa and Narayanamma. Muniyamma died on 13.12.1963. After her death, Narayanamma was in possession of the said Inam land by doing Chakari. She had no children. She died on 04.05.1982. Hence, B.Arasappa filed the application for re-grant of the said Inam land. His application was registered as case No.HOACR14/86-87.
4. In the said proceedings, one Nagamma filed application seeking direction to include her name and the names of her children M.Venkararamaiah, M.Srinivas, M.Ramadas, M.Krishnamurthy and M.Rajashekar in the re- grant and to distribute the shares equally also to them contending that the Inam land was the ancestral property. It was in the name of Smt.Narayanamma. B.Munidasappa had right over the said Inam land. Only B.Arasappa filed application for re-grant of the said Inam land without mentioning the name of B.Munidasappa or his children. Therefore, she filed the application. 10
M.A.No.26/2007
5. One Muniganti Narasimhaiah has also filed an application for grant of the Inam land bearing Sy.No.3/1 measuring 1 acre 29 guntas of Srigandhadakavalu Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk contending that his mother Narayanamma was doing Thoti work. After her death, he is doing it. Hence, he prayed to re-grant of the said Inam land under Thoti Inamthi.
6. The 1st respondent after considering the applications of B.Arasappa and Smt.Nagamma vide order dated 11.01.1993 passed an order that half portion of the Inam land attached to the office of B.Arasappa and half portion to Smt.Nagamma, wife of late Sri.B.Munidasappa under Section 5 of the Karnakata Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. One Rangappa and Munivenktappa who were not parties to the said proceedings have challenged the said order of the 1st respondent before this Court in M.A.No.67/1995. The said Appeal was allowed and the order of the 1st respondent dated 11.01.1993 was set aside. Vide order dated 27.09.2003, the matter was remanded that to the 1st respondent to dispose of a fresh by issuing 11 M.A.No.26/2007 notices and by giving opportunity to all the legal heirs of Bhavanasiga @ Muniyappa. Thereafter, B.M.Munikrishna and Nagamma have challenged the said order of this Court dated 27.09.2003 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.3129-3130/2004. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide its order dated 07.12.2004 dismissed the said Writ Petition confirming the order of this Court.
7. After the order of this Court dated 27.09.2003 passed in M.A.No.67/1995, H.M.Narayanaswamy and Rangappa have filed Petition under Section 4 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act for re-grant of the Inam land contending that their grandfather Bhavanasiga was working as Talari to the Village; the land bearing Sy.No.3 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas was allotted to their great grandfather for the service rendered; Bhavanasiga died leaving behind him only a son by name Pillappa; the said Pillappa died leaving behind him Lakshmakka and Ramakka; Lakshmakka died leaving behind Muniyamma and Thimmakka; Ramakka died leaving behind the applicants and the others and 12 M.A.No.26/2007 therefore, prayed to pass order after hearing the members as per the Genealogical Tree furnished by them.
8. Thereafter, the case is re-numbered as HOACR(N)7/2004-05 before the 1 st respondent. In the said proceedings, H.M.Narayanaswamy filed his claim petition claiming that his grandfather Bhavanasiga. The Government granted the land bearing Sy.No.193, measuring 1 acre 25 guntas situated at Hanumanthapura Village to him for rendering Thoti work. The Government in exchange for construction of Central Jail, granted the Inam land to him. Bhavanasiga died leaving behind him only son Pillappa. Pillappa died leaving behind two daughters viz. Lakshmakka and Ramakka. He is the son of Ramakka. He is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The said land is not partitioned by metes and bounds till date.
9. Muniswamy, M.Narayanaswamy, M.Muniswamy and N.Munidas have filed their claim statements seeking re- grant of the land bearing Sy.No.3, measuring 1 acre 25 guntas situated at Srigandhadakavalu Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk in their 13 M.A.No.26/2007 favour by rejecting the claim of the other applicants on the ground that Pillappa was discharging the duties of Thoti attached to the Village Office of Srigandhadakavalu. He was cultivating the subject land which was Thoti Service Inam land attached by the Office of Srigandhadakavalu. Pillappa had two daughters viz., Lakshmamma and Ramakka. Lakshmamma is the mother of Muniswamy i.e., claimant No.6. She had only daughter namely Muniyamma who married Basappa. Muniyamma and Basappa had two sons viz., Munidasappa and Narayanadas. Munidasappa and Narayanadas are not entitled for share as Basappa has not discharged his duties as Thoti Nowkari. Muniyamma succeeded the subject land B.Arasappa and Nagamma have never discharged the duties of Thoti Inam Nowkari. Therefore, their applications are liable to be rejected and the subject land is liable to be re-granted to the applications.
10. One Ramaiah and Krishnappa have filed application under Order I Rule 10(2) R/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order to implead them as Legal 14 M.A.No.26/2007 Representatives of Bhavanasiga representing from the branch of Ramakka, the 2nd daughter of Pillappa. The said Ramakka had four children viz., Munishamaiah, Munivenkatamma, Motamma and Thimmakka. The 1 st applicant is the S/o Munivenkatamma and the 2 nd applicant is the S/o Thimmakka. Motamma and Ramakka died issue less. The children of Munishmaiah are on record. But, both parties are not made them as parties in the proceedings. They have also got right, title and interest over the Inam land as it was granted to Bhavanasiga.
11. One M.Narasimhamurthy filed application seeking an order to come on record contending that during the lifetime of his father Munivenkatappa, he and one Rangappa have prosecuted M.A.No.67/1995. Munivenkatappa and Rangappa have executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of Narayanaswamy. Munivenkatappa died during the pendency of the proceedings. He is the legal heir of Munivenkatappa. His right and interest is also subsisting on the Inam land.
15
M.A.No.26/2007
12. One Munivenkataramaiah filed application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order to implead him as necessary party on the ground that he is the eldest son of Narasimhappa, the second son of Thimmakka. He is the member of the joint family of Bhavanasiga. Therefore, he has right, title and interest on the Inam land.
13. One Rangappa filed his claim statement stating that on 03.02.2004, H.M.Narayanaswamy filed his claim statement for re-grant of the subject land on the ground that he is one of the beneficiary attached to the Office of the Inferior office of Thoti Inam held by Bhavanasiga. In terms of the provisions of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, the land attached to the inferior office is to be divided and distributed among all beneficiaries without preferring the original suit for partition as envisaged under the Act.
14. Smt.Muniyamma, Ugranarasimhaiah and Narasimhamurthy filed their claim statements for re-grant of the subject land in their favour. One Govindamma, 16 M.A.No.26/2007 Vishwanath, Nagaraj have filed I.A. under Order 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure dated 24.03.2005 seeking an order to implead them as parties to the proceedings on the ground that Smt.Narayanamma, the grandmother of Ugranarasimhaiah and Narasimhamurthy was discharging the duty of Thoti and she was in possession and enjoyment of the Inam land. After her death, Maliganti Narasimhaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the said land. He died in the year 1999. After his death, they are in possession and enjoyment of the said Inam land. The other claimants have no right over the said Inam land. Hence, they prayed to re-grant the Inam land to them.
15. One Narasimhamurthy, Mohan Raj and Doddanarasimhaiah have filed application under Order I Rule 10 R/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order to implead them as applicants No.8 to 10 on the ground that the Bhavanasiga was the holder of the village office of Thoti Inam attached to the village of Srigandhadakavalu; they are also the legal heirs of the 17 M.A.No.26/2007 grantee of the Inam land by name Bhavanasiga and they are also entitled for re-grant of the Inam land in their favour.
16. One Chikkanarasimaiah has also filed application under Order I Rule 10 R/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking that the applicants filed the application for re-grant of the Inam land by suppressing some of the lineal descendants of Bhavanasiga. The applicant is also one of the legal heirs of Bhavanasiga. He is also entitled for share in the Inam land out of the share of Ramakka.
17. The 1st respondent vide order dated 10.05.2007 passed the impugned order holding that the respondents have failed to prove their rights and therefore, the order of re- grant dated 11.01.1993 is in order. In the impugned order, the 1st respondent has held that Bhavanasiga had no male children; Lakshamma and Ramakka are his daughters; the respondents have failed to prove with documents that they are the lineal descendants of Ramakka; before the Revenue Inspector during spot inspection also they have failed to produce the Genealogical Tree to prove the relationship. 18
M.A.No.26/2007 Challenging the said order of the 1 st respondent, the appellants have filed the present appeal on the following grounds :-
(a) The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the order is cryptic, non-speaking, erroneous, onerous and ruinous;
(b) The impugned order is liable to be set aside for the reason that the impugned order is contrary to the mahazar drawn by conducting a spot inspection by the Revenue Inspector in the presence of the public and in the presence of the parties.
That the appellants are entitled for a share in the property being a legal heir and member of the family of a Bhavanasiga, who is a original Barvardar and successor to Smt.Lakshmakka and Ramakka through Pillappa.
(c) The 1st respondent is totally erred while passing an order as the 1 st respondent himself has issued a Genealogical Tree and it is approved by the Government Authorities issued by the Office of the 1 st respondent and the same was placed before him for his reference to show that the appellants are entitled for a share in 19 M.A.No.26/2007 the property. Accordingly to the Genealogical Tree. However, the 1st respondent came to a conclusion that there was no material produced by the parties to show that they are legal heirs of late Bhavanasiga is incorrect and far from truth and liable to be set aside.
(d) The order impugned is also contrary to the judgment in M.A.No.67/1995. Such an order cannot be restored by the 1 st respondent overlooking the said judgment and consequently the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.3129-3130/2004.
(e) The order impugned is liable to be set aside on the ground that the same was contrary to Sections 3 and 5 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act as no opportunity nor hearing of a full-
fledged was given to the appellants to put- forth their grievances and only on the basis of surmise and conjuncture, the 1st respondent arrived at a wrong conclusion and blindly upheld the previous order of the 1st respondent without looking into the order of the District Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
20
M.A.No.26/2007
(f) The order impugned is nothing but old wine in the new bottle. It is contrary to well settled law and contrary to documents which deals the issue before the Court.
(g) The order is violative of principals of natural justice, fair play and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
18. After due service of the notices to the respondents herein, respondents No.2, 5 to 8, 10 to 12, 16, 17 and 19 herein have appeared before this Court through their learned Counsels. The other respondents have not appeared before this Court.
19. The 1st appellant was reported as dead on 30.01.2024, his LRs are brought on record. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.2 is dead and appellant No.2(a) who is one of the grandsons of appellant No.2 is brought on record. It was reported that the 2 nd respondent died on 11.06.2012. His LRs are brought on record as respondents No.2(a) to (g). Respondent No.2(a) is also reported as dead 21 M.A.No.26/2007 on 22.12.2017 and respondents No.2(b) to (g) are her LRs. On 25.02.2008, the learned Counsel for the appellants filed Memo stating that respondents No.3, 4, 9 and 11 died before trial Court, respondents No.5 to 8 are the LRs of deceased respondents No.3 and 4, respondents No.10 to 12 are the LRs of the deceased respondent No.9, respondents No.15 and 16 are the LRs of the deceased respondent No.14. Respondent No.15 died on 12.05.2014. Her LRs are not brought on record. Respondent No.6 died on 31.07.2018. His LRs not brought on record.
20. Before this Court, the appellants and respondents No.2, 5 to 8 and 10 to 12 have produced the additional documents.
21. The records in proceedings bearing No.HOA/CR(N)7/0405 is secured.
22. The learned Counsels for the appellants and respondents No.2, 5 to 8 and 10 to 12 have filed their written arguments.
22
M.A.No.26/2007
23. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for the appellants and respondents No.2, 5 to 8 and 10 to 12 and
16.
24. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the 1 st appellant are that the 1 st respondent herein without considering the Genealogical Tree and Mahazar has passed cryptic order. The respondents have not produced the Genealogical Tree before the Revenue Inspector. But, they have produced the Genealogical Tree before the Thasildar. The Tahsildar has not considered the said Genealogical Tree while passing the impugned order.
25. The arguments of the learned Counsel for appellant No.2(a) are that the order dated 11.01.1993 was set aside by this Court. By passing the impugned order, the 1 st respondent herein reconfirmed the earlier order. B.Arasappa along with his claim petition has produced the Genealogical Tree. Though, no Genealogical Tree was furnished at that time of Mahazar, the Genealogical Tree was furnished before the 1st respondent itself. The 1 st 23 M.A.No.26/2007 respondent herein without looking into the said Genealogical Tree, only based on the Report of the Revenue Inspector has passed the impugned order. The 1 st respondent herein has not conducted the enquiry under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Rule, 1961 and Rule 7 of the said Rule is not followed. The learned Counsel for appellant No.2(a) has relied the following orders and judgment :-
i. The order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case between Manch @ Chikkahyda V/s District Judge, Mandya and others (Kar.L.J 1976 (2) 338).
ii. The order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case between Rajaveerappa V/s District Judge (ILR 1985 Kar 2923).
iii. The order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case between Malleshappa Yeshvanthappa Patil V/s Kallappa Vithoba Patil (1970 (2) Mys.L.J 350).
iv. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case between G.V.Subba Rao V/s Tahsildar and others (ILR 1998 Kar 2371).
v. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Siemens Engineering and 24 M.A.No.26/2007 Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd., V/s The Union of India and another [(1976) 2 SCC 981].
26. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the LRs of respondent No.2, respondents No.5 to 8 and 10 to 11 are that the Tahsildar has followed the orders of this Court passed in M.A.No.67/1995 and W.P.No.3129-3130/2004. Appellant No.1 signed the Mahazar prepared by the Revenue Inspector. The appellants cannot convert the appeal as suit for partition. The respondents have not produced the family tree of Ramakka to prove that they are legal heirs to her. The Tahsildar cannot decide the relationship. The learned Counsel for respondents No.2(a),
(b), (c), (d), (f), 5 to 8 and 10 to 12 has relied the following order and judgment :-
i. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Basamma (Dead) by LRs V/s Patel Veerabasappa (Dead) by LRs and another [(2003) 12 SCC 190].
ii. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case between Patel Veerabasappa V/s Basamma (ILR 1996 Kar 1435).
27. Perused materials available on record. 25
M.A.No.26/2007
28. The following points that have been arisen for my consideration :-
1. Whether the 1st respondent herein is correct in holding that the respondents have not produced any documents to prove that they are the lineal descendants of Ramakka ?
2. Whether the impugned order of the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside ?
3. What order ?
29. My answers to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.3 : As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
30. POINTS No.1 AND 2 :- The findings on these points
are inter-related. Therefore, they are taken together for consideration.
As aforesaid, initially, B.Arasappa, Nagamma and Muganti Narasimaiah have filed their claim petitions for re- 26
M.A.No.26/2007 grant of the Inam land. Before the 1st respondent herein, the 1st petitioner is one of the legal heirs of B.Arasappa; the other petitioners are Nagamma and her legal heirs; Respondents No.3 to 5 before the 1 st respondent herein are Muniganti Narasimaiah and his legal heirs; respondents No.7 to 9 are the legal heirs of B.Arasappa; the 1 st respondent Rangappa, the 2nd respondent T.N.Munivenkatappa and the 6th respondent H.M.Narayanswamy are the other applicants who filed applications before the 1st respondent herein to implead them claiming that they are also the lineal descendants of original grantee Bhavanasiga. B.Arasappa and Muniganti Narasimhaiah have claimed that they are the legal heirs of Lakshmamma. H.M.Narayaswamy and Rangappa have claimed that they are the legal heirs of Ramakka. After the order of the 1st respondent dated 11.01.1993 passed in Case No.HOA CR 14/86-87 was set aside by this Court in M.A.No.67/1995 dated 27.09.2003, the applicants viz., Muniswamy, M.Narayanaswamy, M.Muniswamy, N.Munidas, Ramaiah, Krishnappa, M.Narasimamurthy, 27 M.A.No.26/2007 Munivenkataramaiah, Narasimhamurthy, Mohan Raj, Doddanarasimhaiah and Chikkanarasimaiah have also filed applications before the 1st respondent under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that they are also the legal heirs of Bhavanasiga. Among them, Ramaiah and Krishnappa have claimed that they are the legal heirs of Ramakka. Muniswamy, M.Narayanaswamy and N.Munidas have claimed that they are the legal heirs of Lakshmamma. It appears prima-facie from the impugned order that the 1 st respondent herein has not considered the said applications of the above applicants while passing the impugned order.
31. It further appears prima-facie from the records of in HOACR(N)7/2004-05 that B.Arasappa and Muniganti Narasimhaiah have produced the Genealogical Trees before the 1st respondent herein. The 1 st respondent herein as not considered those Genealogical Trees produced by them while passing the impugned order. Some of the other applicants who filed the applications under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure have also produced the Genealogical Tree in support of their claims. Ramaiah and 28 M.A.No.26/2007 Krishnappa who are claiming that they are the legal heirs of Ramakka have produced the Genealogical Tree. H.M.Narayanaswamy and Rangappa have also produced the Genealogical Tree of Bhavanasiga. The 1 st respondent herein has not considered the said Genealogical Trees produced by some of the applicants while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the 1 st respondent herein is not correct in holding that the respondents have not produced any documents to prove that they are the lineal descendants of Ramakka and therefore, impugned order of the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside.
32. It appears from the impugned order that the 1 st respondent herein has passed the impugned order holding that the re-grant order dated 11.01.1993 is proper. In fact, order dated 11.01.1993 passed by the 1 st respondent was set aside by this Court in M.A.No.67/1995 directing the 1 st respondent herein to dispose of the matter a fresh by issuing notice and giving opportunity to all the legal heirs of Bhavanasiga @ Nellurappa. Though, it appear that the 1 st respondent has given opportunity to some of the legal heirs 29 M.A.No.26/2007 of Bhavanasiga @ Nellurappa, through passing the impugned order, the 1st respondent herein has confirmed the previous order dated 11.01.1993. Since the 1 st respondent herein has confirmed his previous order without passing the order as per the directions issued in M.A.No.67/1995, the impugned order of the 1 st respondent is liable to be set aside.
33. One of the arguments of the learned Counsels for appellant No.2(a) is that the 1 st respondent has not conducted any enquiry with regard to the relationship of the rival claimants with the original grantee Bhavanasiga as required under Section 3 of the Karanataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 and Rule 3 of the Karanataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1961. On the other hand, the 1 st respondent herein has obtained the Report of the Revenue Officer which is not in accordance with law as Rule 7 of the Karanataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1961 prescribes the Power of the 1st respondent herein in making the enquiries. The 1st respondent herein has not exercised the said powers. The delegation of his powers to the Revenue 30 M.A.No.26/2007 Inspector is unknown to the said Rules.
34. In the light of the above arguments, I read Section 3 of the Karanataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 and Rules 3 and 7 of the Karanataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1961. Section 3 of the Karanataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 reads as follows :-
3. Powers of Deputy Commissioner to decide certain questions and appeals. - (1) If any question arises -
a) Whether any land was granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the state, or
b) Whether any person is a holder of a village office, or
c) Whether any person is an authorized holder, or
d) Whether any person is an unauthorized holder, the Deputy Commissioner shall, after giving the party affected an opportunity to be heard and after holding an enquiry in the prescribed manner decide the question.
2. Any person aggrieved by such decisions may file an appeal to the District Judge of the District within ninety days of such decision and the decision of the District Judge on such 31 M.A.No.26/2007 appeal shall be final.
The provisions of Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) shall be applicable to such appeal.
35. Rule 3 of the Karanataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 reads as follows :-
3. Manner of holding enquiry under Section 3.
:- (1) Any person interested in the village office or in any land granted or continued in respect of, or annexed to, such office and desiring a decision on any question referred to in Section 3, make an application to the Deputy Commissioner.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall contain the following particulars :-
(i) Name of the village or villages;
(ii) Name and address of the applicant;
(iii) The question or questions on which a
decision is sought for;
(iv) Name of the baraward-dar;
(v) Nature of the interest possessed by the
applicant in the village office or in any land pertaining to such office in respect of which such question arises;
(vi) Names of other persons, if any,
interested in the matter; and
(vii) Other particulars in support of the
claim.
32
M.A.No.26/2007
(3) On receipt of the application under sub-rule (1), the Deputy Commissioner may call upon the applicant to furnish any further particulars that may be required an fix a date for furnishing such particulars. When the particulars called for are furnished within the specified time, the Deputy Commissioner shall fix a date for hearing, notice of which shall be given to the applicant, an to other persons mentioned in the application as interested in the subject matter. A copy of the notice shall also be affixed on the notice board of the office of the Deputy Commissioner.
(4) The notice under sub-rule (3) shall be served in the manner prescribed for service of notices under the Code.
(5) On the date fixed for hearing or such other date, to which the care may be adjourned, the Deputy Commissioner shall hold an enquiry in the manner prescribed for a formal enquiry under the Code, and then by order decide the questions.
(6) Every decision or order under sub-rule (5) shall contain a full statement of the grounds on which it is made and shall be written and signed by the officer making the order or from the dictation of such Officer, in which case, a certificate to that effect shall be made and 33 M.A.No.26/2007 signed by such Officer in his own hand.
36. Rule 7 of the Karanataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 reads as follows :-
7. Power of Deputy Commissioner in making enquries.- The Deputy Commissioner, in making enquries under these rules, may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on a Revenue Officer making formal or summary inquiry under the Court, and the procedure to be followed shall, as far as practicable, be the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely.-
(i) Summoning and enforcing the attends of any person and examining him on oath; and
(ii) Compelling the production of documents.
37. It is undisputed fact that the Inam land in question was granted to Bhavanasiga and the respective applicants filed their applications for re-grant in their favour based on the claim of their relationship with the said Bhavanasiga. Such being the circumstances and in view of the above provisions of law, the 1st respondent herein ought to have been conduct an enquiry with regard to the relationship of the rival claimants with the original grantee Bhavanasiga 34 M.A.No.26/2007 before passing the impugned order to ascertain the fact that who are entitled for re-grant of the Inam land. Without conducting any enquiry as envisaged under the Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961, the 1 st respondent herein held that the respondents have not proved that they are the legal heirs of Ramakka.
38. The Inam land in question was granted to Bhavanasiga is an undisputed fact. The rival claimants are claiming for re-grant of the Inam land in question on the ground that they are the lineal descendants of the original grantee Bhavanasiga. It appears from the rival claimants of the claims that there is a serious dispute with regard to their relationship with the original grantee Bhavanasiga. The 1st respondent herein without enquiry as envisaged under law and with out considering the documents produced by the applicants has passed the impugned order holding that the respondents have not produced any documents to prove that they are the legal heirs of Ramakka. In the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for appellant No.2(a) in the case between the Siemens 35 M.A.No.26/2007 Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. V/s The Union of India and another [(1976) 2 SCC 981], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function. It must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reason".
39. The order of the 1st respondent dated 11.01.1993 was that half portion of the Inam land attached to the office of B.Arasappa and half portion to Smt.Nagamma, wife of late Sri.B.Munidasappa under Section 5 of the Karnakata Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. In the impugned order, the 1st respondent herein has reaffirmed the above order dated 11.01.1993. In the Judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the LRs of the 2nd respondent and respondents No.5 to 8 and 10 to 12 in the case between Basamma (Dead) by LRs V/s Patel Veerabasappa (Dead) by LRs and another [(2003) 12 SCC 190], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "It is true that the Thasildar had no jurisdiction to effect partition; his jurisdiction is only to grant 36 M.A.No.26/2007 or not to grant occupancy rights on the basis of the claims and on being satisfied as to the requirements of law."
40. In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also, the impugned order of the 1 st respondent is liable to be set aside. For the above reasons, I answer Points No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
41. POINT No.3 :- In view of the findings on Points No.1 and 2, the impugned order of the 1 st respondent passed in HOACR(N)7/2004-05 dated 10.05.2007 is liable to be set aside. The proceedings before the 1 st respondent in HOACR(N)7/2004-05 are required to be remanded back to the 1st respondent to consider the rival claims of all the applicants in accordance with law by securing the presence of the other applicants who have not appeared in this appeal before this Court, conducting an enquiry as envisaged under Section 3 of the Karanataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 and Rules 3 and 7 of the Karanataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1961 and applying the above principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 37 M.A.No.26/2007 in the case between Basamma (Dead) by LRs V/s Patel Veerabasappa (Dead) by LRs and another [(2003) 12 SCC 190] and to dispose of the matter a fresh. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDERS The appeal is allowed.
The impugned order of the 1 st respondent passed in HOACR(N)7/2004- 05 dated 10.05.2007 is set aside.
The proceedings before the 1 st respondent in HOACR(N)7/2004-05 are remanded back to the 1st respondent to consider the rival claims of all the applicants in accordance with law by securing the presence of the other applicants who have not appeared in this appeal before this Court, conducting an enquiry as envisaged under Section 3 of the Karanataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 and Rules 3 and 7 of the Karanataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1961 and applying the above principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between 38 M.A.No.26/2007 Basamma (Dead) by LRs V/s Patel Veerabasappa (Dead) by LRs and another [(2003) 12 SCC 190] and to dispose of the matter a fresh.
Both the parties to this appeal are hereby directed to appear before the 1 st respondent on 04.03.2025 without expecting any notice for their appearance before the 1st respondent.
Send back the records in HOACR(N)7/2004-05 to the 1st respondent along with a certified copy of this Order. (Dictated to the stenographer, typed by her, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court today on this the 23rd day of January 2025).
(VEDAMOORTHY.B.S) XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by VEDAMOORTHY VEDAMOORTHY B S BS Date:
2025.01.23 17:46:52 +0530