Karnataka High Court
Sri Y Jayappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
WP No. 3111 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 3111 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI Y JAYAPPA
S/O LATE YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT VALAGERA KALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562125
2. SRI Y VENKATESHAPPA
S/O LATE YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT VALAGERA KALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562125
3. SRI Y MUNIVENKATAPPA
Digitally signed
by JUANITA S/O LATE YALLAPPA,
THEJESWINI SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. SMT KARGAMMA
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
W/O Y MUNIVENKATAPPA
R/AT NO 166, VALERGARA KALLAHALLI,
ANEKAL TALUK-562107
5. MURUGESH K M
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O Y MUNIVENKATAPPA
R/AT NO 166, VALAGERE KALLAHALLI,
ANEKAL TALUK-562107
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
WP No. 3111 of 2023
6. LAKSHMI M
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O K SRINIVASA
D/O Y MUNIVENKATAPPA
R/AT LAKSHMISAGARA VILLAGE,
NERALUR, ANEKAL,
KARNATAKA 562107
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.R. OMKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR P1, P2, P4 & P5)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING, K R CIRCLE,
BENGALURU 560001
2. THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK,
ANEKAL,
BENGALURU 560105
3. SRI NAGAREDDY
S/O LATE CHOWDAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
4. SRI GOPAL REDDY
S/O LATE CHOWDAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
5. SRI RAMAKRISHNAREDDY
S/O LATE CHOWDAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
6. SRI RAMASWAMY REDDY
S/O LATE CHOWDAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R3 TO 6 ARE R/AT
VALAGERE KALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 562125
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
WP No. 3111 of 2023
7. SMT SHWETHA R
D/O RAMASWAMY K C
W.O SRIDHAR N
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO 233,
3RD FLOOR, 3RD WING,
RJR PATEL RESIDENCY,
PATEL LAYOUT, BALAGERE MAIN ROAD,
VARTHURU TOWN AND HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU 560087
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. V. ANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI. P. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD. 10.06.1981 IN V.O.A.E.V.R 20/79-80, PASSED BY
R-2 i.e., TAHSILDAR, IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE
ALLOTTED UNSOLD LANDS OF LATE YELLAPPA. AS FOUND AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners who are the legal heirs of late Sri
Yallappa, who was re-granted 1 acre and 6 guntas of land
in Sy.No.124 of Volagere Kallahally Village, Sarjapura
Hobli, Anekal Taluk, are before this Court seeking to quash
the impugned order dated 10.06.1981 passed by the
second respondent-Tahsildar and competent authority
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
under the provisions of The Karnataka Village Offices
Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act,
1961' for short), in proceedings bearing No.VOA EVR
20/79-80 insofar as it pertains to 36 guntas of land which
remains with Sri Yallappa after he sold 10 guntas in favour
of Sri Chowdareddy under whom the private respondents
herein are claiming rights.
2. Some of the undisputed facts are that Sri
Chowdareddy had purchased 2 acres and 1 gunta of land
from Sri Marappa and Sri Munishamappa @ Minchappa
under a registered sale deed dated 06.05.1971. However,
proceedings were initiated by the Tahsildar under the
provisions of the Act, 1961 for evicting the unauthorized
occupants in respect of the lands vested with the State
Government in terms of the provisions of the said Act. In
the meanwhile, several persons like Sri Yallappa who
claimed rights over the very same survey number as
'holders of office of neergantis' approached the competent
authority seeking re-grant of the land which were in their
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
possession on the basis of their service being rendered as
neergantis. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order
on 15.04.1974, having noticed the names of such
claimants in the original barabaloothi register and
conferred occupancy rights in favour of Sri.Yallappa to an
extent of 1 acre 6 guntas in Sy.No.124, while two other
pieces of land measuring 2 acres and 10 guntas were re-
granted in favour of Sri.Chikkadasappa and another extent
of 1 acre and 5 guntas were granted in favour of
Sri.Marappa in the very same Sy.No.124. After such
orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
Sri.Chowdareddy purchased 10 guntas of land from
Sri.Yallappa under registered sale deed dated 17.01.1975.
3. Thereafter, Sri.Chowdareddy filed the writ petition
before this Court in W.P.No.18723/1979 against the State
and the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, who had issued notices to
Sri.Chowdareddy for eviction, having regard to the vesting
of the lands in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka
Village Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1978. It was
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
contended by Sri.Chowdareddy that having regard to the
law laid down by this Court in the case of Lakshmana
Gowda and others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
reported ILR 1980 KAR 892 that if lands were re-granted
in favour of alienors of the claimant under the Principal
Act, the purchaser becomes entitled to obtain
regularization of the alienations by paying an amount
equal to 15 times the full assessment of the land under
sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Principal Act. This Court
by order dated 22.09.1980 allowed the writ petition,
quashed the notices while directing the Tahsildar to collect
from the petitioner amount equal to 15 times the full
assessment of the land as required under sub-section (3)
of Section 5 of the Principal Act for obtaining regularization
of the sale transaction in respect of the lands purchased
by the petitioner from the grantee.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however,
points out to paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the said order
passed by this Court and submits that it was the claim of
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
Sri.Chowdareddy that he had purchased 2 acres and 1
gunta of land in Sy.No.124 and thereafter, the same were
re-granted to his alienors under the Act, 1961 and
therefore, even in terms of the directions given by this
Court, the Tahsildar was required to verify from the
records or call for necessary information to find out as to
whether Sri.Chowdareddy had purchased 2 acres and 1
gunta of land from the persons who were re-granted the
lands under the provisions of the Act, 1961 subsequently.
Learned Counsel would submit that even the private
respondents herein cannot deny the fact that under
registered sale deed dated 17.01.1975 Sri.Chowdareddy
purchased only 10 guntas of land from Sri.Yallappa even
after knowing the fact that Sri.Yallappa was re-granted 1
acre and 6 guntas at the hands of the Land Tribunal.
5. In that view of the matter, learned counsel would
draw the attention of this Court to the impugned order at
Annexure 'A' passed by the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, and
submits that no notice was issued to Sri.Yallappa or his
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
legal heirs and on the basis of presumption that
Sri.Chowdareddy had purchased 2 acres and 11 guntas of
land including 10 guntas sold by Sri.Yallappa, proceeded
to pass the impugned order. Learned Counsel would
therefore submit that the impugned order cannot be
sustained, since even in terms of the judgment of this
Court in the case of Lakshmana Gowda and Others
(supra), what was sold by Sri.Yallappa was only 10 guntas
and therefore, the Tahsildar could not have passed the
impugned order regularising 2 acres and 11 guntas in
favour of Sri.Chowdareddy. For the very same reason that
Sri.Yallappa was not issued with the notice and the
impugned order was not in the knowledge of Sri.Yallappa
or his legal heirs, Sri.Yallappa and his legal heirs continued
to be in occupation of the remaining extent of 36 guntas of
land. However, subsequently, when there was interference
at the hands of the private respondents herein, the
petitioners filed O.S.No.1048/2019 against the private
respondents herein seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs
are the absolute owners in possession and occupation of 1
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
acre 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.124. It is submitted that
the said suit is pending consideration before the Senior
Civil Judge at Anekal.
6. Per contra, learned Counsels for the contesting
respondents would submit that even the petitioners cannot
deny the fact that Sri Chowdareddy purchased 2 acres and
1 gunta of land in Sy.No.124 under a registered sale deed
dated 06.05.1971 from Sri Munishamappa @ Minchappa
who is none other than the brother of Sri Yallappa. It is
further pointed out from the sale deed that Sri Yallappa is
a witness to the said sale deed. It is further submitted
that consequent to the impugned order passed by the
Tahsildar, the name of Sri Chowdareddy was entered in
the land records in terms of M.R.No.24/1973-74 in terms
of the impugned order passed in No.VOA.EVR.20/79-80.
It is further submitted that when the name of Sri
Chowdareddy was entered in he RTC commencing from
the year 1973-74 and subsequently 1979-80, the
petitioners cannot feign ignorance of such orders being
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
passed by the revenue authorities and the name of Sri
Chowdareddy being entered in the land records. It is
further submitted that Sri Chowdareddy executed a gift
deed dated 28.06.2005 in favour of his son Sri
Ramaswamy Reddy conferring rights in respect of 30
guntas of land in Sy.No.124. Sri Ramaswamy Reddy
thereafter executed another gift deed dated 12.04.2019 in
favour of his daughter Smt.Shwetha. Moreover, it is
submitted that in the year 2008, 20 guntas of land were
got converted by Sri Subbareddy, S/o late Varadareddy
and residential buildings have come up on the land in
question. The learned Counsel would therefore submit
that on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petition
should be dismissed.
7. The learned Counsel would submit that the
petitioners are residing in the same Village and therefore
they cannot claim ignorance of the said developments and
they could not have waited for such a long length of time
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
to raise a challenge to the impugned order which was
passed in the year 1981.
8. Having heard the learned Counsels for the
petitioners and the learned Counsels for the contesting
respondents and on perusing the petition papers, this
Court is required to consider the case of the petitioners
who have raised a challenge to the impugned order dated
10.06.1981. For the purpose of having a clear
understanding of the material facts, this Court has
summoned the original records and the learned AGA has
furnished the original records from the office of the
Tahsildar. On going through the original records, this
Court finds that the Tahsildar, after reconsidering the
matter in terms of the directions issued by this Court was
required to consider as to whether Sri Chowdareddy had
purchased 2 acres and 11 guntas of lands from the
regrantees viz., Sri Chikkadasappa, Sri Marappa and Sri
Yallappa. No notice is issued to any of the regrantees.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
9. This Court is of the considered opinion that the
Tahsildar was duty bound to issue notice to the three re-
grantees, since all of them were re-granted a portion of
the lands in Sy.No.124. As noticed from the original order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 15.04.1974, Sri
Chikkadasappa was re-granted 2 acres and 10 guntas; Sri
Marappa was re-granted 1 acre 5 guntas and Sri Yallappa
was re-granted 1 acre and 6 guntas in Sy.No.124.
10. In that view of the matter, this Court is
constrained to hold that the Tahsildar has failed to comply
with the mandatory requirement of having to issue notice
to the concerned persons before passing any order
regularising the lands in favour of Sri Chowdareddy.
11. Further, having regard to the admitted fact that
under the sale deed dated 06.05.1971, Sri Chowdareddy
had purchased 2 acres and 1 gunta at the hands of Sri
Marappa and Munishamappa @ Minchappa, who is the
brother of Sri Yallappa, merely because Sri Yallappa is the
witness to the said document, it cannot be concluded that
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
Sri Yallappa had bound himself under the sale deed. The
requirement of law having regard to the provisions
contained in Section 5(3) of the Act, 1961, and the
judgment of this Court in the case of Lakshmana Gowda
(supra), the benefit of the provision could be availed by a
person who had purchased the property and the same was
subsequently regranted to his vendor under the Principal
Act, 1961. On facts, it is clear that the Assistant
Commissioner passed the orders on 15.04.1974 regranting
1 acre and 6 guntas of land in favour of Sri Yallappa.
Thereafter, Sri Chowdareddy purchased only 10 guntas of
land from Yellappa. In fact, no land was purchased from
Sri.Yellappa prior to the order of re-grant. That being the
admitted position, the Tahsildar erred in not issuing notice
to Sri Yellappa or Sri Marappa who had executed sale
deeds in favour of Sri Chowdareddy. Further, having
regard to the admitted facts that Sri Chowdareddy
purchased only 10 guntas of land from Sri Yallappa after
he being re-granted 1 acre and 6 guntas at the hands of
the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 15.04.1974,
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
the Tahsildar could not have passed the impugned order
regularizing 2 acres and 11 guntas in favour of Sri
Chowdareddy.
12. The other aspects of the matter, viz., that the
land has been converted and that the petitioners are
residing in the same Village and therefore they cannot
claim ignorance of the subsequent developments and the
revenue entries, this Court is of the considered opinion
that such submissions at the hands of the contesting
respondents herein cannot be accepted. The reason being
that Sri Yallappa was never issued notice when the
impugned order was passed.
13. The submission regarding conversion of land is
also to be rejected, since only 20 guntas of land have been
converted in the year 2008 and in the name of Sri
Subbareddy who does not figure in the flow of title, as has
been narrated by the learned Counsels for the
respondents.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
14. On the other hand, the petitioners have claimed
even in the plaint filed before the Civil Court that they
continue to be in possession of the lands in question. It is
no doubt true that these are all matters that have to be
proved and decided before the Civil Court.
15. Nevertheless, having regard to the admitted facts
and the principles governing the law regarding
regularization of lands as declared by this Court in the
case of Lakshmana Gowda and Others (supra), it was
incumbent on the Tahsildar to have issued notice to Sri
Yallappa before passing the impugned order. That
mandatory requirement not having been complied, the
impugned order insofar as Sri Yallappa is concerned
cannot be sustained.
16. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order at Annexure 'A' passed by the Tahsildar,
Anekal Taluk, in proceedings bearing No.VOA EVR 20/79-
80 dated 10.06.1981 insofar as Sri Yallappa to an extent
of 36 guntas is quashed and set side.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15380
17. Insofar as possession is concerned, since the
petitioners are already before the Civil Court, they are
directed to await the final outcome of the suit. Further,
having regard to the nature of the dispute and the fact
that the dispute dates back to the year 1980-81, the
learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Anekal is requested to
dispose of the suit in O.S No.1048/2019 as expeditiously
as possible and at any rate within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Court.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JT/-
CT: JL
