Karnataka High Court
Sri.Parasappa And Ors vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 15 April, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995
WP No. 203973 of 2018
C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No.
203972 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO.203973 OF 2018 (KVOA)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.203971 OF 2018 (KLR-LG)
&
WRIT PETITION NO.203972 OF 2018 (KLR-RR-SUR)
IN W.P.NO.203973 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJ
S/O AMARAPPA @ MALLAPPA
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BELAGURKI VILLAGE,
TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST: RAICHUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by RENUKA AND:
Location: High
Court Of 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Karnataka RAICHUR-584102.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
LINGASUGUR, TQ: LINGASUGUR
DIST: RAICHUR-584102.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
SINDHANOOR, TQ: SINDHANOOR,
DIST:RAICHUR-584102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T. R, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995
WP No. 203973 of 2018
C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No.
203972 of 2018
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/03/2018 BEARING NO
¸ÀAPÀA/vÁAwæP/À C¦Ã®/09-2015-16 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
VIDE ANNEXURE-N B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING
NO.KUM/BHU/SU/2012-13/80, DATED 27/3/2013, ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ANNEXURE-L ETC.
IN W.P.NO.203971 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.MAREMMA,
W/O PAMPA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.,
A) HAMPAMMA W/O MALLAPPA
AGE:65 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD & AGRI,
B) BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA S/O MALLAPPA
AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
BOTH ARE R/O. BELAGURKI VILLAGE,
TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST: RAICHUR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR-584102.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
LINGASUGUR, TQ: LINGASUGUR
DIST: RAICHUR-584102.
3. THE TAHASILDAR, SINDHANOOR,
TQ: SINDHANOOR,
DIST: RAICHUR-584102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T. R, HCGP)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995
WP No. 203973 of 2018
C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No.
203972 of 2018
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/03/2018 BEARING NO
¸ÀAPÀA/vÁAwæP/À C¦Ã®/08-2015-16 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO,1
VIDE ANNEXURE-M.B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING
NO.KUM/BHU/SU/2012-13/79 DATED 27/3/2013, ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ANNEXURE-K. C)ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-C
AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT THE REQUISITE
OCCUPANCY PRICE PAYABLE BY PETITIONER ETC.
IN W.P.NO.203972 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PARASAPPA,
S/O ERAPPA GUJJAL
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,
A) SMT. NAGAMMA W/O PARASAPPA
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
B) SRI.KARIYAPPA S/O PARASAPPA
AGE:55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
C) SRI.VENKAPPA S/O PARASAPPA
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE R/O BELAGURKI VILLAGE,
TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST: RAICHUR-584102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR-584102.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995
WP No. 203973 of 2018
C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No.
203972 of 2018
LINGASUGUR, TQ: LINGASUGUR
DIST: RAICHUR-584102.
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
SINDHANOOR, TQ: SINDHANOOR,
DIST: RAICHUR-584102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T. R, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/03/2018 BEARING NO
¸ÀAPÀA/vÁAwæP/À C¦Ã®/10-2015-16 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO,1
VIDE ANNEXURE-N. B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING
NO.KUM/BHU/SU/2012-13/82 DATED 27/3/2013, ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ANNEXURE-L. C) ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER, VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT THE
REQUISITE OCCUPANCY PRICE PAYABLE BY PETITIONER ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel Sri Mahantesh Patil for the
petitioners and the learned High Court Government
Pleader Smt. Maya T.R. for the respondents.
2. The memo along with documents filed by
learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995
C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No.
203972 of 2018
3. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are
claiming that they are the legal representatives of original
grantees, who were doing the job of Talwar in the village
and their ancestors were granted Inam namely,
'Shethsandi Inam'. Admittedly, after the Karnataka Village
Offices Abolition Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rules') came into force, the original Inamdars did not
chose to file applications for re-grant under Section 5 of
the said Rules.
4. Belatedly applications came to be filed in the
year 2012 by the writ petitioners. The jurisdictional
Assistant Commissioner considered the same and rejected
the applications as they are time barred. Being aggrieved
by the same, the petitioners have approached the Deputy
Commissioner in Appeal Nos.¸ÀAPÀA/vÁAwæP/À C¦Ã®/09-2015-16,
¸ÀAPÀA/vÁAwæP/À C¦Ã®/08-2015-16 and ¸ÀAPÀA/vÁAwæP/À C¦Ã®/10-2015-16 in all
these writ petitions.
5. The Deputy Commissioner after notifying the
Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar, held an enquiry
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995
C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No.
203972 of 2018
and after affording necessary opportunities for the parties,
formulated two points for his consideration.
6. The first point raised is that "whether the
endorsement issued by the Tahsildar is arbitrary,
whimsical and without holding proper enquiry thus, needs
to be set aside and the lands in question need to be re-
granted in favour of the petitioners."
7. The Deputy Commissioner after considering the
power vested in the authorities under Sections 4 and 5 of
the Act and coupled with Rule 4(2) and Rule 5(1)(b) of the
said Rules and also the judgments of this Court in the case
of Bhimanagouda vs. State of Karnataka and Others and
in the case of G.V.Subbarao vs. Tahsildar, Chikkaballapur
and Others has rejected the appeals filed by the writ
petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
are before this Court.
8. Reiterating the grounds urged in the writ
petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995
C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No.
203972 of 2018
that the petitioners are poor rustic villagers and they did
not know the niceties of law and moment they came to
know that the lands are not granted in their favour as per
the law, they made applications to the Assistant
Commissioner in the year 2012 and the same have not
been properly considered by the Assistant Commissioner
by issuing endorsement stating that there is no records
available in the office of the Assistant Commissioner and
re-grant of the land cannot be made as the applications
are belated.
9. He further contended that the Deputy
Commissioner without considering the fact that the
petitioners are the poor rustic villagers and did not
exercise the power vested in him under Rule 5(1)(b) of the
said Rules and wrongly rejected the appeals filed by the
petitioners, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought
for allowing the writ petitions.
10. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader contended that the petitioners are admittedly legal
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995
C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No.
203972 of 2018
representatives of original grantees. In their applications
filed at Annexure-C in all these writ petitioners, there is no
mention as to when their ancestors were discharging the
job of Talwarship before the Act came into force and when
they died.
11. She also contended that when the original
Inamdars themselves did not chose to apply for re-grant,
being the legal representatives, the petitioners filing
applications that too in the year 2012 is rightly considered
by the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter rightly
rejected the appeals filed by the petitioners. Hence, she
sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
12. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
13. On such perusal of the material on record
especially the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
it is crystal clear that there is no explanation forthcoming
as to the belated applications.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995
C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No.
203972 of 2018
14. Further, Annexure-C is silent as to the date of
death of ancestors of the petitioners, who were the
original Inamdars.
15. Further, the petitioners claim that they came to
know about the proceedings on 18.12.1984 when the
Revenue Inspector has made entry in the records that the
lands belonging to the Government. What are the steps
that have been taken by the petitioners and when they
came to know about the order passed by the Government
and when exactly they took the copies of the orders are all
not forthcoming in Annexure-C.
16. Further, what are the steps that have been
taken by the original Inamdars is not even mentioned in
Annexure-C.
17. The endorsement issued by the Assistant
Commissioner is discussed in detail by the Deputy
Commissioner in the order, which is under challenge. In
the said order itself, it has been specifically mentioned
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995
C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No.
203972 of 2018
that the mutation in the revenue records has been taken
place on 07.08.1984. Admittedly, the applications are
filed in the year 2012 after lapse of 28 years.
18. Further, in the applications itself, there is no
specific mention that the petitioners were also discharging
the job of Talwar after the death of original Inamdars.
19. Unless there is a factual averment that original
Inamdars have died earlier to the Act coming into force
and the petitioners continued the job of Talwarship in their
respective areas and based on such Talwarship, they were
holding the lands is established by the petitioners, there
cannot be any order of re-grant that could be made in
favour of the petitioners.
20. In other wards, the petitioners having continued
the Talwarship before the Act coming into force and
holding the lands as Inam lands is a pre-requisite and sine
qua non for considering the applications for re-grant as
per Rule 5 of the said Rules.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995
C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No.
203972 of 2018
21. In the absence of any material placed on record
in this regard, the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner vide Annexures-N and M in these writ
petitions is just and proper.
22. Accordingly, the grounds urged in the writ
petitions are hardly sufficient to consider the case of the
petitioners.
23. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
The writ petitions are meritless and hereby
dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SRT
CT-SI
