Karnataka High Court
Smt Vaishali Hegde vs State Of Karnataka on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.55134 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.30087 OF 2018 (KLR-LG)
WRIT PETITION NO.2471 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)
IN W.P.NO.55134/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE,
W/O SRI.K.N.PHANINDRA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O NO.37/3, "KALYAN",
CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 052.
2. SMT. SAROJINI HEGDE,
W/O LATE SRI.KARUNAKAR HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/O NADALU VILLAGE,
AJJIEKERE HOBLI, KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
3. SRI.ELANGOVAN,
S/O SRI. ANNAMALAI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O NO.597, 36TH MAIN ROAD,
25TH CROSS, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 097.
4. SRI.KASHI RAO SHINDHE,
S/O LATE SRI. SHAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS,
RESIDING OPP.R.M.C. YARD,
B M ROAD, RAMANAGARAM - 562 159.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
2
4(A) SRI.R.K.PRAKASH RAO,
S/O LATE SRI KASHI RAO SHINDHE,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
4(B) SRI.R.K.BABU RAO,
S/O LATE SRI KASHI RAO SHINDHE,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
4(C) SRI.R.K.PANDU RAO,
S/O LATE SRI KASHI RAO SHINDHE,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
4(A) TO 4(C) ARE RESIDING AT
BALAGIRI, OPPOSITE TO RMC YARD,
BANGALORE MYSORE ROAD,
RAMANAGARA TOWN - 562 159.
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.A S PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. M N UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE;
(BRINGING LRS OF DECEASED PETITIONERS
NO.4 IS WAIVED, V.C.O DATED 14.7.2021)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M S BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
(FORMELY KNOWN AS THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER)
BANGALORE REGION, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAMNAGARAM DISTRICT,
RANNAGARAM.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
BIDADI TALUK,
RAMNAGARAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.09.1979 PASSED BY R2 IN
CASE NO.LND(B)SR.74/76-77 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ALL
FURTHER PORCEEDINGS/ACTIONS THERETO.
IN W.P.NO.30087/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. RANGARAMAIAH,
S/O RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
2. RANGASWAMY,
S/O LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
3. CHIKKANNA,
S/O LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT HOSADODDI VILLAGE,
PIN:562 109 BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.A.G.SHIVANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA -562 159.
FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA -562 159.
FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.
4
4. SRI. KASHI RAO SINDHE,
S/O SHAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS,
R/AT BELAGERI, RAMANAGARA -562 159.
FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.
(A) PRAKASH RAO,
S/O LATE KAHI RAO SHINDE,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
(B) BABU RAO,
S/O LATE KAHI RAO SHINDE,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
(C) PANDU,
S/O LATE KAHI RAO SHINDE,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
4(A) TO 4(C) ARE RESIDING AT BELAGERI,
OPPOSITE TO RMC YARD,
BENGALURU MYSURU ROAD,
RAMANAGARA TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
5. RAMSINGH,
S/O NARASINGH RAO,
R/AT BELAGERI, RAMANAGARA -562 159.
FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.
SINCE DEAD LBY HIS LRS
5A) SMT. NIRMALA BAI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAMASINGH
5B) PRATHAP SINGH,
S/O LATE RAMASINGH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
5C) RAVINDRANATH SINGH,
S/O LATE RAMASINGH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
5D) VIJAYA RAMSINGH,
S/O LATE RAMASINGH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
5
5(A) TO 5(D) ARE R/AT BELAGERI,
RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159.
FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.
6. VAISHALI HEGDE,
W/O SRI.K.N.PHANINDRA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O NO.37/3, "KALYAN",
CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 052.
7. SRI.ELANGOVAN,
S/O SRI. ANNAMALAI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O NO.597, 36TH MAIN ROAD,
25TH CROSS, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 097.
8. SMT. SAROJINI HEGDE,
W/O LATE SRI.KARUNAKAR HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/O NADALU VILLAGE,
AJJIEKERE HOBLI, KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
9. LEELAVATHI,
W/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/AT NO.65,VANIVILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
SINCE DEAD ON 24-05-2018
REP BY LRS
9A. SRI. M. THIMME GOWDA,
W/O LATE LEELAVATHHI,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/AT NO.65, VANIVILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
9B. SRI. SHARATH GOWDA,
S/O LATE LEELAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.65, VANIVILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.
6
9C. SRI. SWAGATH GOWDA,
S/O LATE LEELAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.65, VANIVILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.
10. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE SHIVANANAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT KANESHMARI NO.111-A,
HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
(FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).
11. SRI.NAGARAJA,
S/O LATE SHIVANANAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT KANESHMARI NO.111-A,
HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
(FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).
12. SRI.KUMARA H.S.
S/O LATE SHIVANANAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT KANESHMARI NO.111-A,
HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
(FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT)
13. SMT.ANASUYAMMA,
W/O SRI KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA,
R/AT TALAGUPPE VILLAGE,
PIN:562 101, BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
(FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).
14. SMT. MANJULA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
W/O SRI. RUDRAIAH,
D/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA,
R/AT ITTAMADU, PIN:562 101
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
(FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).
...RESPONDENTS
7
(BY SRI. C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI.M.N.UMA SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A) TO (C),
C/R6, R7 & R8;
SRI. NOOR-UL-HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R9(B) & (C);
SRI. D.M.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R14;
R5(A) TO R5(D) & R9(A) ARE SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2016 PASSED IN REVISION
PETITION NO.129/2003 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-X.
IN W.P.NO.2471/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. RANGARAMAIAH,
S/O RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
2. RANGASWAMY,
S/O LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
3. CHIKKANNA,
S/O LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT HOSADODDI VILLAGE,
PIN:562 109 BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.A.G.SHIVANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
8
2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
(FORMELY DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER)
BANGALORE REVENUE DIVISION,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.
5. THE TAHSILDAR,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.
6. RAMSINGH,
S/O NARASINGH RAO,
R/AT BELAGERI, RAMANAGARA -562 159.
FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.
SINCE DEAD LBY HIS LRS
A) SMT. NIRMALA BAI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAMASINGH
B) PRATHAP SINGH,
S/O LATE RAMASINGH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
C) RAVINDRANATH SINGH,
S/O LATE RAMASINGH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
D) VIJAYA RAMSINGH,
S/O LATE RAMASINGH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
5(A) TO 5(D) ARE R/AT BELAGERI,
RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159.
FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.
9
7. LEELAVATHI,
W/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/AT NO.65,VANIVILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
SINCE DEAD ON 24-05-2018
REP BY LRS
7A. SRI. M. THIMME GOWDA,
W/O LATE LEELAVATHHI,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/AT NO.65, VANIVILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
7B. SRI. SHARATH GOWDA,
S/O LATE LEELAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.65, VANIVILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.
7C. SRI. SWAGATH GOWDA,
S/O LATE LEELAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.65, VANIVILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.
8. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE SHIVANANAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT KANESHMARI NO.111-A,
HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
(FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).
9. SRI.NAGARAJA,
S/O LATE SHIVANANAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT KANESHMARI NO.111-A,
HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
(FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).
10. SRI.KUMARA H.S.
S/O LATE SHIVANANAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
10
R/AT KANESHMARI NO.111-A,
HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
(FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT)
11. SMT.ANASUYAMMA,
W/O SRI KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA,
R/AT TALAGUPPE VILLAGE,
PIN:562 101, BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
(FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).
12. SMT. MANJULA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
W/O SRI. RUDRAIAH,
D/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA,
R/AT ITTAMADU, PIN:562 101
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
(FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. NOOR-UL-HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R7(A-C);
SRI. MUDUKAPPA KODABAL, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R12;
R6(A),R6(D) & R6(D) ARE SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED V.C.O DATED 23.06.2021, R6(B) IS D/W)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R-2 TO INITIATE PROCEEDING FOR
CANCELLATION OF GRANT OF LAND IN FAVOUR OF 6TH
RESPONDENT IN SY.NO.143, MEASURING 4 ACRES OF
TALAGUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
AND PASS ORDER.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
11
ORDER
This is a batch of three connected cases:
(i) W.P.No.55134/2016 by four petitioners, seeks
to lay a challenge to the order dated 7.9.1979 made by
the 2nd respondent at Annexure-A whereby the land
granted to the 4th respondent Mr.Kashi Rao Shindhe has
been rescinded mainly on the ground that he has not
cultivated the land as was required by the terms of
grant. An application seeking impleadment is moved by
the petitioners in the connected case i.e.,
W.P.No.30087/2018 and in terms of order dated
23.06.2021 made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court,
this application has been taken up for consideration
along with the main matter treating the applicants as
the contesting respondents.
(ii) In W.P.No.30087/2018, a challenge is laid to
the order dated 3.12.2016 passed by the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, whereby petitioners'
Revision Petition No.129/2003 having been dismissed,
the orders made by the Revenue Officials directing their
eviction from the land in question have been confirmed.
(iii) The case in W.P.No.2471/2019, is filed by the
petitioners who are none other than the L.Rs of deceased
Mr.Rangaiah seeking a direction at the hands of this
court to the Revenue Officials to initiate proceedings for
the cancellation of grant of land to the extent of 4 Acres
in Sy.No.143 of Talaguppa Village in Ramanagara Taluka
made in favour of 6th respondent (wrongly mentioned as
7th). They have also sought for a Writ of Mandamus to
the official respondents to consider their darkasth
application for the regularization of the land, in all
admeasuring 8 Acres & 27 Guntas.
2. The official respondents having entered
appearance through the learned AGA, vehemently
oppose all the three Writ Petitions making submission in
justification of the eviction orders and their affirmation
as made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. They also
resist the challenge to the order whereby grant of land
made in favour of original grantee Mr.Kashi Rao Shindhe,
has been rescinded. Learned AGA opposes the petition
wherein a direction is sought for initiating the
proceedings for rescinding of land grant made in favour
of another grantee namely Mr.Ramsingh. He also
opposes the claim for regularization of unauthorized
occupancy of the petitioners, in respect of 8 Acres & 27
Guntas of land in which the grants are also comprised.
Learned advocates appearing for the private respondents
opposed each others' cases citing certain Rulings in
support thereof.
3. Facts in brief:
(a) The land in Sy.No.143 of Talaguppa Village,
Ramangara Taluka, admeasured 8 Acres & 27 Guntas of
which a piece of 4 Acres was granted to an Ex-
Serviceman Mr.Kashi Rao Shindhe i.e., the Petitioner
No.4 in W.P.No.55134/2016 vide order dated 19.11.1959
followed by Saguvali Chit dated 24.02.1960. This grant
was made permanent on 31.10.1969. Similarly, another
piece of 4 Acres plus was granted to Mr.Ramsingh i.e.,
Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.2471/2019.
(b) The grantee Mr.Kashi Rao Shindhe brought
the subject land under cultivation, and khata too was
transferred in his name. However, somehow one
Mr.Rangaiah unauthorizedly gained entry to the said land
and got his name clandestinely entered to the Revenue
Records, as well. He had also represented to the
government to have the grant of this land by way of
regularization of his unauthorized occupation, way back
in May 1976 or so. This Rangaiah is none other than
the father of private respondents in W.P.No.55134/2016
and petitioners in the companion Writ Petitions.
(c) The government vide letter dated 4.5.1976
had directed the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore
Division, to regularize the entire extent of land
measuring 8 Acres & 13 Guntas in favour of Mr.Rangaiah
and to cancel the land grant made in favour of Mr.Kashi
Rao Shindhe. The Divisional Commissioner having
examined all aspects of the matter sent a report dated
31.03.1977 stating that the grant made in favour of
Mr.Shindhe is already confirmed and Mr.Rangaiah being
a trespasser, grant cannot be made of his unauthorized
occupation. He therefore requested the government to
reconsider the matter after taking the opinion of Law
Department, if necessary. He also specifically stated
about Special Deputy Commissioner's recommendation
to the contrary being fraught with lacuna.
(d) It appears the government dropped the
proposal to cancel the grant of Mr.Shindhe and of making
one in favour of Mr.Rangaiah. Mr.Shindhe also
complained about Mr.Rangaiah's trespass to the land
and mutation of entry in favour of rank trespasser.
Therefore, the Asst. Commissioner vide order dated
20.02.1989 had directed the Tahasildar, Ramanagaram
to evict Mr.Rangaiah from the land and restore revenue
entries in favour of Mr.Shindhe. Mr.Rangaiah in
W.P.No.4265/1989 disposed off on 4.4.1995 got only the
direction for eviction set aside. However, the other
direction for restoration of entries was left unchallenged
and therefore attained finality.
(e) Subsequently, the Tahasildar has issued
another order/notice dated 10.06.1988 which
Mr.Rangaiah & others had challenged in
W.P.No.18377/1998. The petition came to be disposed
off by a Coordinate Bench on 24.06.1998 treating the
order only as a show cause notice reserving liberty to
them to file reply before 31.07.1998. After an enquiry
the Tahasildar passed another order dated 9.9.1998
directing the unauthorized occupants to vacate the
premises. However, this order was not implemented and
therefore, the grantees Mr.Shindhe had filed
W.P.No.5043/1999 and Mr.Ramsingh had filed
W.P.No.6518/1999. Similarly, the children/LRs of late
Mr.Rangaiah (since dead) too had filed
W.P.Nos.14684/1999 & 14651/1999 challenging the
order of the Tahasildar and seeking restoration of their
possession. A Coordinate Bench vide judgment dated
22.03.2000 negatived the challenge to the Tahasildar's
order of eviction since the said order was already put in
challenge in appeals before the Assistant Commissioner.
However, a direction was issued to dispose off the
appeals.
(f) The children/LRs of Mr.Rangaiah i.e., the
petitioners in W.P.No.30087/2018 & W.P.No.2471/2019
had preferred an appeal against the above judgment
dated 22.3.2000 in W.A.Nos.3886-3887/2000 which
came to be dismissed on 28.06.2000. Later, the
Assistant Commissioner vide two orders both dated
12.01.2001 dismissed these appeals and thereby upheld
Tahasildar's orders dated 9.9.1998 & 11.9.1998 whereby
eviction was ordered and restoration of entry in favour of
the original grantees was directed. They preferred
Revision in R.A.No.16/2000-01 and the Deputy
Commissioner dismissed the same vide order dated
14.6.2003. Their second Revision against the same also
came to be negatived by the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal on 3.12.2016. This order of the KAT is put in
challenge by children/LRs of Mr.Rangaiah in
W.P.No.30087/2018. In the meanwhile, their claim in
Form 7 for grant of occupancy in respect of the subject
land too came to be rejected and it has attained finality.
(g) During the hearing of second Revision by the
KAT, the children/LRs of Mr.Rangaiah being the
appellants there had abruptly produced a copy of an
order dated 14.11.1959 whereby the grant made in
favour of Mr.Shindhe was suo moto cancelled by the
succeeding incumbent of the office of Divisional
Commissioner. Immediately after such production, the
original grantee Mr.Shindhe along with his vendors have
filed W.P.No.55134/2016 for laying a challenge thereto.
Children/LRs of Mr.Rangaiah moved the subject
application for their impleadment, which is taken up for
consideration as directed by a learned Coordinate Judge
earlier, whilst hearing the main matter. The other two
companion petitions since concern the subject land, they
are also taken together for final hearing with the
concurrence of Bar. The impleading applicants are heard
in the matter as if they are formal respondents in
Mr.Shindhe's Writ Petition and that their two Writ
Petitions are treated as the objections to the same.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this
Court is inclined to grant indulgence in
W.P.No.55134/2016 and declines interference in the
connected two Writ Petitions, for the following reasons:
I. As to W.P.No.55134/2016:
(a) This Writ Petition as already mentioned above
is filed on 24.10.2016 for laying a challenge to the order
dated 07.09.1979 passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Bangalore, whereby grant made in favour
of Mr.Kashi Rao Shindhe has been cancelled. The first
contention of Mr.Rangaiah's children/LRs who happen to
be petitioners in the companion petitions is as to the
enormity of delay & latches. Petitioner-Mr.Kashi Rao
Shindhe being an ex-army personnel was granted 4
Acres of land in Sy.No.143 of Talaguppa Village, under
the then Mysore Land Revenue Rules/Military Concession
Rules vide order dated 19.11.1959 issued by the
Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division. This was
followed by a Saguvali Chit dated 24.2.1960 and the
grantee having occupied the land brought it under
cultivation. Khata too was granted to him making entries
in the Revenue Records. Later vide order dated
31.10.1969, this grant was made permanent. All this is
not only evidenced by the Revenue Records but also by
the Divisional Commissioner's Report dated 31.3.1977
submitted to the State Government. It also mentions
about the trespass and unauthorized occupation of this
land by Mr.Rangaiah under whom the petitioners in the
companion cases claim their right to litigate.
(b) Mr.Rangaiah had represented to the
government for the regularization of his unauthorized
occupancy on the basis of some stray entries in the
Revenue Records that were effected baselessly in his
favour. Strangely, the Special Deputy Commissioner had
recommended his case and for the cancellation of grant
made in favour of Mr.Shindhe and for the grant in favour
of Mr.Ramsingh. Bewilderingly to say the least, the
government vide letter dated 4.5.1976 had directed
cancellation of the grant and regularization of
unauthorized occupancy of Mr.Rangaiah. This only shows
the enormity of influence which he had wielded on the
government of the day, then. The Divisional
Commissioner vide Report dated 31.03.1977 requested
the government to reconsider its decision after taking
opinion of the Law Department specifically stating that
the grant made in favour of Mr.Shindhe was in order and
it cannot be cancelled. Some relevant parts of the report
read as under:
"...By order dated 14.11.1959, the Divisional
Commissioner, Bangalore granted an extent
of 4.00 Acres of land... to one Sri.Kashi Rao
Shindhe on a lease basis and a Temporary
Saguvali Chit was issued to the grantee on
24.2.1960. The khata for this extent is also
made in his name and, subsequently on
31.10.1969, a permanent saguvali chit was
issued in favour of Kashi Rao Shindhe an ex-
serviceman... It is represented by the
grantee that after the issue of the
Temporary Saguvali Chit, he took possession
of the land... and cultivated it for a period of
three years (1960-1963) and later,
Sri.Rangaiah was cultivating the land
unauthorizedly... The Khata extracts
available in the records show that Sri.Kashi
Rao Shinde is the khatedar (1961-62 to
1968-69)...Therefore, the action of Rangaiah,
the unauthorized cultivator would apparently
amount to trespass...government cannot, in
my view, interfere in such matters of a civil
dispute and cancel the legal grant and direct
that this land be granted to a trespasser..."
(c) The Divisional Commissioner specifically
expressed serious doubts as to legality of government's
direction to cancel the grant made in favour of
Mr.Shindhe without any appeal and further for the recall
of the direction for 'regrant of land in favour of
Sri.Rangaiah a trespasser.' He also recommended for
restoring possession to the grantee by evicting
Mr.Rangaiah stating that land can be granted to him
elsewhere. This being the position, there was no need for
the government to issue a direction vide letter dated
31.03.1977 to cancel the grant made in favour of
Mr.Shindhe at all. In the report of Divisional
Commissioner or of the Special Deputy Commissioner,
there is not even a whisper about the cancellation of the
grant vide order dated 7.9.1979 which is put in challenge
here. For the first time, during the course of final
hearing, the file in No.LND(B)SR.74/76-77 was produced
before the KAT which subsequently in its judgment dated
03.12.2016 observed:
"...This order is produced for the first
time before this tribunal that too at the time
of hearing final arguments. This document did
not see the light of the day till all these
days..."
Immediately on coming to know of this, the present
petition is filed even before the KAT had rejected the
appeal of the opponents.
(d) Added to the above, in none of his
representations, suits, Writ Petitions, Revision Petitions
or his application in Form 7, Mr.Rangaiah has or his L.Rs
have whispered anything about the cancellation order
dated 7.9.1979. In fact, it was his specific case before
the government that the grant made in favour of
Mr.Shindhe and Mr.Ramsingh should be cancelled and his
unauthorized occupation of the subject lands should be
regularized. Similarly, in none of their orders made
against Mr.Rangaiah and later his children/LRs, the
Tahasildar, the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy
Commissioner or the Divisional Commissioner have
mentioned about cancellation order. It needs to be borne
in mind that cancellation of land grant made in favour of
an Ex-Serviceman is a serious matter. Such grants are
made under the State policies in consideration of the
sacrifice the defence personnel make for guarding the
frontiers of the Nation.
(e) Some proceedings towards cancellation of land
grant had taken place and the original grantees have
participated therein, is true. However, the order
cancelling the grant specifically mentions about their
absence on the day it is pronounced. The draft of notice
of the gist of the order is reflected from the records, is
also true. But, from that stage onwards, what happened
to this draft remains as a riddle wrapped in enigma. The
cancellation order was not communicated to the grantee
as required under the proviso to section 36(1) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The view that
communication of the order of the kind is a must, gains
support from the decision in M.MANJUNATH VS. STATE
OF KARNATAKA ILR 2001 KAR 117, para 23.
Mr.Ponnanna is also justified in banking upon another
decision in W.A.No.4519/2000, between STATE OF
KARNATAKA VS. M.MANJUNATH disposed off on 7.4.2003
wherein not only communication but also refund of the
price paid for the grant are held to be a sine qua non for
the order cancelling the grant to be effective.
(f) The grant of land to a citizen like the Ex-
Serviceman creates vested interest which constitutes his
property, right to which is constitutionally guaranteed
u/a 300A, although the same is no longer a Fundamental
Right after 44th Constitutional Amendment. That being
the position, the procedure prescribed for the
cancellation has to be treated as being mandatory and
breach thereof would risk invalidation of cancellation
orders, to the advantage of grantees. Added, the
grantees had also filed the Writ Petitions seeking
enforcement of the eviction orders made against
Mr.Rangaiah, which aspect is already mentioned in the
'Brief Facts' above. If there was due cancellation and the
communication of the cancellation order, they would
have certainly laid a challenge to the same. There is
absolutely no reason to assume the contrary. When the
order is not communicated and there is no reason to
attribute knowledge of the same to the grantees, the run
of time since its making, pales into significance.
(g) The above apart, the unscrupulous litigants i.e.,
Mr. Rangaiah and his children/LRs who have been
illegally squatting on the property granted to an Ex-
Serviceman by launching an avalanche of litigations,
cannot be permitted to resist the Writ Petition of the
grantee on unsure grounds of delay & latches. No third
party rights are created in respect of the subject land on
the basis of the cancellation order. It hardly needs to be
stated that the Makers of our Constitution in their
collective wisdom have not prescribed any specific period
of limitation for invoking the writ jurisdiction. The
explanation offered by the grantees for the delay
allegedly brooked is perfectly plausible. This apart, the
grantee & his transferees have got a very good case on
merits, as well. Therefore, the so called delay & latches,
if any, are liable to be condoned.
(h) The grant having been made on 19.11.1959,
the same came to be made absolute & permanent vide
order dated 31.10.1969, the Permanent Saguvali Chit
having been issued way back on 24.02.1960 itself. The
Divisional Commissioner in his Report dated 31.03.1977
has specifically stated that the grantee had brought the
subject land under cultivation after he took the
possession thereof and that even the entries in the
Revenue Records were also mutated in terms of the
Grant Order. He has given cogent reasons as to why the
grant made in favour of an Ex-Serviceman is perfect &
legal and that the Government had no justification
whatsoever for seeking the cancellation of the grant only
to favour a rank trespasser like Mr.Rangaiah. The grant
of land is made to the Ex-Serviceman predominantly for
the yeoman service they render at the frontiers, risking
their life, limb & liberty. It is a matter of State Policy that
the Ex-Defence Personnel should be protected by
granting the State largesse, public employment or the
like. Therefore, while ordering cancellation of the grant,
this policy has to be kept in view. However, the
impugned order does not reflect the policy content and
thus, is vulnerable for challenge.
(i) The impugned order cancelling the grant is
founded principally on the ground that the grantee failed
to bring the land in question under cultivation. This is
absolutely contrary to the record. The Divisional
Commissioner in his Report dated 31.03.1977 sent to the
Government, at para 9 has reproduced what the grantee
had stated to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore on
26.03.1974. The same reads as under:
"one by name Shri Rangaiah s/o
Nanjaiah residing at Hosadoddi,
Manchanayakanahalli dakle, Bidadi Hobli,
Ramanagaram taluk posing himself as the
owner of the land and he had ploughed the
land and prevents us from attending to our
duties of cultivation."
The Divisional Commissioner who passed the impugned
order ignores his own Report dated 31.3.1977 informing
the Government that the grantee had cultivated the land
till 1963 and later, Mr.Rangaiah having gained forcible
entry, was unauthorizedly cultivating the land and that
from 1961 to 1969, the khata stood in the name of
grantee. What he stated further is very relevant:
"In these circumstances, the best thing
to be done would be to permit Sri Kashi Rao
Sindhe to continue to be the owner of the land
and, if this suggestion is approved, the
Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and
other local Officers will be asked to ensure
that Sri Kashi Rao Sindhe is given back
possession of this land by evicting Sri
Rangaiah therefrom. Sri Rangaiah may be
given land elsewhere, if he is entitled and
deserving for such grant..."
Thus, it is not that the grantee was voluntarily not
cultivating but he was illegally prevented from continuing
the cultivation by Mr. Rangaiah.
(j) In fact, it is on the recommendation of the
Divisional Commissioner in his Report dated 31.03.1977
sent to the Government, the proceedings for eviction of
Mr.Rangaiah were taken up even after the impugned
order canceling the grant was made. Had the
cancellation been given effect to, these proceedings
would not have been initiated. In fact, records do not
disclose any application was made by Mr. Rangaiah
seeking regularization of his unauthorized cultivation. As
already mentioned above, it is the bounden duty of the
State Authorities to protect the land granted to Ex-
Servicemen and restore possession to them by
removing the trespassers. An argument to the contrary
would be unconscionable and dishearten the spirit of
defence personnel in sacrificing their life & limb for
protecting the Nation. Added to this, a Coordinate Bench
of this Court in Rangaiah's W.P.No.4265/1989 disposed
off on 4.4.1995, although set aside the eviction order,
declined to interfere with Tahasildar's order dated
20.2.1989 which directed restoration of revenue entries
in favour of the original grantee Mr.Shindhe. The
judgment at the operative portion reads: '4. Accordingly,
the writ petition is allowed. That part of the order passed
by the Assistant Commissioner is quashed.' This
judgment has attained finality, there being no challenge
whatsoever.
(k) There is one more aspect namely the order of
the KAT dated 3.12.2016 whereby the appeal of
Mr.Rangaiah's children/LRs laying a challenge to the
orders of Asst. Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner,
came to be affirmed. At para 9 of the judgment, it is
observed as under:
"...The petitioners have produced the certified
copy of orders in case No.LND(B) SR.74/76-
77, on the file of the Divisional Commissioner
Bengaluru Division, wherein the grant made
in favour of Kashi Rao Sindhe on 14-11-1959
was set aside. This order is produced for the
first time before this Tribunal that too at the
time of hearing final arguments. This
document did not see the light of the day till
all these days. More over it appears that the
Divisional Commissioner Bengaluru Division
has initiated suo-motu proceedings and
cancelled the grant made in the year 1957 by
the then Divisional Commissioner. The
proceedings is initiated after 20 years to the
date of grant and found barred by limitation.
So no value could be attached to this
document at this stage..."
(l) The vehement contention of learned Sr.
Advocate Mr A G Shivanna appearing for the contesting
respondents that the grantees are maintaining a suit for
declaration of title & possession of the subject land and
therefore, their writ petition for voiding the Grant
Cancellation Order should be rejected, is very difficult to
countenance. As a Writ Court, constitutional duty owed
to the citizens more particularly Ex-Servicemen cannot
be shirked by quoting some theories like alternate
remedy, that too at the instance of rank squatters on the
property granted to Ex-defence personnel. Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes in - DAVIS v. MILLS (1904) US 495 has
observed "Constitutions are intended to preserve
practical and substantial rights, not to maintain
theories...";.
In view of the above, the impugned order
cancelling the grant made in favour of the original
grantee Mr.Shindhe is liable to be set aside.
II) W.P.No.30087/2018:
(a) This petition is filed by the children/LRs of late
Mr.Rangaiah for laying a challenge to the order dated
3.12.2016 at Annexure-X whereby the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, has negatived their
second Revision Petition No.129/2003 in which they had
questioned the first Revision order of the Deputy
Commissioner dated 14.7.2003, came to be affirmed.
The Deputy Commissioner in turn had upheld Assistant
Commissioner's order dated 12.1.2001 whereby
petitioners' appeal in R.A.No.112/1998-99 challenging
Tahasildar's eviction order dated 9.9.1998, was
dismissed. It was the specific case of the petitioners and
their predecessor Mr.Rangaiah that they were in the
unauthorized occupation of the land granted to
Mr.Shindhe and therefore, the grant should be rescinded
and their occupation should be regularized. This aspect
of the matter having been examined by three statutory
authorities namely the Tahasildar, the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, the
eviction order was sustained. In a further challenge
before the KAT which comprised of one judicial member
and one senior IAS officer, the matter having been again
examined, their appeal came to be rejected. That being
the position, a Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory
jurisdiction constitutionally vested u/a 227 (petition
quoting Article 226 also, is insignificant) cannot
undertake a deeper examination as if it is a court of
appeal. This view gains support from the Apex Court
decision in SURYA DEV RAI vs. RAM CHANDER RAI
(2003) 6 SCC 675.
(b) The Divisional Commissioner who had
examined all aspects of the matter had submitted a
Report dated 31.3.1977 informing the Government that
the grant made in favour of Mr.Shindhe, an Ex-
Serviceman was absolutely legal and there was no
reason whatsoever for cancelling the same, in order to
favour the case of Mr.Rangaiah for regularization of his
unauthorized occupation. It is on the recommendation
made in the Report that the Government dropped the
idea of cancellation of grant and the Tahasildar after
holding enquiry with the participation of all the
stakeholders, has made the eviction order against Mr.
Rangaiah. In fact, Mr.Rangaiah's application in Form 7
filed u/s 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
for the grant of occupancy, also came to be rejected by
the Land Tribunal. That being the position, there is
absolutely no justification whatsoever for the petitioners
to squat on the land of the Ex-Serviceman by launching
an avalanche of litigations. The conduct of the petitioners
in continuing in the unauthorized occupation of the
subject land for decades is not only unconscionable but
illegal. Granting relief to such unscrupulous litigants by
the Writ Court virtually amounts to placing premium on
illegality.
(c) The impugned order of eviction and the orders
which affirmed the same specifically mention that
Mr.Rangaiah and his family have been granted 7 Acres &
10 Guntas of land in Sy.Nos.144/1 & 144/2 and that they
have been in possession of the same. Therefore, it is not
that they have not been granted any land at all. There
should be a limit for the greed of man and for
monopolization of public lands to the exclusion of all
others. Despite vociferous submissions made on their
behalf, the petitioners are not in a position to
demonstrate their legal right to have the land in their
unauthorized occupation, regularized. In fact, the
application allegedly filed by Mr. Rangaiah does not
surface from the records. The Tahsildar had made some
endorsements to place such application before the
Regularization Committee, cannot per se establish the
filing of such an application. Even otherwise, the request
for regularization of unauthorized occupation of the land
that was already granted to an Ex-Serviceman cannot be
legally favoured.
(d) Mr.Rangaiah and his children/LRs have filed
O.S.No.44/2005 seeking declaration of title in respect of
the subject land wherein the original grantee Mr.Shindhe
and his buyers happened to be the defendants. The said
suit came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.
Dn.) at Ramanagaram on 1.3.2012. Against the said
decree, an appeal has been filed in R.A.No.20/2013 by
Rangaiah's children/LRs who happen to be the petitioners
in this case. In an application for leave to produce
additional evidence, the appellants therein i.e.,
petitioners herein have specifically admitted in their
deposition about the grant of land made in their favour.
Therefore, regardless of the result of the said appeal, the
admission as to the grant of land would remain intact, no
rebuttal material having been pleaded and produced.
(e) The vehement submission of learned Sr.
Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the original
grantee and his buyers have filed civil suits in
O.S.Nos.479/2014, 480/2014 & 481/2014 for declaration
of title & possession and therefore, the impugned orders
be set at naught subject to result of the said suit, is
difficult to countenance. All those suits including the one
filed by the petitioners are long after the eviction order
was made by the Tahasildar, it was affirmed by the
Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and lastly
by the KAT. The suits of the grantees and their vendees
are in the nature of curative proceedings to remove the
arguable cloud on their title and therefore on the ground
of pendency of the said suits, relief cannot be granted to
these petitioners, by invalidating the impugned orders.
The validity of the orders have to be adjudged on the
basis of the reasons contained therein and that what
happens subsequently is not much relevant, subject to
all just exceptions into which argued case of the
petitioners does not fit vide MOHINDER SINGH GILL vs.
CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, AIR 1978 SC 851.
Even otherwise, the culpable conduct of the petitioners
disentitles them to the grant of discretionary remedy at
the hands of the Constitutional Court.
(f) The last submission of Mr. A G Shivanna
learned Sr. Advocate that the proceedings for eviction
could not have been taken up since the land after the
grant ceased to be of the Government and therefore, the
impugned orders of the Tahsildar, Asst. Commissioner,
Dy. Commissioner and the KAT have to be voided, does
not merit acceptance. The very grant order itself
mentions that it was by way of lease, as it was originally
granted to the Ex-Serviceman Mr. Shindhe. Had it been
otherwise, the question of Mr. Rangaiah seeking
regularization of unauthorized occupation, at the hands
of the authorities would not have arisen. All through,
Mr. Rangaiah and his children/LRs have litigated before
various authorities, Tribunal, Civil Courts and the Writ
Courts on the premise that the subject land belongs to
the Government. In fact and law, as on the date when
challenge to eviction order was laid by Rangaiah or his
L.Rs. there was order dated 07.09.1979 whereby the
subject grant was cancelled, although it is now being
voided. Petitioners cannot aprobate and reprobate.
Therefore, as petitioners, they cannot be heard to
contend to the contrary. This apart, it was for the first
time that such a contention was urged before the KAT
that too half heartedly and sans pleadings. It has been a
settled position of law that a dominant litis cannot take
inconsistent plea, although some relaxation may avail to
his opponents.
In view of the above, there is absolutely no
justification whatsoever for voiding the impugned orders.
The justice of the case warrants that in terms of these
orders, the petitioners herein are liable to be removed
from the occupation of the land, and that the possession
thereof be restored to the grantees/their vendees on a
warfooting. Anything less than that would not be an act
of reparative justice.
III) W.P.No.2471/2019:
(a) This petition by the children/LRs of
Mr.Rangaiah seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent-
Regional Commissioner to initiate proceedings for
cancelling the grant of land made in favour of 6th
respondent-Ramsingh to an extent of 4 Acres in
Sy.No.143 on the ground that they have been continuing
in the occupation of the said land, the grantee allegedly
never having gained entry thereto. They have also
sought for a direction to the official respondents for
regularization of their unauthorized occupancy. As
already mentioned above, this grant is also perfectly
legal. If the grantee is prevented by the rank trespassers
from cultivating the land, that cannot be a ground for the
cancellation of grant. Conversely, it can be a ground for
taking both civil & criminal action against the said
trespassers who are none other than the petitioners
herein.
(b) As already mentioned above, the family of
Mr.Rangaiah under whom the petitioners claim are
holding 7 Acres & 10 Guntas of land as mentioned by the
Coordinate Bench of this court in its judgment dated
22.03.2000 entered in W.P.Nos.14684/1999 and
14851/1999. The learned Coordinate Judge at para 27
of the judgment has mentioned about the culpable
conduct of the petitioners as under:
"It is an admitted fact that even after
suffering a quit order in the hands of the
Tahsildar as above, the petitioners herein had
not vacated from the subject land...but for the
reasons best known to them, they had not
seen to it that respondent Nos.3 & 4 were
served with the notices... and further to see to
it that they were granted with an order to stay
the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar
in the said R.A. That I say on perusal of the
records in the said R.A. produced in time by
the learned Additional Government Advocate
as per directions of this court..."
The Writ Petitions were dismissed, of course leaving
liberty to the petitioners to prosecute their appeals
pending on the file of Assistant Commissioner. Therefore,
no relief was granted to the petitioners. This order too
has been affirmed in their writ appeals. These Revenue
Appeals having failed, the revision before the Deputy
Commissioner also failed. A further challenge to the
eviction orders that culminated into Deputy
Commissioner's order also met the same fate at the
hands of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, whose order
cannot be faltered as already discussed above.
IV) As to levy of exemplary costs:
(a) Late Mr.Rangaiah and his children/LRs having
trespassed the land granted to Mr.Shindhe have been
continuing in unauthorized occupation of the same, since
decades. This is a clear cut case of robbery of land
granted by the Government to an Ex-Army man. They
also want to grab the land of Mr.Ramsingh, another
grantee. They have successfully prevented the grantees
of the land from enjoying the usufructs of grant for
decades by filing case after cases. Decades have been
lost in the lives of the grantees, who have in the course
of legal battle become old & worn.
(b) It is not that the petitioners do not own any
land. Admittedly, a huge grant is made to them as well.
They have also taken unconscionable contention namely,
after the grant, the Government ceased to be the owner
thereof and therefore, the revenue authorities could not
have passed the eviction orders. The original grant itself
makes it clear that it was a grant on the basis of lease
and therefore, the Government continued to be the
owner for the limited purpose of causing eviction of
unauthorized occupants. They also went too far before
the KAT for the first time in contending that the land
granted to Mr.Shindhe has been cancelled; if that were
to be so, their contention that the Government had no
power to evict them falls to the ground. Petitioners
cannot aprobate and reprobate.
(c) A careful perusal of all the case papers and
the stand varyingly taken by Mr.Rangaiah and his
children/LRs amounts to gross abuse of the process of
the Court. They have only "one point agenda" namely,
'come what may, they would not quit the land'. Their
cases cannot just go with impunity. Heavy & exemplary
costs need to be levied to discourage them and the
potential litigants like them from undertaking the
misadventures in judicial process.
In the considered opinion of this Court, a cost of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) need to be jointly &
severally levied on them.
In the above circumstances, I make the following:
ORDER
[i] W.P.No.55134/2016 filed by original grantee
and his buyers is allowed with costs; a Writ of Certiorari
issues quashing the impugned order dated 7.9.1979; a
Writ of Mandamus also issues to the revenue authorities
to enter the names of petitioners to the property records
in terms of Grant Orders and the subject Sale Deeds,
within sixty days.
[ii] The cases in W.P.No.30087/2018 &
W.P.No.2471/2019 being thoroughly devoid of merits are
liable to be dismissed with costs and accordingly, they
are. A direction also issues to the petitioners to quit the
subject lands peaceably within sixty days, failing which,
the official respondents shall physically remove them, by
police force if so needed and the original grantees shall
be put in the possession of subject lands.
[iii] The petitioners in W.P.No.30087/2018 &
W.P.No.2471/2019 are directed to pay cost of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) only jointly &
severally to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority,
Bengaluru, within sixty days, failing which, they are
liable to pay an additional sum of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One
Thousand) only per day for the initial one month, and
Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) only per day for the
subsequent period. The same may be recovered by
initiating the contempt proceedings.
[iv] The compliance of this order shall be reported
to the Registrar General of this Court by the official
respondents and also by the petitioners in
W.P.No.30087/2018 & W.P.No.2471/2019 within an
outer limit of three months.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/cbc
