[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Kadiri Narasamma @ Menasamma vs Sri Thimmaiah on 27 March, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO.14663 OF 2016 (KVOA)

BETWEEN:

SMT. KADIRI NARASAMMA @ MENASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
W/O LATE CHIKKA HANUMAIAH,
RESIDING OF RACHANAMADU VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY HER LR'S
(PETITIONER DIED ON 29.11.2016
LR APPLICATION WAS ALLOWED ON 19.01.2018
WITH PERMISSION OF COURT AMENDMENT
CARRIED OUT ON 19.01.2018)

P1(B) SMT JAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
D/O KADIRI NARASAMMA @ MENASAMMA,
W/O SRI NAGARAJU,
R/AT NO.45, GUNDU RAO QUARTERS,
MAGADI ROAD, DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ABHINAY Y T, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KARTHIK V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O VENKATARAMAPPA,
RESIDING OF RACHANAMADU VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
2. SRI CHIKKA NARASIMHAIAH,
2

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O NARASIMHAIAH,
RESIDING AT RACHANAMADU VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URRBAN DISTRICT.

3. SRI RAJA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
RESIDING OF RACHANAMADU VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

4. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-9.

5. SMT NARASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
W/O SRI PUTTANNA,
D/O SMT KADIRI NARASAMMA @ MENASAMMA @
LATE CHIKKA HANUMAIAH,
R/AT NO.40, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
HOSAKERE HALLI ROAD, VEERABHADRA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 085.

6. SMT GALAMMA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S

6(a) SRI HANUMANTHAPPA,
HUSBAND OF LATE GALAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

6(b) MS.UMA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
D/O LATE GALAMMA & SRI HANUMANTHAPPA,

6(c) SRI DILIP,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
S/O LATE GALAMMA & SRI HANUMANTHAPPA,
R6(a to c) ARE RESIDING AT NO.13,
BYTARAYANAPURA SLUM QUARTERS,
VASUDEVABHATTACHARYA EXTENSION,
3

NEAR SHARADA SCHOOL, BENGALURU - 560 026.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA A, ADVOCATE C/R1,
SRI RAJAKUMAR M, AGA FOR R4,
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT,
R3, R5, R6(a), R6(b) & R6(c) ARE SERVED
BUT UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECRODS CONNECTED WITH
MA.108/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF II ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE
TO THE EXAMINE THE SAME AND ISSUE A WRIT CERTIORARI
QUASHING JUDGEMENT DTD 20.2.2016 PRODUCED AS PER
ANENXURE-L AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 25th MARCH 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CAV ORDER

This petition is filed assailing the order dated

20.02.2016, in M.A.No.108/2011, on the file of II Additional

District Judge, Bangalore Rural District.

2. In terms of the said impugned order at Annexure-

L, learned District Judge has allowed the appeal under

Section 3(2) of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961,

('Act, 1961') filed by respondent No.1. Consequently, the

order at Annexure-H, dated 20.07.2010, in HOA.CR.87/

2003-04, passed by Tahsildar is set-aside.
4

3. The Tahsildar in terms of the said order dated

20.07.2010 at Annexure-H, had re-granted the land bearing

Survey No.3, measuring 2 acres 35 guntas, in Rachanamadu

Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk in favour of

Kadari Narasamma @ Menasamma, the original petitioner of

this petition.

4. In terms of the impugned order, the learned

District Judge by setting aside Tahsildar's order has

regranted the land in favour of respondents No.1 to 3 the

legal representatives of late Narasimhaiah.

5. The learned District Judge further held that late

Narasimhaiah was the original barwardar of the land in

question, and late Narasimhaiah had sold the

aforementioned property to Thimmaiah son of

Venkataramanappa (the appellant before the learned District

Judge) through registered sale deed dated 09.09.1971.

6. The learned District Judge also held that, though

the property was re-granted in favour the legal

representatives of late Narasimhaiah, in view of the law in

Syed Bhasheer Ahmed And Others V. State of
5

Karnataka1, the benefit of the grant would enure to the

purchaser. Thus, the learned District Judge directed the re-

grant in favour of Thimmaiah-the purchaser from Late

Narasimhaiah.

7. The petitioner Kadari Narasamma @ Menasamma

(wife of late Chikka Hanumaiah, and the daughter of late

Narasimhaiah who sold the property on 09.09.1971) is

before this Court assailing the order passed by the learned

District Judge.

8. The genealogy furnished by the original petitioner

Kadari Narasamma is as under and this genealogy appears

to be not in dispute.

BYLA

HOTTETHIMMAIAH (DEAD) MUNIVENKATAMMA (WIFE (DEAD))

BYLAPPA CHIKKAHANUMAIAH
(DEAD) (DEAD)

KADIRI NARASAMMA
@ MENASAMMA

1
ILR 1994 KAR159
6

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would contend that Kadari Narasamma @ Menasamma,

(original writ petitioner) is wife of Chikka Hanumaiah. Said

Chikka Hanumaiah is son of Hotte Thimmaiah. Said Hotte

Thimmaiah is the son of Byla. And said Byla is the son of

Byla (both father and son are named Byla).

10. It is urged that Byla, the propositus was the

Holder of village office. After his demise, said office is

inherited by his son Byla. And after the demise of said Byla

son of Byla, Hotte Thimmaiah inherited the office. Said Hotte

Thimmaiah had two sons namely Bylappa and Chikka

Hanumaiah. Bylappa was unmarried and died without issues.

Chikka Hanumaiah married Kadari Narasamma. Said Kadari

Narasamma after the death of her husband Chikka

Hanumaiah inherited the rights of a village office holder.

11. The contention is, Kadari Narasamma, being the

wife of Chikka Hanumaiah, alone is entitled to re-grant.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge

that, Kadari Narasamma's father-Narasimhaiah though sold

Sy.No.3 measuring 2 acre 35 guntas to Thimmaiah-1st

respondent of this petition, through a registered sale deed
7

dated 09.09.1971; the sale is invalid and does not confer

any right in favour of 1st respondent-Thimmaiah as

Narasimhaiah did not have any right over the said property.

It is also urged that, as on the date of sale (09.09.1971) the

property was not yet re-granted to Narasimhaiah or any one

else.

13. Under the Act, 1961, three applications were

filed seeking re-grant. One application dated 29.11.1967 is

by Narasimhaiah (father of Kadari Narasamma), and another

application dated 26.09.1977 by 1st respondent-Thimmaiah

who purchased the property under the sale deed dated

09.09.1971 from Narasimhaiah, and the third one is by

Kadari Narasamma the daughter of Narasimhaiah, is dated

28.08.2003 marked at Annexure-R1(8). It is to be noticed

that Kadari Narasamma has not claimed right through her

father but from her husband.

14. Initially, in the first round of litigation, vide order

dated 14.05.1979, the application filed by 1st respondent-

Thimmaiah seeking re-grant of the land which he had

purchased under the registered sale deed dated 09.09.1971

was rejected. The application filed by Narasimhaiah seeking
8

re-grant was not considered as Narasimhaiah had died by

the time the order was passed.

15. In terms of the said order dated 14.05.1979, the

Assistant Commissioner directed that, in case, there is a

claim by legal heirs of Narasimhaiah, same has to be

adjudicated. Assistant Commissioner also held that 1st

respondent-Thimmaiah is in unauthorized occupation and

has to be evicted.

16. Admittedly no such eviction proceeding has taken

place.

17. It is seen that legal representatives of late

Narasimhaiah namely, Chikka Narasimhaiah and Raja

Narayanappa, and the daughter-Kadari Narasamma, did

not make a claim to re-grant the land immediately after the

demise of Narasimhaiah as legal representatives of

Narasimhaiah. Chikka Narasimhaiah and Raja Narayanappa

filed Writ Petition No.38785/2003 and sought direction to

consider their claim as legal representatives of deceased

Narasimhaiah. The Court directed the consideration of the

same by the Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, in view of

the amendment to the law, the jurisdiction is conferred on
9

the Tahsildar and accordingly, the legal representatives of

Narasimhaiah namely Chikka Narasimhaiah and Raja

Narayanappa filed claim before the Tahsildar in proceeding

No.HOACR87/2003-2004. And Kadari Narasamma made the

claim for the first time in the year 2003 by moving an

application in the proceeding before the Tahsildar which was

initiated at the instance of Chikka Narasimhaiah and Raja

Narayanappa.

18. It is relevant to notice that, Kadari Narasamma

made the claim for re-grant in the year 2003, not as the

daughter of Narasimhaiah, but as successor of her husband

on the premise that her husband's ancestors were the Village

Office Holders.

19. The Tahsildar in the said proceeding referred to

above, vide order dated 21.08.2006 held that Chikka

Narasimhaiah and Raja Narayanappa, the legal heirs of

Narasimhaiah are eligible for re-grant.

20. Kadari Narasamma filed an appeal before District

Judge in M.A.No.139/2006 challenging the order dated

21.08.2006 rejecting her application seeking re-grant and

allowing Narasimhaiah's application.
10

21. The said appeal was allowed-in-part, vide order

dated 09.03.2007, and the matter was remitted to Tahsildar

for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

22. The order in M.A.No.139/2006 remitting the

matter to Tahsildar is called in question by 1st respondent-

Thimmaiah in Writ Petition in W.P.No.6164/2007. 1st

respondent-Thimmaiah also filed W.P. 12186/2006 seeking a

declaration that in view of re-grant of land to his seller

Narasimhaiah's two sons, the purchaser- Thimmaiah would

be entitled to the benefit of re-grant as per the ratio in

Syed Bhaseer Ahmed (supra).

23. Writ petitions are disposed of vide order dated

22.08.2008, with an observation that the declaration sought

in the Writ Petition cannot be considered in writ jurisdiction.

24. 1st respondent-Thimmaiah filed Writ Appeals No.

1615/2008 and 2177/2008 assailing the order in the

aforementioned Writ Petitions.

25. The Division Bench vide order dated 26.06.2012

disposed of the Writ Appeals with liberty to agitate all

grounds in M.A.No.108/2011 pending before District Judge
11

which was filed by 1st respondent-Thimmaiah assailing the

order dated 20.07.2010 passed by Tahsildar as the Tahsildar

had re-granted the land to Kadari Narasamma pursuant to

the remand order dated 09.03.2007 in M.A.No.139/2006.

26. In M.A.No.108/2011, the learned District Judge

in terms of the impugned order dated 20.02.2016 has set-

aside the order passed by Tahsildar and re-granted the

property to legal representatives of deceased Narasimhaiah

and also held that the said re-grant would enure to the

benefit of 1st Thimmaiah-the appellant in M.A.No. 108/2011.

27. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

(legal representatives of the original petitioner Kadari

Narasamma) assailing the order in M.A. No. 108/2011 would

contend that Narasimhaiah, the father of the original

petitioner, is not an heir to the property of Byla and his

descendants. Kadari Narasamma being the daughter-in-law

of Hotte Thimmaiah is the only person who can claim re-

grant.

28. It is further urged that, merely because tastik

amount is said to have been received by him, Narasimhaiah

cannot claim to be the Barwardar of the property.
12

29. It is also urged that Narasimhaiah never made a

claim that his ancestors were village office holders. Tahsildar

having rightly noticed that Kadari Narasamma has inherited

the property as village office holder from her husband

Chikka Hanumaiah, rightly ordered re-grant in favour of

Kadari Narasamma.

30. The learned District Judge could not have

disbelieved Annexure-B, the copy of the extract of barabaluti

the property is located in Bengaluru South taluk, it is quite

possible that when Annexure B was issued, the office of the

Tahsildar, Bengaluru South might have been vacant on

account of transfer or retirement of the Tahsildar and the

Tahsildar, Bengaluru North must have had the charge of

Bengaluru South Tahsildar is the submission.

31. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also

urge that under the Act, 1961, the expressions 'Holder of

village office' or 'Holder' and 'Officiator' are defined.

Narasimhaiah whose claim is allowed, cannot be considered

as 'Holder of a village office' or 'Holder' is the submission.
13

32. The Court's attention is also invited to Annexure

R1(1), the application filed by late Narasimhaiah under

Section 5 of Act, 1961 and the Rules framed under the Act,

1961. In the application, Narasimhaiah has claimed one

Venkatagiri as Barwardar and also stated that he is

interested in serving as Thoti. Referring to the contents of

the said application dated 29.11.1967 marked at Annexure

R1(1), it is urged that, late Narasimhaiah did not make a

claim that he is a 'Holder of a village office' or 'Holder'.

33. It is urged that, at best, late Narasimhaiah can

claim to be the 'Officiator', and the "Officiator" under the Act,

1961, does not get the status of the "Holder of a village

office" or "Holder" and is ineligible to claim re-grant as held

in Deshaih vs Chinnaswamy2

34. It is also urged that, having applied to be

registered as Thoti, on the same day, i.e., 29.11.1967,

Narasimhaiah filed an application under Section 5 of Act,

1961 seeking re-grant of the land. Later, he filed undated

application under Section 9. In the said application, the

2
(1995) 5 KLJ 402
14

details of "Village Office" is not furnished and columns meant

for it is mentioned as 'nil'.

35. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that,

certified copy of the barabaluti register marked at Annexure-

B, reveals that the petitioner's husband's ancestor-Byla as

the "Holder of village office" and, as such, applicant Kadari

Narasamma is entitled to re-grant as held by Tahsildar.

36. Referring to the original records in the

government file (secured by the Court), it is also urged that

the Revenue Inspector had submitted the report to the

Tahsildar stating that the property in possession of

Narasimhaiah. Tahasildar forwarded the said report to the

Assistant Commissioner. The said report dated 02.06.1972

is rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the premise

that, the Revenue Inspector is not a competent person to

issue such report.

37. It is also urged that the Assistant Commissioner

on 16.09.1974 has also directed that the copy of the

barabaluti register be produced for further action and the

Tahasildar has addressed a letter to the Assistant

Commissioner on 06.07.1977 enclosing the extract of the
15

barabaluti register. Said extract is marked at Annexure-B

and learned District Judge erred in rejecting the claim on the

premise that, the name of the village is struck off and

rewritten in the extract of the barabaluti register.

38. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners

that, claim of first respondent is accepted on the basis of the

tastik said to have been paid in respect of the petition

property in the year 1987. The tastik is said to have been

paid is based on the report of the Revenue Inspector, which

is without jurisdiction and said report was already rejected

by the Assistant Commissioner.

39. Learned counsel for the petitioners would place

reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Thimmarasiah vs The Mysore Revenue
Appellate Tribunal & Others3

(ii) G.V.Subba Rao vs Tahsildar & Ors.4

(iii) Sri. Kempaiah vs Chikkaboramma and
others5

40. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would raise

the following contentions:

3
1967(1) Mys.L.J.41
4
ILR 1998 Kar 2371
5
AIR 1998 SC 3335
16

40.1 The original petitioner Kadari Narasamma has

made a statement in the year 2003, that her father has sold

the property in favour of first respondent-Thimmaiah. Thus,

Kadari Narasamma cannot claim any right over the property

which is sold by her father.

40.2 It is also urged that, husband of Kadari

Narasamma did not file application seeking re-grant. Even

Kadari Narasamma did not file application till 2003, though

law enabled application seeking grant since 1963.

40.3 Kadari Narasamma's father Narasimhaiah sold

the property on 09.09.1971, and Kadari Narasamma was

aware that her father has sold the property and did not make

any claim till 2003 as she was aware that she had no right

over the property. Only after escalation is value of the

property post 2000, the untenable claim is made.

40.4 The Full Bench of this Court in Syed Basheer

(supra), has held that sale deeds executed by the persons

eligible to claim grant, between 01.02.1963 to 07.08.1978,

even before the grant is made, would be valid and the

purchasers in the aforementioned period are also entitled to
17

the benefit of re-grant, in case, the re-grant in favour of the

seller.

41. Learned counsel for the first respondent also

urged that except the concocted barabaluti register extract

marked at Annexure-B, which is issued by the Tahsildar

North, Bengaluru, though the property is located in

Bengaluru South Taluk, no other document is produced to

hold that Kadari Narasamma or her ancestors had right over

the property. Since, the property in question is in Bengaluru

South Taluk, the concocted extract-Annexure B, of alleged

barabaluti register cannot be relied upon.

42. In addition, it is also urged that Annexure-B does

not refer to any Survey number in Column No.17 and does

not refer to any extent in Column No.18 as required. The

said extract refers to Vadarepura village and same is struck

off and later the village "Rachanamudu" is inserted and

No.73 is mentioned in the column pertaining to village and it

cannot be construed that the said number refers to survey

No.73.

43. Late Narasimhaiah did receive tastik amount from

the Government which would demonstrate that Narasimhaiah
18

was doing Thoti service, as such, is entitled to claim re-grant

is the further contention.

44. It is also urged that Kadari Narasamma's father

sold the property on 09.09.1971 to first respondent -

Thimmaiah and the petitioners cannot claim any right over

the property and there was no objection to the said sale

deed.

45. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would also

urge that the application filed by impleading applicants who

intend to come on record as respondents No. 7 and 8, is also

not maintainable as the sale deed dated 28.07.2014

executed by petitioner-Kadari Narasamma is not valid as the

transaction is hit by rule of lis pendes and also within 15

years' non-alienation period imposed under Section 5(3) of

Act, 1961.

46. In addition, is also urged that the original

petitioner Kadari Narasamma having sold the property

(without title) on 28.07.2014, cannot prosecute the petition

to challenge the order passed by the learned District Judge

which is rendered on 20.02.2016 after the aforementioned

sale deed dated 28.07.2014. It is also urged that the sale is
19

not brought to the notice of the Court when the matter was

pending before the learned District Judge.

47. In support of the contention learned counsel for

the Respondent No.1 has relied o the judgment of Apex

Court in H. Anjanappa and Others vs. A. Prabhakar and

Others6.

48. The Court has considered the contention raised at

the Bar and perused the records.

49. As far as the contention relating to the sale of the

property during the pendency of the proceeding before the

District Court and not bringing the same to the notice of the

District Court is concerned, the Court is of the view that the

sale during the pendency of the proceeding is not barred

unless there is any such prohibition in terms of the orders

passed by the court.

50. There is no mandate under law to disclose the

sale that has taken place during the pendency of the

proceeding. Not reporting the sale in the absence of any

court order restraining such sale, does not render the

6
2025 SCC OnLine SC 183
20

transaction invalid or the seller does not lose the locus to

prosecute or defend the proceeding. However, it would be

appropriate and fair on the part of the seller to bring to the

notice of the Court about the sale transaction. In any case

the transaction will be subject to the decision the Court.

51. It is also noticed that Section 5(3) of Act, 1961,

providing restriction on alienation for 15 years from the date

of the grant, is amended in 2003 and after the said

amendment, the 15 years' restriction has to be reckoned

from the date of re-grant after the amendment in 2003. Thus

the sale would be null and void. In such an event, proviso to

Section 5(4) of the Act, 1961 enables the heirs of transferors

to seek re-grant.

52. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to prosecute the

matter, notwithstanding the sale of the property as the

purchaser's right will be subject to the result of the

proceeding. The ratio laid down in H. Anjanappa and

Others (supra), has no application to the case on hand to

prevent Kadari Narasamma the respondent before the

District Court, from challenging the order passed by District

Judge who has set aside the order which was in favour of
21

Kadari Narasamma. Said Kadari Narasamma is not a

pendente lite purchaser. She is pendente lite seller. The ratio

in H. Anjanappa and others (supra), applies to the

pendente lite purchaser.

53. Now the questions that need consideration are;

(i) Whether the petitioner Kadari Narasamma
had made out a case for re-grant?

(ii) Whether respondent No.1-the purchaser from
late Narasimhaiah, has made out a case for
re-grant in his favour or in favour of heirs of
Narasimhaiah and can claim benefit of re-
grant order made in favour of heirs of
Narasimhaiah?

54. It is not in dispute that the Act, 1961 came into

force on 01.02.1963. Thus, both the parties to the

proceedings must establish that as on 01.02.1963 they were

eligible to seek re-grant.

55. The law relating to barabaluti register mandates

that two barabaluti registers should be maintained; one in

the Taluka office and another in the District office. The

correctness of Annexure-B, the alleged extract of barabaluti
22

District Court.

56. The Court is of the view that, the veracity of

Annexure-B has to be ascertained by comparing with original

57. In the light of the contentions raised, the Court

vide order dated 08.01.2026, directed the Government to

produce the original barabaluti register relating to the land in

question. The Tahasildar has filed a memo dated 01.07.2025

stating that, the barabaluti register is not maintained.

58. The Court brought to the notice of the learned

Government advocate that certified copy of the extract of

barabaluti register is produced at Annexure-B, and vide

order dated 14.01.2026, directed the Tahasildar to file an

affidavit explaining the basis for issuing extract of barabaluti

59. The Tahasildar Bengaluru South Taluk has filed

the affidavit dated 02.06.2026. The relevant portion of the

affidavit reads as under:
23

"3. I state and submit that after gone (sic) through
the Bala Baluthi copy issued by the Bengaluru North Taluk this
Office is (sic) verified the entire register of Shanabhogha
Inamti but there was (sic) not registered records in Sy.No.3 of
Rachanamadu Village, Bengaluru South Taluk Office. This
Office in (sic) only maintain (sic) Shanabhoghana Inamati Bala
Baluthi registered but not (sic) maintain the Bala Baluthi
registered of Thoti Inamti Registered.''

60. The document at Annexure-B produced by the

petitioner is said to be the copy of the barabaluti register

extract said to have been issued by Tahsildar, Bengaluru

North Taluk on 13.03.1975.

61. The column No.7 of the said register refers to

responsibility/obligation between original person and the

person whose name appears in the register. (The Court has

interpreted the Kannada word "bhadhyate" appearing in

column No.7 as responsibility/obligation)

Against the said column, the following entry is made:-

"SDO.No.Dis.B-24/37-38 16.8.37."

62. Apparently this entry in column No.7 does not

convey any meaning. And as observed by the learned District
24

Judge, in column No.2 the name of the village Vaderapura is

struck off and Rachanamudu is mentioned.

63. In column No.3 the person's name is mentioned

as Byla and in column No.8 father's name is mentioned as

Byla.

64. The column No.17 pertains to survey number and

column No.18 pertains to the extent. Both columns are left

blank.

65. It is to be noticed that admittedly the property is

located in Bengaluru South Taluk and the copy is issued by

the Bengaluru North Taluk on 13.03.1975.

66. The certified copy of barabaluti register could not

have been issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk

when the property is located in South Talulk is one of the

contentions of the respondent No.1. No explanation in this

behalf is furnished before the District Judge and the

Tahsildar.

67. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the

petitioners urged that Bengaluru South Taluk Tahsildar's

charge must have been with Bengaluru North Taluk
25

Tahasildar either on account of leave or transfer or some

kind of vacancy.

68. It is relevant to notice that Tahsildar, Bengaluru

South was arrayed as respondent No.4 before the learned

District Judge. The Tahsildar was not represented before the

learned District Judge.

69. In a proceeding like this, the barabaluti register is

an important piece of document to consider the claim related

to re-grant.

70. The extract of barabaluti register marked at

Annexure-B is doubted on the ground that it is issued by the

Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk though the property is

located in Bengaluru South Taluk. Opposing the objection, it

is pointed out that the occupancy price paid by the first

respondent is received by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North

Taluk. Merely because the Annexure-B is issued by the

Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, that may not by itself be a

ground to disbelieve the Annexure-B. It is a possibility that,

for certain period or on a given date the Tahsildar, Bengaluru

North might be holding charge of Tahsildar, Bengaluru

South. However, said contention is not established.
26

Assuming that Tahsildar Bengaluru South, was absent and

charge was with Tahasildar Bengaluru North, even then, said

document does not refer to the property in question. The

errors and infirmities in the said document as already noticed

above are considered by the District Judge. There is no

evidence to corroborate the entry in Annexure-B. The burden

is on the petitioners to explain the discrepancies in

Annexure-B. The petitioners have not produced another

certified copy of barabaluti register.

71. The view taken by the District Judge to disbelieve

said document cannot be said to be erroneous to interfere in

the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India as

no other document is available to hold that Sy.No.3 was

possessed by Byla as Holder of village office.

72. The view taken by the District Judge is

strengthened by the memo and the affidavit filed by the

Tahsildar, Bengaluru South where it is stated that the

barabaluti register is not maintained. The law mandates such

maintained. Hence, there has to be an appropriate direction

in this behalf.
27

73. However, in any case, the petitioners' claim is not

established through Annexure-B, as the said document does

not refer to the property involved in this petition.

74. In the order dated 20.07.2010, Tahsildar has held

that Kadari Narasamma's husband and husband's father and

grand-father were the occupants of the petition land.

However, the basis for rendering such a finding is not

forthcoming in the said order.

75. The Tahsildar in his order dated 20.07.2010 has

concluded that Byla was the Barwardar and thereafter, it is

inherited by his descendants and Kadari Narasamma being

the wife of great grand-son of Byla has discharged the duty

as Thoti and is entitled to re-grant. It is to be noticed that,

while recording the said finding, the Tahsildar has referred to

the order in M.A.No.139/2006.

76. The Tahsildar has also come to the conclusion

that, the purchaser-respondent No.1 is not entitled to re-

grant as he purchased the property from a person who is not

the member of the village office holder's family or authorized

holder.
28

77. The Tahsildar has recorded a finding that order

dated 28.01.2006 granting land to Chikka Narasimhaiah son

of Narasimhaiah and Raja son of Narayanappa is held to be

erroneous in terms of order dated 09.03.2007 in M.A.

No.139/2006 passed by the District Court. Though the order

passed by the Tahsildar on 28.01.2006 is set-aside by the

District Judge in M.A. No.139/2006, it is to be noticed in

W.A. Nos.1615/2008 and 2177/2008 this Court permitted

the appellant-Thimmaiah in the said appeal to raise all the

contentions available. However, it appears that Tahsildar

was carried away by the order in M.A. No.139/2006.

78. It appears from the observation in the Tahsildar's

order dated 20.07.2010 that, the Tahsildar has understood

the order in M.A. No.139/2006 as having upheld the contents

of Annexure-B, the alleged extract of barabaluti register.

79. Tahsildar has proceeded on the premise that

Narasimhaiah is not the member family of Barwardar. It is

to be noticed that Narasimhaiah did not claim to be the

member of family of Byla.

80. Learned District Judge in the impugned order has

opined that, the Tahsildar while passing the order dated
29

20.07.2010 has ignored the stay order granted by the High

Court in the pending Writ Appeals. It is stated that, the stay

order is granted in the Writ Appeals on 15.04.2011, and not

on 20.07.2010. The observation of the District Judge that

the Tahsildar has passed the order when the proceeding was

stayed is erroneous. However, District Judge has not set

aside the order dated 20.07.2010 passed by the Tahsildar on

the said ground alone.

81. The learned District Judge has also held that the

extract of barabaluti register does not refer to the property

in question. District Judge has noticed that no application is

filed by children of grandchildren of Byla seeking re-grant.

Thus, the District Judge has held that the claim of Kadari

Narasamma, that Byla was the village office holder is

doubtful. Those observations/findings are certainly plausible

based on records.

82. In the original record, there is a document which

records that Byla is Thoti of Rachanamudu village and he is

unable to discharge the duty and in his place Narasimhaiah is

appointed temporarily to discharge the duty. Based on the
30

said order, the petitioners contend that the status of Byla as

'Holder of village office' is established.

83. The Court has perused the original file submitted

by the learned Government Advocate. Said order relied on by

the petitioners is in page No. 34 of the original file. Said

order reads as under.

"ºÉÆÃ§½ ªÀÄdPÀÆgÀÄ gÁd£ÀªÀÄqÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ vÉÆÃn ¨ÉÊ¯Á vÀ£Àß SÁ¬Ä¯É
¸À§Æ§Ä PÉ®ì £ÀªÀð»¸À¯ÁgÀ DV, CzÉÃ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ £ÀgÀ²AºÀå£À
ºÀAUÁ«Ä AiÀiÁV vÉÆÃn PÉ®ìPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄî ¸À¨ï r«d£ï £ÀA.952
vÁjÃRÄ 8-4-1930£ÉÃ £ÀA§gï DqÀðgï §AzÀzÁÝVgÀÄvÉÛ. F CA±À
¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄªÀjUÉ w½¹ gÀÄdÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ C. ªÀiÁr."

84. Aforementioned order does not refer to any

survey number, or extent of the land. It is difficult to hold

that the said order is pertaining to petition property.

85. More important, the document at page No.34 in

the original file is neither the original order nor the certified

copy. It is said to be the "copy". It does not disclose as to

who prepared the said document/copy. It does not bear any

seal of the office.

86. Thus, this Court is not inclined to hold that said

document is a piece of acceptable evidence to conclude that
31

the Byla was Holder of village office based on said document.

Thus both the documents, namely Annexure-B, the alleged

extract of barabaluti register and alleged order handing over

the Thoti work to Narasimhaiah are not proved and cannot

be relied upon.

87. The learned District Judge has concluded that

Narsimhaiah was rendering Thoti service and he has received

salary for the service in the year 1972 in terms of orders

dated 08.04.1930 by paying the land revenue. The learned

District Judge has referred to Section 2(1)(f) of Act, 1961 to

hold that late Narasimhaiah was the person having interest

in the property in terms of order dated 08.04.1930.

88. Learned District Judge has also referred to

Section 2(1)(n) of Act, 1961 to hold that the tastik received

by Narasimhaiah is an emolument attached to the village

office.

89. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the

tastik paid in the year 1972 cannot be considered as proof of

Thoti service rendered.
32

90. It is indeed true that Narasimhaiah in his

application marked at Annexure-R1(1) has introduced

himself as interested to serve as Thoti. In the said

application, he has mentioned Venkatagiri as Barwardar.

Narasimhaiah did not claim that Byla was village office

holder.

91. The learned District Judge has referred to the

tastik payment made from 1987 to 2004. Said finding is

untenable as the right of the person claiming re-grant is to

be determined with reference to the rights possessed by the

applicant as on the appointed date i.e. on 01.02.1963.

92. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Deshaiah

(supra), has held that Officiator is not entitled to re-grant as

the Officiator is not recognized under Section 5 of Act, 1961.

In the said judgment, the Court has not considered the

scope of proviso to Section 7 of the Act, 1961 (before the

amendment of 1978), which provided for re-grant of land to

unauthorized occupant.

93. The learned District Judge has also held that

name of Narasimhaiah was found in the records for the year

1969-70 as Thoti and has also referred to the Tahsildar's
33

report dated 11.07.1972 to come to the conclusion that

Narasimhaiah was discharging duty as Thoti since 1930.

94. The Court does not agree with the finding of the

District Court that Narasimhaiah was in possession of the

property for more than 40 years by paying the land revenue.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, the Tahsildar's report dated 11.07.1972 is not

accepted by the Assistant Commissioner as the Assistant

Commissioner has opined that the Revenue Inspector is not

a competent person to draw the report relating to the

possession of inam lands.

95. As already noticed, the Court has held the original

barabaluti register is not available. The Court has held that

Kadari Narasamma has failed to establish that the property

was assigned to her husband's ancestor Byla as Holder of

village office. Applying the same analogy, the Court has to

take a view that there are no records to hold that

Narasimhaiah was the Holder of village office.

96. The original file maintained by the Government

would disclose two certified copies. One document is said to

be the certified copy of a register maintained by the Revenue
34

Department. However, the nomenclature of the register is

not specifically mentioned. Said certified copy was issued to

Thoti Narasimhaiah on 16.11.1967. Said document would

disclose Venkatagiri as Thoti.

97. Another document is the certified copy of an

extract issued on 16.11.1967 to Thoti Narasimhaiah. The

nomenclature of the register from which said document is

issued is not forthcoming. Said document also reveals that a

Thoti Venkatagiri is in possession of the property. These two

documents do not disclose the name of Thoti Narasimhaiah.

98. This being the position, the Court has to hold

that, there are no records to show that Narasimhaiah was

holding the property as Holder of village office.

99. The certified copy of record of right for the years

1967-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 would disclose name of

Narasimhaiah in column No.9. However, the basis for such

entry is not forthcoming. Under these circumstances, the

finding of the District Court that Thoti Narasimhaiah was the

Barwardar of the land in question cannot be accepted.
35

100. It is noticed that, the property is sold to first

respondent by Narasimhaiah on 09.09.1971. Till today, the

State has not taken steps for resumption of land for itself.

There are no other claimants for the re-grant.

101. In the year 1979, the Assistant Commissioner

passed rejected the application of first respondent-

Thimmaiah who sought re-grant based on the sale deed. In

the said order the Assistant Commissioner has directed

eviction of first respondent-Thimmaiah and directed to

consider the claim of legal representatives of deceased

Narasimhaiah. However, no steps are taken to resume the

land from the first respondent.

102. In the peculiar facts of the case discussed above,

it is evident that the first respondent is in possession of the

property. It is noticed that heirs of Narasimhaiah (other

than Kadari Narasamma) have given up their claim by

entering into settlement with Kadari Narasamma. It is also

noticed that except Kadari Narasamma who made a claim in

2003 stating that her husband's ancestors were village

office holders, none from the family of Byla made a claim

over the said property.
36

103. The Court has also noticed that Narasimhaiah was

not the village office holder. Should the Court set aside the

re-grant order in favour of children of Narasimhaiah in a

situation where Narasimhaiah has sold the property in 1971

to 1st respondent?

104. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge

that the Division Bench of this Court in Thimmarasiah

(supra), has held that to make a claim as Holder of village

office, one has to be the officer and without being the officer

and merely by being in possession, a person cannot claim to

be a Holder of village office under the Act, 1908. It is indeed

true the Division Bench in the aforementioned case has held

that one who is merely performing the duties of a village

officer, is not a village officer within the meaning of the Act,

1908.

105. It is relevant to notice that Act, 1961, has

repealed the Act, 1908. The Act, 1961 has defined the

expression "Holder of village office" or "Holder" and also

defined the expression "Unauthorised Holder". The judgment

in Thimmarasiah (supra), does not deal with the provisions

of the Act, 1961.
37

106. It is also relevant to notice that, Act, 1961 was

amended in 1978 and till then, Section 7 of the Act, 1961

provided for grant of land to unauthorized holder. It is only

after the amendment in the year 1978, the law provided for

eviction of unauthorized person and re-grant of land to the

village office holder.

107. In the instant case, the claim for re-grant was

made on 29.11.1967 by Narasimhaiah and it is well before

the amendment to Section 7 of Act, 1961.

108. Whether the amendment to Section 7 of Act of

1961 is prospective or retrospective, is a matter that may

require consideration to consider the claim of first

respondent. No arguments are advanced with reference to

the amendment to Section 7 of the Act of 1961 which was

brought into effect in 1978.

109. Narasimhaiah was in unauthorized occupation of

the land. The reason is Assistant Commissioner in his order

dated 14.05.1979 has held that 1st respondent -purchaser

from Narasimhaiah is in unauthorized occupation. That would

mean his seller Narasimhaiah was in unauthorized

occupation. In that event heirs of Narasimhaiah including
38

Kadari Narasamma are eligible to re-grant if the amendment

to Section is held to be prospective. In that event the benefit

of re-grant would enure to the benefit of 1st respondent in

view of law declared in Syed Basheer (supra).

110. If the amendment to Section 7 is held to be

retrospective, then, Narasimhaiah is not entitled to seek re-

grant.

111. Though it is evident that the amendment to

Section 7 is by way of substitution, and in such situation

generally, the amendment is retrospective or retroactive, it

is also well settled position of law that, there is no such

absolute rule that the amendment by way of substitution is

always retrospective. In a given situation it may have

prospective application as well.

112. However, in this case the Court need not embark

upon the question which is not addressed, more so in a

situation where said question if answered in either way will

not come to the aid of the petitioners as the Court has

already come to the conclusion that the petitioners have

failed to establish that the Byla was the Holder of village

office or Holder. Apart from that, sons of Narasimhaiah have
39

given up their claim over the property. The claim is

prosecuted by Kadari Narasamma, not in her capacity as the

daughter of Narasimhaiah, but in her capacity as heir of her

husband. In that view of the matter the petition has to be

dismissed holding that the petitioners are not entitled to re-

grant.

113. The first respondent is in possession of the

property eversince he purchased in 1971, and the said sale

was facilitated because of entry in the record of right in the

name of Narasimhaiah, and State has not cancelled the sale,

(though the Assistant Commissioner has held that the

purchaser is not eligible to seek re-grant) and also

considering the fact that position of the purchaser has

changed in view of the law in Syed Basheer (supra), the

Court is of the view that the possession held by the

purchaser from Narasimhaiah since 1971 should not be

disturbed in a proceeding filed by Kadari Narasamma who

did not acquire any right over the property for the reasons

already discussed.
40

114. The Court has passed this order by taking into

consideration that the State never laid a claim over the over

the property all these years, and was adjudicating who

among the rival claimants is entitled to the property.

115. This Court has already noticed that the original

barabaluti registers are not available. The jurisdictional

Deputy Commissioner shall take steps to ascertain as to

whether the said registers are kept in any other office

coming under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner.

116. The steps taken in this regard and the outcome of

such exercise shall be reported to the Registry of this Court

within three months from today.

117. The Court has also noticed that some of the

documents referred to in the order which are found in the

original file submitted by the learned Government Advocate

are fragile. Thus, the scanned copies of those documents

are made part of the order by annexing the same as

documents No.1, 2 and 3.

118. Before concluding, it is to be recorded that on

18.03.2026, the case was listed for pronouncement of
41

orders. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought

adjournment on the premise that the original barabaluti

the same. Accepting the request, the matter was adjourned

to 25.03.2026. On that day, the learned counsel for the

petitioners again sought time to produce the records. The

petitioners did not even produce any records to show that an

application is filed to obtain the copy of the Barabaluti

submitted that, the application is filed before the District

Court where according to the petitioners, the certified copy

of the Barabaluti Register was produced. The Court declined

the request for adjournment. However, secured the records

from the District Court through telephonic communication.

The records sent from the District Court did not reveal any

certified copy of Barabaluti Register other than what is

marked as Annexure - B to the Writ Petition. The Court has

already analysed the said document.
42
43
44
45

119. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ petition is dismissed.

(ii) Government Advocate to communicate this order to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to carry out the exercise as directed in paragraphs No.115 and 116.

(iii) The steps to be taken by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to trace the original barabaluti register, as directed in paragraphs No.115 and 116 of this order and the outcome of the steps shall be reported to the Registry of this Court within three months from today.

(iv) The copy of the said report shall be served on the counsel for the petitioners and respondents by the Registry of this Court.

(v) Registry shall send back the records to the District Court.

(vi) Registry shall also return the original records to the learned Government Advocate.

(vii) No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/CHS/GVP