Disposed

Sri. Chiranjeevi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023WP/12321/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to decide succession, will validity, and inheritance share disputes concerning the subject properties. The Court directed that these questions must be adjudicated in the pending civil suit, leaving the revenue entry effective subject to its outcome.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were disposed of with the direction that the revenue entry in M.R. No.T.37/2021-22 shall continue subject to the final outcome in the pending civil suit O.S. No.82/2016.

Sri. Chiranjeevi Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12321 OF 2022 (KVOA)

¶6

C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 8718 OF 2021 (KVOA)

¶8

IN WP NO. 12321/2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. CHIRANJEEVI S/O SRI H VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT AT ALAMBADI VILLAGE AND POST, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563132.

¶11

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI MANJUNATH S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT AT ALAMBADI VILLAGE AND POST, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563132.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560018.

¶19

THE TAHSILAR MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563132.

¶20

SRI RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDENT AT ALAMBADI VILLAGE AND POST, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563132.

¶21

SRI H MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDENT AT ALAMBADI VILLAGE AND POST, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563132.

¶22

SRI A C VENKATASWAMY

¶23

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶24

SMT. EDIYAAL NARAYANAMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O LATE AC VENKATASWAMY R/AT ALAMBADI VILLAGE AND POST LAKKUR HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 132.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶27

SRI SRINIVAS

¶28

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE AC VENKATASWAMY RESIDING AT ALAMBADI VILLAGE AND POST, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563132.

¶29

SRI RATHNAPPA @ JAMES RATHNAPPA AGED MAJOR, S/O VENKATASWAMY RESIDING AT ALAMBADI VILLAGE AND POST, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563132.

¶30

SMT MUNILAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE AC VENKATASWAMY RESIDING AT ALAMBADI VILLAGE AND POST, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563132.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. SRI.SHAMANTH S NAIK., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2., SRI. VARUN PAPIREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶33

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2021 ONE PASSED BY R1 IN CASE NO.INA(CR) 0325/1978-79 FOUND AT ANNEXUREC TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶36

IN WP NO. 8718/2021

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

SRI. CHIRANJEEVI S/O SRI H VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶39

SRI MANJUNATH KUMAR S/O H MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶40

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ALAMBADI VILLAGE AND POST, LAKKUR HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563132.

¶41

…PETITIONERS

¶42

( BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶43

AND:

¶44

THE TAHSILDAR MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563132.

¶45

SRI VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE TALWAR CHIKKONU AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶46

SRI RAJAPPA S/O LATE GURAPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶47

SRI. LAKSHMINARAYAN S/O LATE GURAPPA

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶50

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶51

SRI H MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE HANUMATNHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶52

SRI H VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE HANUMATNHAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶53

RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 6 ARE R/AT ALAMBADI VILLAGE AND POST, LAKKUR HOBLI

¶54

MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563132.

¶55

…RESPONDENTS

¶56

(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VARUN PAPIREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4; SRI. H.K. PARAMESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6)

¶57

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2021 ONE PASSED BY R1 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶58

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶59

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶60

ORDER

¶61

These petitions are filed impugning the order dated 21.04.2021 in INA.CR.325/1978-79 by the Tahsildar, Malur Taluk, Kolar District and for quashing the revenue entry in MR No.T.37/2021-22 for the different lands in Alambady village, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District. The writ petition in WP No.8718/2021 is filed for quashing the order dated 21.04.2021 and the writ petition in WP No.12321/2022 is for quashing the revenue entry in MR No.T.37/2021-22. The dispute relates to regrant of rights to the following lands in Alambady village, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District:

¶62

a. Land bearing Sy. No.16, measuring 28 guntas.

¶63

b. Land bearing Sy. No.18, measuring 10 guntas.

¶64

c. Land bearing Sy. No.19, measuring 2 acres 21 guntas.

¶65

d. Land bearing Sy. No.54, measuring 5 acres 13 guntas.

¶66

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶67

e. Land bearing Sy. No.65, measuring 4 guntas.

¶68

f. Land bearing Sy. No.71, measuring 1 Acres 28 guntas.

¶69

g. Land bearing Sy. No.161, measuring 25 guntas .

¶70

These properties for convenience are referred to as

¶71

“ subject properties ”.

¶72

The dispute is amongst the legal heirs of

¶73

the original Holder of an inferior Village Office, Sri Thoti Muniga, who has died leaving behind his two sons, Sri Thoti Papanna and Sri Thoti Thimmarayappa. Smt. Doddamaduramma is the wife of Sri Thoti Papanna and Smt. Chikkamaduramma is the wife of Sri Thoti Thimmarayappa, and all these four persons are deceased. There is no dispute that certain grand children of Smt. Muniyamma, wife of Sri. Hanumanthappa, the daughter of Sri Thoti Papanna and Smt. Doddamaduramma, because of bequeath by Smt.Doddamadduramma, would be

¶74

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶75

entitled to contemporaneous re-grant and for half a share in the subject properties, but the controversy is about the remaining half share in the subject properties that Sri Thoti Thimmarayappa/Smt.

¶76

Chikkamadduramma would have been entitled to.

¶77

This Court must observe that the claim for

¶78

this half share has resulted in a protracted dispute amongst the petitioners, who assert legacy under the Last Will and Testament executed by Smt. Muniyamma [ the daughter of Thoti Thimmarayappa and Smt.Chikkamadduramma ], and the legal representatives of Sri Talwar Chikkanna @ Chikkonu and Smt. Chikkamadduramma. It is stated that Smt. Chikkamadduramma, after the demise of Sri.Thoti Thimmarayappa, has remarried Sri. Talwar Chikkanna @ Chikkonu. The genealogical tree of Sri. Thoti Muniga’s family and the genealogical tree of Sri. Talwar Chikkanna @ Chikkonu and Smt. Chikkamaduramma are as follows:

¶79

¶80

NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶81

The Genealogical Tree of Sri Thoti Papanna & Sri Thoti Thimmarayappa

¶82

Thoti Muniga
Doddamadduramma Thoti Papanna Chikkamadduramma Thoti Dinurappa Venkatappa
Thimmarayappa Died- Died-
Deceased Issueless Issueless
Muniyamma
Hanumanthappa Muniyamma
Thimmakka Thimmakka
Venkatamma
H Muniyappa H Venkataswamy Gullamma Lakshmamma Venkatamma
Manjunath Chiranjeevi
Kumar

¶83

The Genealogical Tree of Thoti Chikkanna @ Chikkonu and Smt. Chikkamaduramma

¶84

Talwar Chikkamadduramma
Chikkanna@Chikkonu
A C Venkataswamy Gurappa
Ediyaal Srinivas Rathnappa Munilakshmamma Rajappa Lakshminarayana
Narayanamma

¶85

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶86

This Court must advert to the pending

¶87

civil suit before referring to the other proceedings culminating with the impugned order dated 21.04.2021. Sri A. C. Venkataswamy and Sri Gurappa [t he sons of Smt. Chikkamadduramma and Sri Talwar Chikkanna @ Chikkonu ] have filed the suit in O.S. No.46/2009¹ for declaration of title to Sri Thoti Thimmarayappa’s half share in the subject properties claiming under Chikkamadduramma. Sri. A. C. Venkataswamy and Sri Gurappa have died, and their legal heirs have come on record in such suit.

¶88

Sri H. Muniyappa and Sri H. Venkataswamy, the grandsons of Sri Thoti Papanna and Smt. Doddamaduramma are the first and the third defendants in the suit. The petitioners herein, Sri M. Manjunath Kumar and Sri H.V. Chiranjeevi, who are the sons of the aforesaid Sri. H. Muniyappa

¶89

1 This suit is now re-numbered and is pending consideration in OS No.82/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur.

¶90

11 -

¶91

NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶92

and Sri H. Venkataswamy respectively, are the second and the fourth defendants. The fifth to seventh defendants in this suit are the sisters of Sri H. Muniyappa and Sri H. Venkataswamy. The petitioners assert that they have the advantage of a bequeath from Smt. Muniyamma, the daughter of Sri.

¶93

Thoti Thimmarayappa and Smt.

¶94

Chikkamadduramma.

¶95

It is not disputed that if the regrant is in

¶96

favour of those who can claim under Sri Thoti Papanna and Sri Thoti Thimmarayappa, the inter se claims insofar as the half share that would devolve on Smt. Chikkamadduramma as the wife of Sri. Thoti Thimmarayappa and their daughter Smt. Muniyamma will have to be decided in the pending suit in O.S. No.82/2016 where all the concerned are parties to the proceedings. The merits of the impugned order dated 21.04.2021 will have to be examined in the backdrop of this admitted position,

¶97

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶98

and before that, this Court must set the tone with reference to the earlier proceedings leading to the impugned order dated 21.04.2021.

¶99

After the demise of the original Office Holder, Sri Thoti Muniga, and his sons, Sri Thoti Papanna and Sri Thoti Thimmarayappa, the rights to the subject properties are re-granted to Smt. Doddamadduramma and Smt. Chikkamadduramma on 13.05.1985 in the proceedings in No.INA(CR)325/1978-79 under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 [for short, the ‘ KVOA Act’ ]. Smt. Muniyamma, the daughter of Sri. Thoti Thimmarayappa and Smt. Chikkamaduramma, has challenged this order in MA No.35/1987 under Section 3(2) of the KVOA Act, and on 26.02.1990 this appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 13.05.1985 on the ground that she was not given due opportunity.

¶100

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶101

After this remand order, the Tahsildar by order dated 26.08.2010 has re-granted the subject property in favour of Sri H. Muniyappa and Sri. H.Venkataswamy, and this re-grant is based on the Last Will and Testament asserted by them from both Smt. Doddamaduramma and Smt.Muniyamma, the daughter of Smt.Chikkamadduramma and Sri. Thoti Thimmarayappa. Sri A.C. Venkata Swamy and Sri Gurappa, the sons of Smt. Chikkamaduramma and Sri Talwar Chikkanna @ Chikkonu, have challenged this order dated 26.08.2010 under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the KVOA Act in MA No.17/2011, but this appeal is dismissed by the learned District Judge on 13.07.2011.

¶102

These persons have carried this order dated 13.07.2011 in MA No.17/2011 in challenge before this Court in WP No.35175/2011 and WP No.40349-53/2011. This Court has allowed these writ petitions by order dated 18.04.2013 restoring the

¶103

14 - NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶104

proceedings in MA No.17/2011 observing that the Tahsildar had no power to decide who would succeed to Smt. Chikkamadduramma’s share. On this remand, the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal by the order dated 02.07.2015 but observing that the rights of the parties to the subject property will have to be decided in the suit in OS No.82/2016.

¶105

Sri A. C. Venkataswamy and Sri Gurappa have again carried this order dated 02.07.2015 before this Court in W.P. No.43035-36/2015 and WP No.4266-4269/2016, and this Court by the order dated 02.06.2016 has set aside the learned District Judge’s order dated 02.07.2015 and the matter is restored to the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry after giving opportunity to both the parties and decide the matter in accordance with law. This Court has essentially observed thus:

¶106

“The observations made by the

¶107

learned District Judge in

¶108

15 -

¶109

NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶110

M.A.No.17/2011 is that as civil suit is pending, petitioners can get their rights decided in the said Civil Suit itself. The said observation is not sufficient to reject the claim of the petitioners herein without holding an enquiry on the execution of Wills and in respect of relist-grant of the lands as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that petitioners have made out their case that the order passed by the respondent No.1-Tahsildar, so also, the order passed by the learned District Judge in M.A.No.17/2011 are not in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act and hence, they are not sustainable in law.”

¶111

It is after this remand, the Tahsildar has passed impugned dated 21.04.2021 re-granting the subject property in favour of Sri H. Muniyappa and Sri H. Venkataswamy, who claim under Smt. Muniyamma who is the daughter of Doddamaduramma and Thoti

¶112

16 -

¶113

NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶114

Papanna, and the remaining half in favour of Sri A.C. Venkataswamy and Sri Gurappa’s sons, Sri Rajappa and Sri Lakshminarayana. As mentioned in the beginning there is no dispute insofar as the grant in

¶115

favour of Sri H. Muniyappa and Sri. H. Venkataswamy, and it could be because there is no dispute about the bequest by Smt.

¶116

Doddamadduramma in favour of their sons. This aspect, if there is any reason, will be examined in the appropriate proceedings.

¶117

The petitioners’ primary grievance, and

¶118

therefore the present writ petition as against the impugned order, is on the ground that the Tahsildar has passed the impugned order after he was served with his transfer order. The petitioners contend that the Tahsildar concluded the proceedings on 20.04.2021 and on the very same day, he was served with the order of transfer but the impugned order is passed on 21.04.2021.

¶119

17 - NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶120

In the light of this canvass, this Court

¶121

has granted stay of operation of the impugned order dated 21.04.2021. However, the original file of the proceedings in No.INA.CR.325/1978-79 is secured, and a copy of the transfer order and Certificate of Transfer of Charge are placed on record. It is seen from these records that the Tahsildar is indeed issued with the transfer order on 20.04.2021 but he is handed over charge on 22.04.2021, and as such, no interference is called for with the impugned order dated 21.04.2021 on this ground. However, given the petitioners’ grievance against the re-grant in favour of Sri A.C. Venkataswamy and Sri Gurappa’s sons and the peculiarities of this case, the petition stands disposed of on merits.

¶122

The Tahsildar’s impugned order is in exercise of the jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the KVOA Act which read as hereunder:

¶123

18 -

¶124

NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶125

“Powers of Deputy Commissioner to decide certain questions and appeals — (1) If any question arises. —

¶126

(a) whether any land was granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State; or

¶127

(b) whether any person is a holder of a village office; or

¶128

¶129

(d) whether any person is an unauthorised holder,

¶130

the Deputy Commissioner shall, after giving the party affected an opportunity to be heard and after holding an enquiry in the prescribed manner decide the question.”

¶131

It is settled that the Tahsildar can only decide questions as mentioned in Section 3(1)(a) to (d) of the KVOA Act and nothing else. The Tahsildar at the first instance on 13.05.1985 has re-granted the subject land in exercise of the powers under Section 5 of the KVOA Act recording that according to the Index of Land and Record of Rights, the subject lands are attached to the concerned Thoti Village office and

¶132

19 - NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶133

that Sri Muniyappa @ Thoti Muniga was initially discharging the functions of the office of the Thoti. The Tahsildar has also recorded that Sri Muniyappa @ Thoti Muniga had four sons namely Sri Thoti Papanna @ Papa, Sri Venkatappa, Sri Dinnurappa and Sri Thoti Thimmarayappa; that Smt. Doddamaduramma and Smt. Chikkamaduramma were discharging the office of the Thoti after the demise of Sri Thoti Papanna @ Papa and Sri Thoti Thimmarayappa and they would be entitled to the regrant of the subject properties.

¶134

Crucially, neither the petitioners nor the private respondents contest the afore findings, and nor has any third person challenged such findings, and it is not disputed that Smt. Doddamadduramma and Smt. Chikkamadduramma, after the demise of Sri Thoti Papanna and Sri Thoti Thimmarayappa, were holding the office as of the appointed day. Thus, the facts that could be decided by the

¶135

20 - NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶136

Tahsildar are finally decided without dispute, and therefore, the proceedings under Section 3 of the KVOA Act must culminate. However, the adjudication of the dispute over the share of Smt. Chikkamadduramma depends on the decision whether her daughter, Smt. Muniyamma, could have executed Last Will and Testament, whether she has executed such Will and Testament, and every other question that would be necessary for complete and effective adjudication would be outside the expanse of jurisdiction under Section 3 of the KVOA Act. These questions must be decided in the original civil proceedings.

¶137

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that leaving open all questions as to who should succeed to Smt. Chikkamadduramma’s share must necessarily be decided in the pending suit in O.S. No. 82/2016 while recording that there is no dispute about the share of Smt. Doddamadduramma, and

¶138

21 - NC: 2023:KHC:36405 WP No. 12321 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8718 of 2021

¶139

even if there is any dispute, it must be decided in a properly instituted proceedings amongst those who could claim under Smt. Doddamadduramma. The revenue entries for the subject property based on the Tahsildar’s impugned order cannot undermine the rights that will have to be decided in the suit, and as such, the revenue entries for the subject properties must continue as it now stands subject to the outcome of the suit in O.S. No.82/2016.

¶140

The petitions stand disposed of with the observations as aforesaid and the direction that the revenue entry in M.R. No.T37/2021-22 shall continue subject to the final outcome in O.S.No.82/2016 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar.

¶141

Sd/JUDGE

¶142

Sri. Chiranjeevi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chiranjeevi v. the State of Karnataka

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

Cmm (Hindustan) Gold Private Limited Vs the Chief Commissioner

Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru Rural and Ramanagara District Co-Operative Milk Producers Societies Vs M/s. R K R Dairy Products Private Ltd.

G. S. Krishnappa Vs State of Karnataka by Its

M/S. Techmed Health Centre and Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., Vs Maax Super Speciality Hospital

M/S Infant Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Aarra Communities Holdings

Chandrashekar HUF Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre