Shri Gyanappa S/O Late ... vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1207 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                  DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                      PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

                        AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

               WA No.100020/2022 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SRI.GYANAPPA S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA,
GYANAPPA WALIKAR (HOSAMANI)
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O: HIRE-HONAKUNTI,
POST: JUMBALDINNI,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.
                                         ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
      DEPT OF REVENUE (LAND REFORMS),
      M.S. BUILDING,
      BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
      BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
      BAGALKOT.

3.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
      BAGALKOT SUB DIVISION,
      BAGALKOT.
                             2



4.   THE TAHASILDAR,
     HUNGUND TALUK,
     HUNGUND.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G. K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING THIS HON'BLE
COURT TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGEMENT DATED 09.12.2021 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED    SINGLE   JUDGE    IN   WRIT   PETITION
NO.107826/2014 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

The lands in question are measuring 2 acre 24

guntas and 11 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.59/1A and 59/1C,

respectively which are situated in Hire-Hunakuntti village,

Taluk Hungund, District Bagalkot.

2. The petitioner before the learned Single Judge

in Writ Petition No.107826/2014 claimed regrant of lands

by filing an application under Section 4(1) of the Bombay

Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950. The

basis for his claim was that he is in possession of the

property as on the appointed date and he is entitled for

regarnt of the same. Respondent No.3 in the writ petition

rejected the application on the ground that the lands in

question are already granted in favour of original Inamdar.

The order rejecting application for regrant of the said lands

was subject matter of challenge in the aforementioned writ

petition. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ

petition on the ground that the lands are already regranted

in favour of Inamdar.

3. The order of regrant in favour of Inamdar was

not called in question before the learned Single Judge. The

person in whose favour (Inamdar) the regrant order was

made was also not a party to the proceeding before the

learned Single Judge. Under the circumstances, the

learned Single Judge did not find any illegality or infirmity

in the order dated 04.12.2013 which was impugned in the

writ petition. Though the writ petition is dismissed, the

learned Single Judge has reserved liberty to the petitioner

to challenge the order of regrant made in favour of original

Inamdar.

4. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot

take any exception to the order passed by the learned

Single Judge. If it is permissible under law for the

appellant to challenge the order of regrant made in favour

of original Inamdar, such right having been reserved in

terms of the impugned order, this writ appeal deserves to

be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

sh