Allowed

Goudra Krishanappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2023WP/23438/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a regrant of service-inam land to original servitors. The Court held that under the Syed Bhasheer Ahamed principle, a valid sale deed executed between 1963 and 1978 entitles the petitioner to the benefits of the regrant despite the order naming the alienees, modifying the administrative order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order regranted land to respondents No.4-10 is modified to hold it enures to the benefit of the petitioner. Petition allowed.

Goudra Krishanappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 23438 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 23438 OF 2017 (KVOA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GOUDRA KRISHANAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O DODDA HALAPPA CHIKKABIDARI, SARATHI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M VINAYA KEERTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶14

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.

¶18

GUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O LATE NAGAPPA

¶19

NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶20

¶21

WP No. 23438 of 2017

¶22

S/O LATE NAGAPPA

¶23

PRAMEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O LATE NAGAPPA

¶24

HANUMAKKA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, D/O LATE NAGAPPA,

¶25

SAVITAVVA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D/O LATE NAGAPPA,

¶26

NETRA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/O LATE NAGAPPA,

¶27

SL.NOS.4-9 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKABIDARI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.

¶28

10. KAVITAMMA

¶29

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HALUVAGALU, HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583131.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. G.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1-R3 SRI G.J.SUNKAPUR, ADV. FOR R4 AND R5 R6, R7, R8, R9, R10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 10.03.2017 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNXEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

¶35

WP No. 23438 of 2017

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The land bearing Sy. No.32, measuring 2 acres 20

¶38

guntas in Chikkabidari Village, Harihara Taluk, is the subject matter of this petition. The subject land was granted to Sri Kenchappa S/o Ningappa, in lieu of services rendered by him as Village Officer. The subject land was conveyed to the petitioner through a registered sale deeds dated 07.06.1976 and 27.07.1977.

¶39

The petitioner filed an application under Section

¶40

5(1) of The Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961.

¶41

The competent authority regranted the subject land in favour of the petitioner against which respondent Nos.4 to 10 filed an appeal in M.A.No.182/2011 under Section 3(2) of the Act. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, set aside the order regranting the land in favour of the petitioner and remanded the matter to the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, to decide the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned

¶42

¶43

WP No. 23438 of 2017

¶44

District Judge before this Court in W.P.No.949/2014. This Court by order dated 05.06.2014 disposed of the writ petition directing the Deputy Commissioner to pass the order in terms of paragraph-30(c) and (d) of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Syed

¶45

Bhasheer Ahamed and others vs. State of Karnataka and others [1994 (1) KLJ 385 (FB)] , w herein it is held

¶46

by the Full Bench at paragraph 30(c) and (d) as under:

¶47

“(c) Alienation of service Inam land between 1- 2-1963 and 7-8-1978, by a holder or an authorised holder before re-grant, is not invalid, as he had a vested right to get regrant and as there was no bar regarding alienation during that period; but the alienee will be a person with imperfect title entitled to continue in possession and when the land is re-granted to the alienor, the title obtained by the alienor will enure to the benefit of the alienee;

¶48

(d) The date of re-grant, whether before or after 7-8-1978, will not be relevant to determine the validity of the alienation

¶49

¶50

WP No. 23438 of 2017

¶51

between 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978, as what is prohibited after 7-8-1978 prospectively for a period of 15 years is alienation and not regrant.”

¶52

Thereafter, the first respondent has passed an

¶53

order regranting the subject land in favour of respondents No.4 to 10. The petitioner’s grievance is that though an order is passed regranting the land, however, the first respondent has not clarified that the regrant made in favour of respondents No.4 to 10 enures to the benefit of the petitioner in light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Syed Bhasheer (supra).

¶54

4.Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶55

This Court in W.P.No.949/2014 directed the first respondent to consider the claim for regrant of the subject land and pass orders in terms of paragraph-30(c) and (d) of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Syed Bhasheer (supra). The first respondent has regranted

¶56

the subject land in favour of respondents No.4 to 10, however, has not passed any order holding that the

¶57

¶58

WP No. 23438 of 2017

¶59

regrant made in favour of the said respondents enures to the benefit of the petitioner, who has purchased the subject land between the period 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978. In view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, the order passed by the first respondent is hereby modified.

¶60

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶63

ii) The impugned order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, is confirmed and it is held that the regrant of the subject land in favour of respondents No.4 to 10 enures to the benefit of the petitioner, who has purchased the subject land through registered sale deeds dated 07.06.1976 and 27.07.1977 respectively.

¶64