Karnataka High Court
Sri. G. S. Narayana Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9042-DB
WA No. 833 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO.833 OF 2023 (KVOA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. G.S.NARAYANA RAO
S/O LATE N SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 067
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. C A AJITH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
MADHUSHREE
H 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High BY ITS SECRETARY
Court of
Karnataka REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE TAHSILDAR
KRISHNARAJAPURA
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
NADA KACHERI
BIDARAHALLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 067
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9042-DB
WA No. 833 of 2023
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
KADUGODI CIRCLE, BIDARAHALLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 067
5. SRI SEENAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
R/AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 067
6. SRI ANJINAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
R/AT LAGUMENAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 067
7. SMT BYAMMA
AGED MAJOR,
W/O LATE NARANAPPA
R/AT NO.123, (OLD NO.108),
MATHRU NILAYA,
BANASHANAKRI III STAGE
KATHRIGUPPE, BENGALURU - 560 085
8. N REDDAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O N MUNIRATHNAMMA REDDY
R/AT NO.401, "SAI KRUPA HEERA",
1ST MAIN, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 093
9. SRI LOKESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
R/AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TLAUK - 560 067
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. HEMANT KUMAR D, ADVOCATE FOR R8)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9042-DB
WA No. 833 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 16.06.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO.14136/2018 (KVOA) AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
We have heard Mr.Vijay Krishna Bhat, Advocate for
the appellant, Mr.Hemant Kumar D., Advocate for the
respondent No.8 caveator/contesting party and learned
AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The challenge in this appeal is primarily to the
order dated 16.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.14136/2018
whereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ
petition filed by the appellant herein by stating in
paragraph Nos.11 and 12 as under:-
"11. Admittedly, petitioners' claim is based on entries in
khetwar register etc. While passing impugned order,
learned District Judge has considered relevancy of
NC: 2025:KHC:9042-DB
entries in khetwar register as well as other records
produced by petitioner and specific finding is recorded
that said entries would themselves indicate that lands in
question were not Inam lands. Said conclusion is
fortified by referring to conduct of petitioner's father,
who had filed application and obtained re-grant in
respect of other Inam lands, but maintained silence in
respect of these lands. Moreover, claim for declaration
of title as legatee under WILL dated 10.07.1922 in
O.S.no.1343/2008 and not as Inamdar would also
indicate that said lands were not Inam lands.
12. On above reasoning, learned District had arrived at
a finding of fact. In absence of establishing that said
conclusion was contrary to material on record or arrived
at in ignorance of relevant material, cannot be
interfered with in writ Jurisdiction."
3. The submission of Mr.Vijay Krishna Bhat,
Advocate for the appellant is that the claim in the suit of
which a reference has been made by the learned Single
Judge in paragraph No.11, being O.S.No.1343/2008, was
as a legatee and not as an Inamdar is not tenable. But,
he do concede to the conclusion drawn by the learned
Single Judge that the father of the appellant who had filed
an application for grant of Inam lands did not include the
petition lands being Sy.Nos.63 and 82 (as is clear from
page No.53 of the paper book). In this regard, we may
reproduce paragraph No.19 of the judgment of the learned
I Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in
NC: 2025:KHC:9042-DB
M.A.No.39/2007 dated 07.03.2018, wherein the following
has been stated:-
"19. As discussed above, it is an admitted fact that
father of the appellant Sri. Seenappa and his two
brothers had filed application for re-grant of land in
various Survey numbers of Bemmenahalli and
Nimbekaipura Villages. In that application Sy.No.63 and
82 of Bommenahalli village were not included. There is
no explanation by the appellant why those two
properties were not included in the application filed by
his father and uncles, if really those properties were
inam lands. That shows, as they were not Inam lands,
appellant's father and his brothers did not put up their
claim in respect of said two survey numbers seeking re-
grant order under the Act. Otherwise, there was no
possibility to exclude only these two properties and
include all other properties. Adding to that, the
appellant's father and two brothers did not challenge
the re-grant order during their life time. The appellant
who claims right through his father can not claim
something not urged or asserted by his father or right
not available to his father."
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that as a fresh application has been made,
liberty be granted to the appellant to pursue the same
before the Tahsildar. We find that the learned Single
Judge had noted a similar submission in paragraph No.5 of
the impugned order, but has not granted the liberty and
dismissed the writ petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:9042-DB
5. If that be so, the final conclusion drawn by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned order more
particularly, when the conclusion is on a finding of fact,
the same cannot be interfered with. That apart, it is not
the case of the appellant that the conclusion arrived is
contrary to material on record. We do not see any merit
in the appeal, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
MH/-
