Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB
WA No. 1706 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1706 OF 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
(BENEFIT OF SENIOR
CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
2. SRI. SHIVALINGAIAH,
S/O LATE SRI. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3. SRI. SHIVANNA,
S/O LATE SRI. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
4. SRI. SIDDAIAH,
Digitally signed S/O LATE SRI. MALLAIAH,
by SHARADA
VANI B AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 5. SRI.SHIVAIAH,
KARNATAKA
S/O LATE SRI. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
6. SMT. RATHNAMMA,
D/O LATE SRI. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
7. SMT. NARASAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI. KENCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB
WA No. 1706 of 2015
8. SRI. SHIVARAJU,
S/O LATE SRI. KENCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
9. SRI. KUMAR,
S/O LATE SRI. KENCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
10. SMT. SHANTHAMMA,
D/O LATE SRI. KENCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
11. SRI. SADASHIVAIAH,
S/O LATE SRI. KENCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
12. SRI. SHIVAMALAIAH,
S/O LATE SRI. KENCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
13. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI CHENNAMALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
14. SRI. MAHALINGAIAH,
S/O LATE SRI. CHENNAMALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
15. SRI. SHANKARAIAH
S/O LATE SRI. CHENNAMALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
16. SRI. ESHWARAIAH,
S/O LATE SRI. CHENNAMALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
17. SRI. NANJUNDA,
S/O LATE SRI. CHENNAMALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
18. SRI. SURESH,
S/O LATE SRI. CHENNAMALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB
WA No. 1706 of 2015
19. SMT. MARAKKA,
W/O LATE SRI. PUTTAMALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
20. SRI. MAHADEVAIAH,
S/O LATE SRI. PUTTAMALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
21. SMT. GANGAMMA,
S/O LATE SRI. PUTTAMALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
22. SMT. PARVATHAMMA,
D/O LATE SRI. PUTTAMALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
APPELLANTS 1 TO 22 ARE
RESIDENTS OF MELEKOTE,
KANAKAPURA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA-562 117.
23. SRI. MALLESH,
S/O LATE SRI. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/O CHUNCHANAKUPPE VILLAGE,
THAVAREKERE HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRTICT-562 130.
24. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA,
S/O LATE SRI. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O MELEKOTE,
KANAKAPURA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA-562 117.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V LAKSHMINARAYANA., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. K ABHINAV ANAND.,ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB
WA No. 1706 of 2015
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA-571 511.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA-571 511.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
KANAKAPURA-526 117.
5. SRI. CHIKKARAJU,
S/O SRI DYAVARASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
6. SRI. CHIKKEGOWDA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
6(A) SMT. GOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI.CHIKKEGOWDA
@ CHITTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
6(B) SRI. HARISH,
S/O LATE SRI.CHIKKEGOWDA
@ CHITTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
6(C) SMT. MAMATHA,
D/O LATE SRI.CHIKKEGOWDA
@ CHITTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB
WA No. 1706 of 2015
RESPONDENT 6(A) TO 6(C) ARE
R/O KOGGEDODDI, YELAGALLI POST,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
7. SRI. DEVEGOWDA,
S/O SRI DYAVARASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
8. SRI. DEVARAJU,
S/O SRI DYAVARASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE
RESIDENTS OF SANGAMA,
UYYAMBALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-526 117.
9. SRI.AJITH SRINIVASAN,
S/O SRI B K SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 157, RICHMOND ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SPOORTHI HEGDE., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
R5 & R6(A) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V.C.O DATED 12/07/2021-NOTICE TO R6(B & C) IS H/S;
V.C.O DATED 22/11/2016-NOTICE TO R7 & R8 IS
COMPLETE;
SRI. M C JAYAKIRTHI., ADVOCATE FOR R9)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION 199-222/2015 DATED 23/04/2015.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
KRISHNA S DIXIT.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB
WA No. 1706 of 2015
JUDGMENT
This intra-Court Appeal seeks to call in question a
learned single Judge's order dated 23.04.2015 whereby
some dispute in relation to making of entries in the
Revenue Records during the pendency of Appellant's title
suits in O.S.No.371/2013 & O.S.No.826/2014, have been
provisionally adjudicated.
2. Learned Sr. Counsel Sri. V Laxminarayana
appearing for Appellants' counsel on record vehemently
argues that once the request for regrant of land is
rejected, the land would vest in the State and therefore,
the subsequent regrant obtained at the hands of the
Assistant Commissioner by the widow of the Village Office
holder is irrelevant; if at all any effect is to be given, it
should be treated as a fresh grant which is not legally
permissible. In all fairness he also brings to notice of the
Court that the subject suits having been dismissed,
challenge thereto are pending in two appeals. All these
aspects having not been duly adverted to by the learned
NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB
Single Judge, the impugned order suffers from a lacuna
warranting interference of this Court.
3. Learned HCGP appearing for the State and the
learned private counsel appearing for the contesting
Respondents resist the Appeal making submission in
justification of the impugned order and the reasons on
which it has been constructed. They add that the suits
having already been dismissed, the mutation of entries
have to follow in terms of Section 127 & 129 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and more particularly
the Proviso to Section 135 of the Act as reiterated by this
Court in a catena of decisions.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the Appeal papers, we are broadly in
agreement with the submission made on behalf of
contesting Respondents and therefore, we decline
indulgence in the matter. The impugned order/Judgment
in question could have been more articulately drafted, is
NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB
beside the point. Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), an English
writer of great repute had wittily said "There is scope for
improvement even in heaven". Be that as it may. The
proviso to section 135 of the 1964 Act provides that
ordinarily the entry should follow the decrees of Civil Court
made in title suits. The impugned order/Judgment of the
learned Single Judge is inarticulately premised on this and
therefore, it cannot be faltered. This view gains a broad
support from a Full Bench decision in SMT. JAYAMMA &
OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS
SECRETARY & OTHERS, ILR 2020 KAR 1449, as rightly
contended by learned counsel appearing for the contesting
Respondents.
5. The above being said, it needs to be clarified
that all contentions available to the Appellants herein can
be urged in the Coordinate Appeals; such contention may
include the effect of rejection of the prayer for regrant in
the light of Act No.22 of 2023 to the Principal Act i.e.,
Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961.
NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB
With the above observations, this Appeal is disposed
off, costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSV
