Partly allowed

Rangaramaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2022WP/30087/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An ex-serviceman's land-grant cancellation was quashed, with directions to update property records. The occupants' connected petitions against eviction and for cancellation and regularization were dismissed. The court directed vacation within sixty days, forcible eviction upon default, restoration of possession to the grantees, and exemplary costs.

What did the court decide?

Grant cancellation quashed; property records to be updated within sixty days. Occupants directed to vacate within sixty days, with forcible eviction on default and restoration to grantees; costs impos

Rangaramaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.55134 OF 2016 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.30087 OF 2018 (KLR-LG) WRIT PETITION NO.2471 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.55134/2016:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, W/O SRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO.37/3, “KALYAN”, CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052.

¶10

SMT. SAROJINI HEGDE, W/O LATE SRI.KARUNAKAR HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O NADALU VILLAGE, AJJIEKERE HOBLI, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶11

SRI.ELANGOVAN, S/O SRI. ANNAMALAI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O NO.597, 36^TH MAIN ROAD, 25^TH CROSS, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 097.

¶12

SRI.KASHI RAO SHINDHE, S/O LATE SRI. SHAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS, RESIDING OPP.R.M.C. YARD, B M ROAD, RAMANAGARAM – 562 159.

¶13

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶14

¶15

4(A) SRI.R.K.PRAKASH RAO, S/O LATE SRI KASHI RAO SHINDHE,

¶16

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶17

4(B) SRI.R.K.BABU RAO, S/O LATE SRI KASHI RAO SHINDHE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶18

4(C) SRI.R.K.PANDU RAO, S/O LATE SRI KASHI RAO SHINDHE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶19

4(A) TO 4(C) ARE RESIDING AT BALAGIRI, OPPOSITE TO RMC YARD, BANGALORE MYSORE ROAD, RAMANAGARA TOWN – 562 159. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI.A S PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. M N UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE; (BRINGING LRS OF DECEASED PETITIONERS NO.4 IS WAIVED, V.C.O DATED 14.7.2021)

¶22

AND:

¶23

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶24

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, (FORMELY KNOWN AS THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER) BANGALORE REGION, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶25

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMNAGARAM DISTRICT, RANNAGARAM.

¶26

THE TAHSILDAR, BIDADI TALUK, RAMNAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶29

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.09.1979 PASSED BY R2 IN CASE NO.LND(B)SR.74/76-77 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ALL FURTHER PORCEEDINGS/ACTIONS THERETO.

¶31

IN W.P.NO.30087/2018:

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

RANGARAMAIAH, S/O RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶34

RANGASWAMY, S/O LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶35

CHIKKANNA, S/O LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶36

ALL ARE R/AT HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109 BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.

¶37

…PETITIONERS

¶38

(BY SRI.A.G.SHIVANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL)

¶39

AND:

¶40

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶41

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA -562 159. FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.

¶42

THE TAHSILDAR, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA -562 159. FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.

¶43

¶44

SRI. KASHI RAO SINDHE, S/O SHAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS, R/AT BELAGERI, RAMANAGARA -562 159. FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.

¶45

(A) PRAKASH RAO, S/O LATE KAHI RAO SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶46

(B) BABU RAO, S/O LATE KAHI RAO SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶47

¶48

4(A) TO 4(C) ARE RESIDING AT BELAGERI, OPPOSITE TO RMC YARD, BENGALURU MYSURU ROAD, RAMANAGARA TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶49

RAMSINGH, S/O NARASINGH RAO,

¶50

R/AT BELAGERI, RAMANAGARA -562 159. FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST. SINCE DEAD LBY HIS LRS

¶51

5A) SMT. NIRMALA BAI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O LATE RAMASINGH

¶52

5B) PRATHAP SINGH, S/O LATE RAMASINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶53

5C) RAVINDRANATH SINGH, S/O LATE RAMASINGH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶54

5D) VIJAYA RAMSINGH, S/O LATE RAMASINGH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶55

¶56

5(A) TO 5(D) ARE R/AT BELAGERI, RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159. FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.

¶57

VAISHALI HEGDE, W/O SRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO.37/3, “KALYAN”, CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052.

¶58

SRI.ELANGOVAN, S/O SRI. ANNAMALAI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O NO.597, 36^TH MAIN ROAD, 25^TH CROSS, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 097.

¶59

SMT. SAROJINI HEGDE, W/O LATE SRI.KARUNAKAR HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O NADALU VILLAGE, AJJIEKERE HOBLI, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶60

LEELAVATHI, W/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT NO.65,VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. SINCE DEAD ON 24-05-2018 REP BY LRS

¶61

9A. SRI. M. THIMME GOWDA, W/O LATE LEELAVATHHI, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT NO.65, VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.

¶62

9B. SRI. SHARATH GOWDA, S/O LATE LEELAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.65, VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.

¶63

¶64

9C. SRI. SWAGATH GOWDA, S/O LATE LEELAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.65, VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.

¶65

SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVANANAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KANESHMARI NO.111-A, HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109 BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, (FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).

¶66

SRI.NAGARAJA, S/O LATE SHIVANANAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT KANESHMARI NO.111-A, HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109 BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, (FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).

¶67

SRI.KUMARA H.S. S/O LATE SHIVANANAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT KANESHMARI NO.111-A, HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109 BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, (FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT)

¶68

SMT.ANASUYAMMA, W/O SRI KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA, R/AT TALAGUPPE VILLAGE, PIN:562 101, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, (FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).

¶69

SMT. MANJULA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, W/O SRI. RUDRAIAH, D/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA, R/AT ITTAMADU, PIN:562 101 BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, (FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT). …RESPONDENTS

¶70

¶71

(BY SRI. C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W

¶72

SRI.M.N.UMA SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A) TO (C), C/R6, R7 & R8;

¶73

SRI. NOOR-UL-HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R9(B) & (C); SRI. D.M.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R14; R5(A) TO R5(D) & R9(A) ARE SERVED AND

¶74

UNREPRESENTED)

¶75

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2016 PASSED IN REVISION PETITION NO.129/2003 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-X.

¶76

IN W.P.NO.2471/2019:

¶77

BETWEEN:

¶78

RANGARAMAIAH, S/O RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶79

RANGASWAMY, S/O LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶80

CHIKKANNA, S/O LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶81

ALL ARE R/AT HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109 BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.

¶82

…PETITIONERS

¶83

(BY SRI.A.G.SHIVANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL)

¶84

AND:

¶85

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶86

¶87

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, (FORMELY DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER) BANGALORE REVENUE DIVISION, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶88

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶89

THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA – 562 159.

¶90

FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.

¶91

THE TAHSILDAR, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA – 562 159.

¶92

FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.

¶93

RAMSINGH, S/O NARASINGH RAO, R/AT BELAGERI, RAMANAGARA -562 159. FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST. SINCE DEAD LBY HIS LRS

¶94

A) SMT. NIRMALA BAI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O LATE RAMASINGH

¶95

B) PRATHAP SINGH, S/O LATE RAMASINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶96

C) RAVINDRANATH SINGH, S/O LATE RAMASINGH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶97

D) VIJAYA RAMSINGH, S/O LATE RAMASINGH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶98

5(A) TO 5(D) ARE R/AT BELAGERI, RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159. FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RAMANAGARA DIST.

¶99

¶100

LEELAVATHI, W/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT NO.65,VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. SINCE DEAD ON 24-05-2018 REP BY LRS

¶101

7A. SRI. M. THIMME GOWDA, W/O LATE LEELAVATHHI, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT NO.65, VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.

¶102

7B. SRI. SHARATH GOWDA, S/O LATE LEELAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.65, VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.

¶103

7C. SRI. SWAGATH GOWDA, S/O LATE LEELAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.65, VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.

¶104

SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVANANAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KANESHMARI NO.111-A, HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109 BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, (FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).

¶105

SRI.NAGARAJA, S/O LATE SHIVANANAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT KANESHMARI NO.111-A, HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109 BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, (FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).

¶106

SRI.KUMARA H.S. S/O LATE SHIVANANAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶107

¶108

R/AT KANESHMARI NO.111-A, HOSADODDI VILLAGE, PIN:562 109 BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, (FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT)

¶109

SMT.ANASUYAMMA, W/O SRI KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA, R/AT TALAGUPPE VILLAGE, PIN:562 101, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, (FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).

¶110

SMT. MANJULA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, W/O SRI. RUDRAIAH, D/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA, R/AT ITTAMADU, PIN:562 101 BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, (FORMERLY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT).

¶111

…RESPONDENTS

¶112

(BY SRI. C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. NOOR-UL-HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R7(A-C); SRI. MUDUKAPPA KODABAL, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R12; R6(A),R6(D) & R6(D) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V.C.O DATED 23.06.2021, R6(B) IS D/W)

¶113

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO INITIATE PROCEEDING FOR CANCELLATION OF GRANT OF LAND IN FAVOUR OF 6^TH RESPONDENT IN SY.NO.143, MEASURING 4 ACRES OF TALAGUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND PASS ORDER.

¶114

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶115

¶116

ORDER

¶117

This is a batch of three connected cases:

¶118

(i) W.P.No.55134/2016 by four petitioners, seeks

¶119

to lay a challenge to the order dated 7.9.1979 made by

¶120

the 2^nd respondent at Annexure-A whereby the land granted to the 4^th respondent Mr.Kashi Rao Shindhe has been rescinded mainly on the ground that he has not cultivated the land as was required by the terms of grant. An application seeking impleadment is moved by the petitioners in the connected case i.e., W.P.No.30087/2018 and in terms of order dated 23.06.2021 made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court,

¶121

this application has been taken up for consideration along with the main matter treating the applicants as the contesting respondents.

¶122

(ii) In W.P.No.30087/2018, a challenge is laid to

¶123

the order dated 3.12.2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, whereby petitioners’ Revision Petition No.129/2003 having been dismissed, the orders made by the Revenue Officials directing their eviction from the land in question have been confirmed.

¶124

¶125

(iii) The case in W.P.No.2471/2019, is filed by the petitioners who are none other than the L.Rs of deceased Mr.Rangaiah seeking a direction at the hands of this court to the Revenue Officials to initiate proceedings for the cancellation of grant of land to the extent of 4 Acres in Sy.No.143 of Talaguppa Village in Ramanagara Taluka made in favour of 6^th respondent (wrongly mentioned as 7^th ). They have also sought for a Writ of Mandamus to the official respondents to consider their darkasth application for the regularization of the land, in all admeasuring 8 Acres & 27 Guntas.

¶126

The official respondents having entered appearance through the learned AGA, vehemently oppose all the three Writ Petitions making submission in justification of the eviction orders and their affirmation as made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. They also resist the challenge to the order whereby grant of land made in favour of original grantee Mr.Kashi Rao Shindhe, has been rescinded. Learned AGA opposes the petition wherein a direction is sought for initiating the proceedings for rescinding of land grant made in favour

¶127

¶128

of another grantee namely Mr.Ramsingh. He also opposes the claim for regularization of unauthorized occupancy of the petitioners, in respect of 8 Acres & 27 Guntas of land in which the grants are also comprised. Learned advocates appearing for the private respondents opposed each others’ cases citing certain Rulings in support thereof.

¶129

Facts in brief:

¶130

(a) The land in Sy.No.143 of Talaguppa Village,

¶131

Ramangara Taluka, admeasured 8 Acres & 27 Guntas of which a piece of 4 Acres was granted to an ExServiceman Mr.Kashi Rao Shindhe i.e., the Petitioner No.4 in W.P.No.55134/2016 vide order dated 19.11.1959 followed by Saguvali Chit dated 24.02.1960. This grant was made permanent on 31.10.1969. Similarly, another piece of 4 Acres plus was granted to Mr.Ramsingh i.e., Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.2471/2019.

¶132

(b) The grantee Mr.Kashi Rao Shindhe brought

¶133

the subject land under cultivation, and khata too was transferred in his name. However, somehow one Mr.Rangaiah unauthorizedly gained entry to the said land

¶134

¶135

and got his name clandestinely entered to the Revenue Records, as well. He had also represented to the government to have the grant of this land by way of regularization of his unauthorized occupation, way back in May 1976 or so. This Rangaiah is none other than the father of private respondents in W.P.No.55134/2016 and petitioners in the companion Writ Petitions.

¶136

(c) The government vide letter dated 4.5.1976 had directed the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, to regularize the entire extent of land measuring 8 Acres & 13 Guntas in favour of Mr.Rangaiah and to cancel the land grant made in favour of Mr.Kashi Rao Shindhe. The Divisional Commissioner having examined all aspects of the matter sent a report dated 31.03.1977 stating that the grant made in favour of Mr.Shindhe is already confirmed and Mr.Rangaiah being a trespasser, grant cannot be made of his unauthorized occupation. He therefore requested the government to reconsider the matter after taking the opinion of Law Department, if necessary. He also specifically stated

¶137

¶138

about Special Deputy Commissioner’s recommendation to the contrary being fraught with lacuna.

¶139

(d) It appears the government dropped the proposal to cancel the grant of Mr.Shindhe and of making one in favour of Mr.Rangaiah. Mr.Shindhe also complained about Mr.Rangaiah’s trespass to the land and mutation of entry in favour of rank trespasser. Therefore, the Asst. Commissioner vide order dated 20.02.1989 had directed the Tahasildar, Ramanagaram to evict Mr.Rangaiah from the land and restore revenue entries in favour of Mr.Shindhe. Mr.Rangaiah in W.P.No.4265/1989 disposed off on 4.4.1995 got only the direction for eviction set aside. However, the other direction for restoration of entries was left unchallenged and therefore attained finality.

¶140

(e) Subsequently, the Tahasildar has issued another order/notice dated 10.06.1988 which Mr.Rangaiah & others had challenged in W.P.No.18377/1998. The petition came to be disposed off by a Coordinate Bench on 24.06.1998 treating the order only as a show cause notice reserving liberty to

¶141

¶142

them to file reply before 31.07.1998. After an enquiry

¶143

the Tahasildar passed another order dated 9.9.1998 directing the unauthorized occupants to vacate the premises. However, this order was not implemented and therefore, the grantees Mr.Shindhe had filed W.P.No.5043/1999 and Mr.Ramsingh had filed

¶144

W.P.No.6518/1999. Similarly, the children/LRs of late Mr.Rangaiah (since dead) too had filed W.P.Nos.14684/1999 & 14651/1999 challenging the order of the Tahasildar and seeking restoration of their possession. A Coordinate Bench vide judgment dated 22.03.2000 negatived the challenge to the Tahasildar’s order of eviction since the said order was already put in challenge in appeals before the Assistant Commissioner. However, a direction was issued to dispose off the appeals.

¶145

(f) The children/LRs of Mr.Rangaiah i.e., the petitioners in W.P.No.30087/2018 & W.P.No.2471/2019 had preferred an appeal against the above judgment dated 22.3.2000 in W.A.Nos.3886-3887/2000 which came to be dismissed on 28.06.2000. Later, the

¶146

¶147

Assistant Commissioner vide two orders both dated 12.01.2001 dismissed these appeals and thereby upheld Tahasildar’s orders dated 9.9.1998 & 11.9.1998 whereby eviction was ordered and restoration of entry in favour of the original grantees was directed. They preferred Revision in R.A.No.16/2000-01 and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the same vide order dated 14.6.2003. Their second Revision against the same also came to be negatived by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 3.12.2016. This order of the KAT is put in challenge by children/LRs of Mr.Rangaiah in W.P.No.30087/2018. In the meanwhile, their claim in Form 7 for grant of occupancy in respect of the subject land too came to be rejected and it has attained finality.

¶148

(g) During the hearing of second Revision by the KAT, the children/LRs of Mr.Rangaiah being the appellants there had abruptly produced a copy of an order dated 14.11.1959 whereby the grant made in favour of Mr.Shindhe was suo moto cancelled by the succeeding incumbent of the office of Divisional Commissioner. Immediately after such production, the

¶149

¶150

original grantee Mr.Shindhe along with his vendors have filed W.P.No.55134/2016 for laying a challenge thereto. Children/LRs of Mr.Rangaiah moved the subject application for their impleadment, which is taken up for consideration as directed by a learned Coordinate Judge earlier, whilst hearing the main matter. The other two companion petitions since concern the subject land, they

¶151

are also taken together for final hearing with the concurrence of Bar. The impleading applicants are heard in the matter as if they are formal respondents in Mr.Shindhe’s Writ Petition and that their two Writ Petitions are treated as the objections to the same.

¶152

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in W.P.No.55134/2016 and declines interference in the connected two Writ Petitions, for the following reasons:

¶153

I. As to W.P.No.55134/2016:

¶154

(a) This Writ Petition as already mentioned above

¶155

is filed on 24.10.2016 for laying a challenge to the order dated 07.09.1979 passed by the Divisional

¶156

¶157

Commissioner, Bangalore, whereby grant made in favour of Mr.Kashi Rao Shindhe has been cancelled. The first contention of Mr.Rangaiah’s children/LRs who happen to be petitioners in the companion petitions is as to the enormity of delay & latches. Petitioner-Mr.Kashi Rao Shindhe being an ex-army personnel was granted 4 Acres of land in Sy.No.143 of Talaguppa Village, under the then Mysore Land Revenue Rules/Military Concession Rules vide order dated 19.11.1959 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division. This was followed by a Saguvali Chit dated 24.2.1960 and the grantee having occupied the land brought it under cultivation. Khata too was granted to him making entries in the Revenue Records. Later vide order dated 31.10.1969, this grant was made permanent. All this is not only evidenced by the Revenue Records but also by the Divisional Commissioner’s Report dated 31.3.1977 submitted to the State Government. It also mentions about the trespass and unauthorized occupation of this land by Mr.Rangaiah under whom the petitioners in the companion cases claim their right to litigate.

¶158

¶159

(b) Mr.Rangaiah had represented to the

¶160

government for the regularization of his unauthorized occupancy on the basis of some stray entries in the Revenue Records that were effected baselessly in his favour. Strangely, the Special Deputy Commissioner had recommended his case and for the cancellation of grant made in favour of Mr.Shindhe and for the grant in favour

¶161

of Mr.Ramsingh. Bewilderingly to say the least, the government vide letter dated 4.5.1976 had directed cancellation of the grant and regularization of unauthorized occupancy of Mr.Rangaiah. This only shows the enormity of influence which he had wielded on the government of the day, then. The Divisional Commissioner vide Report dated 31.03.1977 requested the government to reconsider its decision after taking opinion of the Law Department specifically stating that the grant made in favour of Mr.Shindhe was in order and it cannot be cancelled. Some relevant parts of the report read as under:

¶162

” …By order dated 14.11.1959, the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore granted an extent of 4.00 Acres of land… to one Sri.Kashi Rao Shindhe on a lease basis and a Temporary Saguvali Chit was issued to the grantee on

¶163

¶164

24.2.1960. The khata for this extent is also made in his name and, subsequently on 31.10.1969, a permanent saguvali chit was issued in favour of Kashi Rao Shindhe an exserviceman… It is represented by the grantee that after the issue of the Temporary Saguvali Chit, he took possession of the land… and cultivated it for a period of three years (1960-1963) and later, Sri.Rangaiah was cultivating the land unauthorizedly… The Khata extracts available in the records show that Sri.Kashi Rao Shinde is the khatedar (1961-62 to 1968-69)…Therefore, the action of Rangaiah, the unauthorized cultivator would apparently amount to trespass…government cannot, in my view, interfere in such matters of a civil dispute and cancel the legal grant and direct that this land be granted to a trespasser… ”

¶165

(c) The Divisional Commissioner specifically expressed serious doubts as to legality of government’s direction to cancel the grant made in favour of Mr.Shindhe without any appeal and further for the recall of the direction for ‘ regrant of land in favour of Sri.Rangaiah a trespasser .’ He also recommended for restoring possession to the grantee by evicting Mr.Rangaiah stating that land can be granted to him elsewhere. This being the position, there was no need for the government to issue a direction vide letter dated 31.03.1977 to cancel the grant made in favour of Mr.Shindhe at all. In the report of Divisional

¶166

¶167

Commissioner or of the Special Deputy Commissioner, there is not even a whisper about the cancellation of the grant vide order dated 7.9.1979 which is put in challenge

¶168

here. For the first time, during the course of final hearing, the file in No.LND(B)SR.74/76-77 was produced before the KAT which subsequently in its judgment dated 03.12.2016 observed:

¶169

“ …This order is produced for the first time before this tribunal that too at the time of hearing final arguments. This document did not see the light of the day till all these days…”

¶170

Immediately on coming to know of this, the present petition is filed even before the KAT had rejected the appeal of the opponents.

¶171

(d) Added to the above, in none of his

¶172

representations, suits, Writ Petitions, Revision Petitions or his application in Form 7, Mr.Rangaiah has or his L.Rs have whispered anything about the cancellation order dated 7.9.1979. In fact, it was his specific case before

¶173

the government that the grant made in favour of Mr.Shindhe and Mr.Ramsingh should be cancelled and his unauthorized occupation of the subject lands should be

¶174

¶175

regularized. Similarly, in none of their orders made against Mr.Rangaiah and later his children/LRs, the Tahasildar, the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Divisional Commissioner have mentioned about cancellation order. It needs to be borne in mind that cancellation of land grant made in favour of an Ex-Serviceman is a serious matter. Such grants are made under the State policies in consideration of the sacrifice the defence personnel make for guarding the frontiers of the Nation.

¶176

(e) Some proceedings towards cancellation of land

¶177

grant had taken place and the original grantees have participated therein, is true. However, the order cancelling the grant specifically mentions about their absence on the day it is pronounced. The draft of notice of the gist of the order is reflected from the records, is also true. But, from that stage onwards, what happened to this draft remains as a riddle wrapped in enigma. The cancellation order was not communicated to the grantee as required under the proviso to section 36(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The view that

¶178

¶179

communication of the order of the kind is a must, gains support from the decision in M.MANJUNATH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA ILR 2001 KAR 117, para 23. Mr.Ponnanna is also justified in banking upon another decision in W.A.No.4519/2000, between STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. M.MANJUNATH disposed off on 7.4.2003 wherein not only communication but also refund of the price paid for the grant are held to be a sine qua non for the order cancelling the grant to be effective.

¶180

(f) The grant of land to a citizen like the ExServiceman creates vested interest which constitutes his property, right to which is constitutionally guaranteed u/a 300A, although the same is no longer a Fundamental Right after 44^th Constitutional Amendment. That being the position, the procedure prescribed for the cancellation has to be treated as being mandatory and breach thereof would risk invalidation of cancellation orders, to the advantage of grantees. Added, the grantees had also filed the Writ Petitions seeking enforcement of the eviction orders made against Mr.Rangaiah, which aspect is already mentioned in the

¶181

¶182

‘Brief Facts’ above. If there was due cancellation and the communication of the cancellation order, they would have certainly laid a challenge to the same. There is absolutely no reason to assume the contrary. When the order is not communicated and there is no reason to attribute knowledge of the same to the grantees, the run of time since its making, pales into significance.

¶183

(g) The above apart, the unscrupulous litigants i.e., Mr. Rangaiah and his children/LRs who have been illegally squatting on the property granted to an ExServiceman by launching an avalanche of litigations, cannot be permitted to resist the Writ Petition of the grantee on unsure grounds of delay & latches. No third party rights are created in respect of the subject land on the basis of the cancellation order. It hardly needs to be stated that the Makers of our Constitution in their collective wisdom have not prescribed any specific period of limitation for invoking the writ jurisdiction. The explanation offered by the grantees for the delay allegedly brooked is perfectly plausible. This apart, the grantee & his transferees have got a very good case on

¶184

¶185

merits, as well. Therefore, the so called delay & latches, if any, are liable to be condoned.

¶186

(h) The grant having been made on 19.11.1959,

¶187

the same came to be made absolute & permanent vide order dated 31.10.1969, the Permanent Saguvali Chit having been issued way back on 24.02.1960 itself. The Divisional Commissioner in his Report dated 31.03.1977 has specifically stated that the grantee had brought the subject land under cultivation after he took the possession thereof and that even the entries in the Revenue Records were also mutated in terms of the Grant Order. He has given cogent reasons as to why the grant made in favour of an Ex-Serviceman is perfect & legal and that the Government had no justification whatsoever for seeking the cancellation of the grant only to favour a rank trespasser like Mr.Rangaiah. The grant of land is made to the Ex-Serviceman predominantly for the yeoman service they render at the frontiers, risking their life, limb & liberty. It is a matter of State Policy that

¶188

the Ex-Defence Personnel should be protected by granting the State largesse, public employment or the

¶189

¶190

like. Therefore, while ordering cancellation of the grant,

¶191

this policy has to be kept in view. However, the impugned order does not reflect the policy content and thus, is vulnerable for challenge.

¶192

(i) The impugned order cancelling the grant is founded principally on the ground that the grantee failed to bring the land in question under cultivation. This is absolutely contrary to the record. The Divisional Commissioner in his Report dated 31.03.1977 sent to the Government, at para 9 has reproduced what the grantee had stated to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore on 26.03.1974. The same reads as under:

¶193

“one by name Shri Rangaiah s/o Nanjaiah residing at Hosadoddi, Manchanayakanahalli dakle, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram taluk posing himself as the owner of the land and he had ploughed the land and prevents us from attending to our duties of cultivation. ”

¶194

The Divisional Commissioner who passed the impugned order ignores his own Report dated 31.3.1977 informing the Government that the grantee had cultivated the land till 1963 and later, Mr.Rangaiah having gained forcible entry, was unauthorizedly cultivating the land and that

¶195

¶196

from 1961 to 1969, the khata stood in the name of

¶197

grantee. What he stated further is very relevant:

¶198

“ In these circumstances, the best thing to be done would be to permit Sri Kashi Rao Sindhe to continue to be the owner of the land and, if this suggestion is approved, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and other local Officers will be asked to ensure that Sri Kashi Rao Sindhe is given back possession of this land by evicting Sri Rangaiah therefrom. Sri Rangaiah may be given land elsewhere, if he is entitled and deserving for such grant …”

¶199

Thus, it is not that the grantee was voluntarily not cultivating but he was illegally prevented from continuing the cultivation by Mr. Rangaiah.

¶200

(j) In fact, it is on the recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner in his Report dated 31.03.1977 sent to the Government, the proceedings for eviction of Mr.Rangaiah were taken up even after the impugned order canceling the grant was made. Had the cancellation been given effect to, these proceedings would not have been initiated. In fact, records do not disclose any application was made by Mr. Rangaiah seeking regularization of his unauthorized cultivation. As already mentioned above, it is the bounden duty of the

¶201

¶202

State Authorities to protect the land granted to ExServicemen and restore possession to them by removing the trespassers. An argument to the contrary would be unconscionable and dishearten the spirit of defence personnel in sacrificing their life & limb for protecting the Nation. Added to this, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rangaiah’s W.P.No.4265/1989 disposed off on 4.4.1995, although set aside the eviction order, declined to interfere with Tahasildar’s order dated 20.2.1989 which directed restoration of revenue entries in favour of the original grantee Mr.Shindhe. The judgment at the operative portion reads: ‘ 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. That part of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is quashed.’ This judgment has attained finality, there being no challenge whatsoever.

¶203

(k) There is one more aspect namely the order of

¶204

the KAT dated 3.12.2016 whereby the appeal of Mr.Rangaiah’s children/LRs laying a challenge to the orders of Asst. Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner,

¶205

¶206

came to be affirmed. At para 9 of the judgment, it is

¶207

observed as under:

¶208

“…The petitioners have produced the certified copy of orders in case No.LND(B) SR.74/7677, on the file of the Divisional Commissioner Bengaluru Division, wherein the grant made in favour of Kashi Rao Sindhe on 14-11-1959 was set aside. This order is produced for the first time before this Tribunal that too at the time of hearing final arguments. This document did not see the light of the day till all these days. More over it appears that the Divisional Commissioner Bengaluru Division has initiated suo-motu proceedings and cancelled the grant made in the year 1957 by the then Divisional Commissioner. The proceedings is initiated after 20 years to the date of grant and found barred by limitation. So no value could be attached to this document at this stage… ”

¶209

(l) The vehement contention of learned Sr.

¶210

Advocate Mr A G Shivanna appearing for the contesting respondents that the grantees are maintaining a suit for declaration of title & possession of the subject land and therefore, their writ petition for voiding the Grant Cancellation Order should be rejected, is very difficult to countenance. As a Writ Court, constitutional duty owed to the citizens more particularly Ex-Servicemen cannot be shirked by quoting some theories like alternate remedy, that too at the instance of rank squatters on the

¶211

¶212

property granted to Ex-defence personnel. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in – DAVIS v. MILLS (1904) US 495 has observed “ Constitutions are intended to preserve practical and substantial rights, not to maintain theories…”; .

¶213

In view of the above, the impugned order cancelling the grant made in favour of the original grantee Mr.Shindhe is liable to be set aside.

¶214

II) W.P.No.30087/2018:

¶215

(a) This petition is filed by the children/LRs of late

¶216

Mr.Rangaiah for laying a challenge to the order dated 3.12.2016 at Annexure-X whereby the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, has negatived their second Revision Petition No.129/2003 in which they had questioned the first Revision order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 14.7.2003, came to be affirmed. The Deputy Commissioner in turn had upheld Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 12.1.2001 whereby petitioners’ appeal in R.A.No.112/1998-99 challenging Tahasildar’s eviction order dated 9.9.1998, was dismissed. It was the specific case of the petitioners and

¶217

¶218

their predecessor Mr.Rangaiah that they were in the unauthorized occupation of the land granted to Mr.Shindhe and therefore, the grant should be rescinded and their occupation should be regularized. This aspect of the matter having been examined by three statutory authorities namely the Tahasildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, the eviction order was sustained. In a further challenge before the KAT which comprised of one judicial member and one senior IAS officer, the matter having been again examined, their appeal came to be rejected. That being the position, a Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested u/a 227 (petition quoting Article 226 also, is insignificant) cannot undertake a deeper examination as if it is a court of appeal. This view gains support from the Apex Court decision in SURYA DEV RAI vs. RAM CHANDER RAI (2003) 6 SCC 675.

¶219

(b) The Divisional Commissioner who had

¶220

examined all aspects of the matter had submitted a Report dated 31.3.1977 informing the Government that

¶221

¶222

the grant made in favour of Mr.Shindhe, an ExServiceman was absolutely legal and there was no reason whatsoever for cancelling the same, in order to favour the case of Mr.Rangaiah for regularization of his unauthorized occupation. It is on the recommendation made in the Report that the Government dropped the idea of cancellation of grant and the Tahasildar after holding enquiry with the participation of all the stakeholders, has made the eviction order against Mr. Rangaiah. In fact, Mr.Rangaiah’s application in Form 7 filed u/s 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for the grant of occupancy, also came to be rejected by the Land Tribunal. That being the position, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for the petitioners to squat on the land of the Ex-Serviceman by launching an avalanche of litigations. The conduct of the petitioners in continuing in the unauthorized occupation of the subject land for decades is not only unconscionable but illegal. Granting relief to such unscrupulous litigants by the Writ Court virtually amounts to placing premium on illegality.

¶223

¶224

(c) The impugned order of eviction and the orders which affirmed the same specifically mention that Mr.Rangaiah and his family have been granted 7 Acres & 10 Guntas of land in Sy.Nos.144/1 & 144/2 and that they have been in possession of the same. Therefore, it is not that they have not been granted any land at all. There should be a limit for the greed of man and for monopolization of public lands to the exclusion of all others. Despite vociferous submissions made on their behalf, the petitioners are not in a position to demonstrate their legal right to have the land in their unauthorized occupation, regularized. In fact, the application allegedly filed by Mr. Rangaiah does not surface from the records. The Tahsildar had made some endorsements to place such application before the Regularization Committee, cannot per se establish the filing of such an application. Even otherwise, the request for regularization of unauthorized occupation of the land that was already granted to an Ex-Serviceman cannot be legally favoured.

¶225

¶226

(d) Mr.Rangaiah and his children/LRs have filed O.S.No.44/2005 seeking declaration of title in respect of the subject land wherein the original grantee Mr.Shindhe and his buyers happened to be the defendants. The said suit came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) at Ramanagaram on 1.3.2012. Against the said decree, an appeal has been filed in R.A.No.20/2013 by Rangaiah’s children/LRs who happen to be the petitioners in this case. In an application for leave to produce additional evidence, the appellants therein i.e., petitioners herein have specifically admitted in their deposition about the grant of land made in their favour. Therefore, regardless of the result of the said appeal, the admission as to the grant of land would remain intact, no rebuttal material having been pleaded and produced.

¶227

(e) The vehement submission of learned Sr.

¶228

Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the original grantee and his buyers have filed civil suits in O.S.Nos.479/2014, 480/2014 & 481/2014 for declaration of title & possession and therefore, the impugned orders be set at naught subject to result of the said suit, is

¶229

¶230

difficult to countenance. All those suits including the one filed by the petitioners are long after the eviction order was made by the Tahasildar, it was affirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and lastly by the KAT. The suits of the grantees and their vendees are in the nature of curative proceedings to remove the arguable cloud on their title and therefore on the ground of pendency of the said suits, relief cannot be granted to these petitioners, by invalidating the impugned orders. The validity of the orders have to be adjudged on the basis of the reasons contained therein and that what happens subsequently is not much relevant, subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the petitioners does not fit vide MOHINDER SINGH GILL vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, AIR 1978 SC 851 . Even otherwise, the culpable conduct of the petitioners disentitles them to the grant of discretionary remedy at the hands of the Constitutional Court.

¶231

(f) The last submission of Mr. A G Shivanna learned Sr. Advocate that the proceedings for eviction could not have been taken up since the land after the

¶232

¶233

grant ceased to be of the Government and therefore, the impugned orders of the Tahsildar, Asst. Commissioner, Dy. Commissioner and the KAT have to be voided, does not merit acceptance. The very grant order itself mentions that it was by way of lease, as it was originally granted to the Ex-Serviceman Mr. Shindhe. Had it been otherwise, the question of Mr. Rangaiah seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation, at the hands of the authorities would not have arisen. All through, Mr. Rangaiah and his children/LRs have litigated before various authorities, Tribunal, Civil Courts and the Writ Courts on the premise that the subject land belongs to the Government. In fact and law, as on the date when challenge to eviction order was laid by Rangaiah or his L.Rs. there was order dated 07.09.1979 whereby the subject grant was cancelled, although it is now being voided. Petitioners cannot aprobate and reprobate. Therefore, as petitioners, they cannot be heard to contend to the contrary. This apart, it was for the first time that such a contention was urged before the KAT that too half heartedly and sans pleadings. It has been a settled position of law that a dominant litis cannot take

¶234

¶235

inconsistent plea, although some relaxation may avail to his opponents.

¶236

In view of the above, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for voiding the impugned orders. The justice of the case warrants that in terms of these orders, the petitioners herein are liable to be removed from the occupation of the land, and that the possession thereof be restored to the grantees/their vendees on a warfooting. Anything less than that would not be an act of reparative justice.

¶237

III) W.P.No.2471/2019:

¶238

(a) This petition by the children/LRs of Mr.Rangaiah seeks a direction to the 2^nd respondentRegional Commissioner to initiate proceedings for cancelling the grant of land made in favour of 6^th respondent-Ramsingh to an extent of 4 Acres in Sy.No.143 on the ground that they have been continuing in the occupation of the said land, the grantee allegedly

¶239

never having gained entry thereto. They have also sought for a direction to the official respondents for regularization of their unauthorized occupancy. As

¶240

¶241

already mentioned above, this grant is also perfectly legal. If the grantee is prevented by the rank trespassers from cultivating the land, that cannot be a ground for the cancellation of grant. Conversely, it can be a ground for taking both civil & criminal action against the said trespassers who are none other than the petitioners herein.

¶242

(b) As already mentioned above, the family of Mr.Rangaiah under whom the petitioners claim are holding 7 Acres & 10 Guntas of land as mentioned by the Coordinate Bench of this court in its judgment dated 22.03.2000 entered in W.P.Nos.14684/1999 and 14851/1999. The learned Coordinate Judge at para 27 of the judgment has mentioned about the culpable conduct of the petitioners as under:

¶243

“ It is an admitted fact that even after suffering a quit order in the hands of the Tahsildar as above, the petitioners herein had not vacated from the subject land…but for the reasons best known to them, they had not seen to it that respondent Nos.3 & 4 were served with the notices… and further to see to it that they were granted with an order to stay the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar in the said R.A. That I say on perusal of the records in the said R.A. produced in time by

¶244

¶245

the learned Additional Government Advocate as per directions of this court …”

¶246

The Writ Petitions were dismissed, of course leaving

¶247

liberty to the petitioners to prosecute their appeals pending on the file of Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, no relief was granted to the petitioners. This order too has been affirmed in their writ appeals. These Revenue Appeals having failed, the revision before the Deputy Commissioner also failed. A further challenge to the eviction orders that culminated into Deputy

¶248

Commissioner’s order also met the same fate at the hands of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, whose order cannot be faltered as already discussed above.

¶249

IV) As to levy of exemplary costs:

¶250

(a) Late Mr.Rangaiah and his children/LRs having

¶251

trespassed the land granted to Mr.Shindhe have been continuing in unauthorized occupation of the same, since decades. This is a clear cut case of robbery of land granted by the Government to an Ex-Army man. They also want to grab the land of Mr.Ramsingh, another grantee. They have successfully prevented the grantees of the land from enjoying the usufructs of grant for

¶252

¶253

decades by filing case after cases. Decades have been lost in the lives of the grantees, who have in the course of legal battle become old & worn.

¶254

(b) It is not that the petitioners do not own any land. Admittedly, a huge grant is made to them as well. They have also taken unconscionable contention namely, after the grant, the Government ceased to be the owner thereof and therefore, the revenue authorities could not have passed the eviction orders. The original grant itself makes it clear that it was a grant on the basis of lease and therefore, the Government continued to be the owner for the limited purpose of causing eviction of unauthorized occupants. They also went too far before the KAT for the first time in contending that the land granted to Mr.Shindhe has been cancelled; if that were to be so, their contention that the Government had no power to evict them falls to the ground. Petitioners cannot aprobate and reprobate.

¶255

¶256

the stand varyingly taken by Mr.Rangaiah and his children/LRs amounts to gross abuse of the process of

¶257

¶258

the Court. They have only “one point agenda” namely, ‘ come what may, they would not quit the land ’. Their cases cannot just go with impunity. Heavy & exemplary costs need to be levied to discourage them and the potential litigants like them from undertaking the misadventures in judicial process.

¶259

In the considered opinion of this Court, a cost of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) need to be jointly & severally levied on them.

¶260

In the above circumstances, I make the following:

¶261

O R D E R

¶262

[i] W.P.No.55134/2016 filed by original grantee

¶263

and his buyers is allowed with costs; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 7.9.1979; a Writ of Mandamus also issues to the revenue authorities to enter the names of petitioners to the property records in terms of Grant Orders and the subject Sale Deeds, within sixty days.

¶264

[ii] The cases in W.P.No.30087/2018 & W.P.No.2471/2019 being thoroughly devoid of merits are liable to be dismissed with costs and accordingly, they are. A direction also issues to the petitioners to quit the

¶265

¶266

subject lands peaceably within sixty days, failing which, the official respondents shall physically remove them, by police force if so needed and the original grantees shall be put in the possession of subject lands.

¶267

[iii] The petitioners in W.P.No.30087/2018 & W.P.No.2471/2019 are directed to pay cost of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) only jointly & severally to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, within sixty days, failing which, they are liable to pay an additional sum of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand) only per day for the initial one month, and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) only per day for the subsequent period. The same may be recovered by initiating the contempt proceedings.

¶268

[iv] The compliance of this order shall be reported to the Registrar General of this Court by the official respondents and also by the petitioners in W.P.No.30087/2018 & W.P.No.2471/2019 within an outer limit of three months.

¶269

Sd/JUDGE

¶270

Snb/cbc

Rangaramaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangaramaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Doomakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H v Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

B M Renuka Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suresha Vs Thasildar

Puttaswamy Vs Smt. Thayamma

Chikkamuniyappa S/O Sadappa Since Dead by His Lrs Motamma Vs Abdul Sattar Khan S/O Late Abdul Raheem Sab Since Dead by His Lrs Smt Parveen Taj