Sri C S Krishna Murthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 September, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

Sri C S Krishna Murthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 September, 2010

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010 
BEFORE  V

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOKMAEV5. HINCH'EG~E:R§  A

wan PETITION NOS. 31329-31335 O:?...2'Qi0§--AE{;{vO'A')'_A.,3,,,__V  7

BETWEEN I

1.

SR1 C S KRESHNA MURTHY

S/O LATE SHAMANNA _

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS ' 

R/O CHUNCHANAKUPPA   ._ F
TAVAREKERE HOBLI 1  «
BANGALORE SOUTH TA1,LJ»:~<u.. _  '

SMT. JAYAMMA  V .   ' _  ' 
W/O LATE 3- HA'A£_U'r-<!vA:;§1THARATAAP-PA.j '
AGED ABOUT 5i3_Y}EARS'    

SR1\/Ev1'§J'E{ATES:F:v_VMlJRTr£Y'"~.:'_' .
S/O LATE 5 HAN'u.ra{avAA;NT,HAE;Ax<A'T=:vA
AGED ABOUT 36-YE)-'\_R.S_  

SMT. _¢..A:<sH"rA1 "   
D/O LATE. S HAi\'lJMANTi-IARAYAPPA

 -  _ AGED. AEBOLIT 56 YE<A.s::.5«'

 ' ARE,R£A'«EUN_UGAMARANAHALLI
T1..TA3;/AREKE_RE HQEBLI

 *1.'

E_AN--O'ALO;>;E..s'OUTH TALUK  PETITEONERS

 v--..':('B'Y"SRI T N VESWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

 A A

"  'THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

  ....VIDHANA SOUDHA

DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001



l\J

2. THE TAHSILDAR
K R ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009

3. SRI VENKATESH MURTHY
S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, MAJOR

4. SRI V RANGAPPA
S/O VENKATAPPA, MAJOR

5. SR1 c RAMAMURTHY  
s/0 SUBBAIAH, MAJOR =

RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5  *

ALL ARE R/o CHUi\£CHAN_AKUPPA_....

TAVAREKERE HOBLI .    ' 
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK7 _ '-

ea. SRIHANUMANTHAIAH '-

S/O LATE cH1K.KA.NARAs::MRA_:AH.,_M.A;tQVR "

7. SMT. LAKSH-MA'?-4__MA7:1 ' 5 w/o 'JEN r<ATA:x=:A_RqAsA'RRA,"-M_AT3ovR'

8. NAGAIAH I V. _ _ .

S/O cH:1KK--AreARAsjA_.1'ATH, 'T-«IA;-QR -

9. SUD!-IA -

w/o RENcHA1AH,.MA3o--R I RESPONDIENVTS 6 '*AL.L"ARE'T R,IA" up DANDANAHALLI 'D_Oi'£INEN_A'HALLIv DHAKALE 'A...TA..3/ARE.:{'ERE HEOB-L1 EAN'GALO'FlE--.SQUTH TALUK RESPONDENTS (Ev's'RI s s RAMDAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE FORSRI G T RUDRA MURTHY FOR C/R -- 3 TO 5 SRI R DEVDAS, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) ' TIE-IESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE V._*-._IM4PUGNED ORDER DATED 25.07.2009, PASSED IN MA.NO.68/O7 ON FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, 'BANGALORE RURAL DIST. BANGALORE VIDE ANN-F, SLTHE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.07.2007,P/XSSEO IN HOA CR.92/1988-89 ON THE FILE 0? THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TQ. R2 VIDE ANN-E AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRLY. HG.."'I~N 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

QRDER The petitioners have raised the chai.!enge.VtoI't'hetioréders, I dated 25.07.2009 (Annexure--F) passed"*iby7'_'_the Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rurai -_i:§f)'i~strictA,." E'gangavi.ore;""and'j thee order, dated 28.07.2007 (Annexure=i§:)"vpa's.sed 'b'y~the..i;rahsiIdar in HOA(CR) 92/1988-89.

2. are that the first petitioner's the Barawardar Shanbog of Chunchanaiciippaiiriiga.~.7On"'-thesaboiition of the village hereditary Rrétjirant of the lands in question. On his derni-sé',.é_e.th*e:::"€i'rstVV"e-petitioner, Sri C.S.Krishnamurthy and his V7_:"*-v'brotherAiri__anu.mari'.triRarayappa claim to be the L.Rs of the said '<--O7.j'ShaRrrianna." the demise of the first petitioner's brother R',4I'---V.VHanuVtjn'antAharayappa, Hanumantharayappais wife, son and claim to be his L.Rs.

93%;

3. On the orders, regranting the service inam landsto the petitioners and the contesting respondents by the Tahs4ijldarg;.:g:the first petitioner and his brother challenged the same M.A.No.17/1983. The Appellate Court setiasigde :§heV':0'rid,ers' 0f;.th'e it Tahsiidar and remanded the matter tli.é"'Tahs-ilvdalrw. passing of similar Orders dated'l2_§';~Q_7.1998__ bylV'the:._;'Tahsjildar'L' again, the first petitioner and his...Vt)'rfotn«eAr Appeal No.41/98. The said appeal 'Appeliate Court's judgement, dated 1E.i04}.20i3i""b~;i:: :'Tahsi|dar's order and by remitting to Tahsildar once again by the land to the petitioners thel"ucontjesti'n§"'"re'spondents. This order was challenged byltheg':i:'ij....sylMV.A.No.68/2007. The Appellate Cotirt byéitsi. judg'mVe:nvt',ldated 25.07.2009 confirmed the TahsilAd'a.r,'s --afn--d dismissed the petitioners' appeal. Al.' the said ordezgof the Tahsildar and the «.i.l.l'_i$...p4pei,late Court., this petition is presented. 'E'.'.."Sri Vishwanath, the iearned counsel for the petitioners sl.i:l3:mit's that the contesting respondents have not made any itWpl>_""'ap'piication for the grant of the land. Under Rule 5(1)(t>) of the éigiii.

Karnataka Viliage Offices Abolition Rules, 1961, making_.._of an application to the Deputy Commissioner is mandatorysj"'1ii5"-«they do not make the application, they would not be regrant of the land, is the submissionsof Sri He further submits that in the instant; case,' respondents have oniy filed the 're_p're,sent'ati,on _reo_ue_:s'tiin»g":that"VV an opportunity be given to them toVAclai'm_th.eir sha'z*e..,in,,.the land.

6. Sri Vishwanath alsoAV:ta'l<esi division of the lands by the the Tahsildar cannot partition? In support of his submission,,'ihe"h'as.:frelietl:'on::th'_is decision in the case of PATEL V155iiAaAsAél=i§ijV~(_oa§'o:}.-~ BY £..Rs. v. SMT.BASAMMA (seam) av,L.:{ii.i~g;olA,suo*rH'iéVa, reported in 1995(2) Kar.L.J head-.znoteV'p'o'rtion, which he readout is extracted "l(Al2NA Txuoti VILLAGE OFFICES ABOLITION ' ACT, Section 5--Regrant of land to holder of it .t,.:v.ii,'a.ge office on payment of occupancy price to Government- Tahsildar to entertain only one application from holder of erstwhile village office and to make only one grant ~ Person claiming to be member of joint family of holder cannot make £525.

6 appiication - Property would be available for partition oniy after grant -~ Partition is a matter to be decided by competent Court ---- Tahsildar has no", power to partition property while passing o.rderf"--«.V"'*.,_ regranting land"

7. Sri Vishwanath submits that the regrant».ca'nVble only to the holder of the office. Sri Chvikkanlnfappai'.on.deir~x5ihwo:oS the contesting respondents claim was notthe' holder at all. According to him, Sri Venkata'c.halaViah,' 'theg':ran'dfather of the petitioner was the holdeirﬁof the c;ffi"c'e,_._-.,,AC3.nthe demise of Sri Venkatachalalah, theAspetitiolneds-.,fat_her ifvenlia-tachalaiah's son) became the ho.ldersVof3'«the.,:'Cffic.e._' Even when there is no documentary'i.._,e\iiclence:~.f liJia_a't's'oever to show that Sri ChiE<kann.§a'pp,a. was'-the' 'ho|'der€of the village office, the Tahsildar on.__the fallacy that Chikkannappa was the holder of £rie,v.iil_:zVai'ge7

8.""'~-The"ie'arned counsel submits that it is only the ifbliﬁpéétiytioners who have paid the full occupancy price. As the cbontesbtirigb respondents have not paid the occupancy price, they if entitled to the regrant of any portions of the lands in L iidoestion.

ﬁﬁié.

9. Sri R.Devdas, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Tahsildar does not have the competence to part.i.ti_o.n'i~the properties in question. He also submits that only for the regrant is maintainabie. If an applicant holder"i~ of the village office) dies and if there' representative or more than one .set__of legal' reprevserutativels, ailiv their cases are to be considered coni'p,ositeiyi submits that the Barawardar Regivsteir by the Revenue Department in the usual coiiiirsegf. show who is the holder wh'at:"e'mo|uments he was receiving. -.

10. Sri'Ra'mdas,_'the. learuriied Senior Counsel appearing for Sri T.Rudgra.. i\fiurth*,r%for'v'the- respondent Nos.3 to 5 submits that *the"'scop"eV'fo-fiintegrferenceliof this Court in exercise of the power conferr.e.dVibv"=;§lrtVi'cie:_}.227 of the Constitution of India is rather Vivimitedi.»--.44__VWh.en:Vl'tiolth the Authorities/Forums down below have concurrent findings based on cogent evidence, this Court's 1"--.Véinte'rfeirenfce may not be warranted. It is all the more so, when t'he_gor5;lers passed by them dﬁo' not appear to be perverse.

11. My perusal of the Tahsiidar's order reveals that no clinching evidence was placed on the record of the Talisi--ld"a:r"'*to show that Sri Chikkannappa was the holder of the villavgfe' ' It is incumbent on the Tahsiidar whiie h.oldi_ng u_n.de.f"' the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, ;i.i96'1 to things:

a) Whether the applicant was,.ttiVieA"~g.h_oider "th,e:,,of.fice?

b) If the applicant is w'h_offa:ive'.'hVi,sj_ .l,:.RS'?

12. I am is much that is wanting on_the""pai't:'1-:;;of_' The Tahsiidar has burdened himself specific extent of the land, which was rea--3,l:v ° If the Tahsildar finds that a4pplicant.«i?}iasi'the the village office and that he was left i._.iR~s,__ he has to regrant the land in their favour jointlv~.a'n.d« colllectivlgeilv. Their partition by metes and bounds is domairi o'f:&the";Civil Court. In taking this view, I am fortiried decision of this Court in the case of Patel Veerabasappa Q 352?.

15. It is made clear that the Tahsildar may look into the several partitions for the limited purpose of ascertaining_j'asl'-to who was the holder of the village office and as to . L.Rs of the said holders of the village office, p

16. At this juncture, the learned Sen__ioi'.f\dvocaAte-requelsts"

that some transitional arrangement"«..m'ay be 'm.ad.e:.'_=soV".tVhatl the settled position of the partiesis no=t""dist'urb"e.d. The" petitioners and the respondent Nos.3 to'5# are'i-d~irect_e.d'--.tov"maintain status quo in respect of the.--p:o's.seSsion'_a«:s The Tahsildar is directed to within two months from the dateof the the certified copy of today's order. Further theypVeti~ti.o~nei*_sand the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are di,r'ect.ed €uhDeaA.r hefo'r'e"Vthe Tahsildar at 11.00 am. on

08.iO,'_2CiT_0;.. open to either of the parties to file the :i:'d.raft points the non-filing of the application for .je_r_eg4ranpts by s~o_m.e parties, payment of occupancy price, etc.

17. Neecifess to observe that an the contentions-«ja~te'~£§e.pt open.

18. The petitions are aCC0rdingfyV'»:;fisr_j03edbf; to costs.

bvr

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court