SRI. MALLESH, S/O LATE SRI. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O CHUNCHANAKUPPE VILLAGE, THAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRTICT-562 130.

¶37

SRI. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O LATE SRI. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O MELEKOTE, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA-562 117.

¶38

…APPELLANTS

¶39

(BY SRI. V LAKSHMINARAYANA., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. K ABHINAV ANAND.,ADVOCATE)

¶40

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB WA No. 1706 of 2015

¶41

AND:

¶42

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶43

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-571 511.

¶44

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA-571 511.

¶45

THE TAHSILDAR, KANAKAPURA TALUK, KANAKAPURA-526 117.

¶46

SRI. CHIKKARAJU, S/O SRI DYAVARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶47

SRI. CHIKKEGOWDA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶48

6(A) SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE SRI.CHIKKEGOWDA @ CHITTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶49

6(B) SRI. HARISH, S/O LATE SRI.CHIKKEGOWDA @ CHITTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶50

6(C) SMT. MAMATHA, D/O LATE SRI.CHIKKEGOWDA @ CHITTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB WA No. 1706 of 2015

¶52

RESPONDENT 6(A) TO 6(C) ARE R/O KOGGEDODDI, YELAGALLI POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶53

SRI. DEVEGOWDA, S/O SRI DYAVARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶54

SRI. DEVARAJU, S/O SRI DYAVARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF SANGAMA, UYYAMBALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-526 117.

¶55

SRI.AJITH SRINIVASAN, S/O SRI B K SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. 157, RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025.

¶56

…RESPONDENTS

¶57

(BY SRI. SPOORTHI HEGDE., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; R5 & R6(A) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V.C.O DATED 12/07/2021-NOTICE TO R6(B & C) IS H/S; V.C.O DATED 22/11/2016-NOTICE TO R7 & R8 IS COMPLETE; SRI. M C JAYAKIRTHI., ADVOCATE FOR R9)

¶58

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 199-222/2015 DATED 23/04/2015.

¶59

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, KRISHNA S DIXIT.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶60

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB WA No. 1706 of 2015

¶61

JUDGMENT

¶62

This intra-Court Appeal seeks to call in question a learned single Judge’s order dated 23.04.2015 whereby some dispute in relation to making of entries in the Revenue Records during the pendency of Appellant’s title suits in O.S.No.371/2013 & O.S.No.826/2014, have been provisionally adjudicated.

¶63

Learned Sr. Counsel Sri. V Laxminarayana appearing for Appellants’ counsel on record vehemently argues that once the request for regrant of land is rejected, the land would vest in the State and therefore, the subsequent regrant obtained at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner by the widow of the Village Office holder is irrelevant; if at all any effect is to be given, it should be treated as a fresh grant which is not legally permissible. In all fairness he also brings to notice of the Court that the subject suits having been dismissed, challenge thereto are pending in two appeals. All these aspects having not been duly adverted to by the learned

¶64

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB WA No. 1706 of 2015

¶65

Single Judge, the impugned order suffers from a lacuna warranting interference of this Court.

¶66

Learned HCGP appearing for the State and the

¶67

learned private counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents resist the Appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. They add that the suits having already been dismissed, the mutation of entries have to follow in terms of Section 127 & 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and more particularly the Proviso to Section 135 of the Act as reiterated by this Court in a catena of decisions.

¶68

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we are broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of contesting Respondents and therefore, we decline indulgence in the matter. The impugned order/Judgment in question could have been more articulately drafted, is

¶69

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB WA No. 1706 of 2015

¶70

beside the point. Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), an English writer of great repute had wittily said “There is scope for improvement even in heaven”. Be that as it may. The proviso to section 135 of the 1964 Act provides that ordinarily the entry should follow the decrees of Civil Court made in title suits. The impugned order/Judgment of the learned Single Judge is inarticulately premised on this and therefore, it cannot be faltered. This view gains a broad support from a Full Bench decision in SMT. JAYAMMA &

¶71

OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY & OTHERS, ILR 2020 KAR 1449 , as rightly

¶72

contended by learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents.

¶73

The above being said, it needs to be clarified that all contentions available to the Appellants herein can be urged in the Coordinate Appeals; such contention may include the effect of rejection of the prayer for regrant in the light of Act No.22 of 2023 to the Principal Act i.e., Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961.

¶74

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:25130-DB WA No. 1706 of 2015

¶76

With the above observations, this Appeal is disposed

¶77

off, costs having been made easy.

¶78

Sd/JUDGE

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80