Partly allowed

Smt. Fakrumbi v. the Tahasildar

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024WP/14256/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Competing claims for regrant of lands attached to a hereditary Neeraganti (village) office. The Court held that a mere Gumasta or his heirs could not claim regrant, dismissed the writ petitions of the legatee's heirs and Fakrumbi, and allowed regrant to the sole surviving heir's branch alone.

What did the court decide?

W.P.No.14256/2015 and W.P.No.32257/2016 dismissed; W.P.No.14911/2015 allowed with direction that only Neeraganti Narasimhaiah and his legal heirs are entitled to regrant of the lands.

Smt. Fakrumbi Vs the Tahasildar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶7

W.P.NO.14256 OF 2015 C/W

¶8

W.P. NO.14911 OF 2015, W.P. NO.32257 OF 2016 (KVOA)

¶9

IN WP No. 14256/2015

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. FAKRUMBI D/O LATE PEERUSABI SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.

¶12

1(1) SMT.PARVEEN TAJ W/O LATE SHAIK MANZOOR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

1(2) SMT.RAMEEZA W/O GHOUSE PEER AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶15

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.19 8^TH CROSS 1^ST MAIN ROAD NEAR GLOBAL SCHOOL BAPUJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 026

¶16

SRI. TAJPEER @ MOIDDIN S/O LATE BUDDANSAB AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O PERESANDRA VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABLLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101 …PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. K VIJAYKUMAR, ADV. FOR LRS.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶20

OF DECEASED PETITIONER NO.1[P1(1) & P1(2)]; SRI. J.N.NAVEEN, ADV. FOR P2)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE TAHASILDAR CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK TALUK OFFICE CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST – 562 101

¶23

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE NEERAGANTI NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶24

(RESPONDENT NO.2 SINCE DEAD LEAVING BEHIND R-3 TO R-7 AS HER SOLE SURVIVING LEGAL HEIRS. THEY ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 7)

¶25

SMT. VENKATAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶26

SRI. OBANNA S/O LATE NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶27

SMT. KRISHNAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶28

SMT. RAMAKKA D/O LATE NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶29

SRI. P.N. NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶30

RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 7 ARE THE

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶32

R/O PERESANDRA VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALALPURA DISTRICT – 562 101

¶33

SRI. CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA R/O NANDI VILLAGE

¶34

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶35

R/O NANDI VILLAGE CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT

¶36

SRI. AVULA KONDAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶37

SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶38

RESPONDENT NOS.9 AND 10 ARE R/O PERESANDRA VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALALPURA DISTRICT – 562 101

¶39

RESPONDENT NO.10 SINCE DEAD BY LRS RESPONDENT NOS.8 AND 9 ARE ALREADY ON RECORD

¶40

AMENDMENT OF CAUSE TITLE CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER PASSED ON 20.04.2016 …RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SMT.RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R1; SRI.S.VISWESWARAIAH, ADV. FOR R2 TO R7; SRI. L. NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADV. FOR R8 & R9; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.04.2016, R8 AND R9 ARE TREATED AS LRS. OF DECEASED R 10.)

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH ANNEXURE-F THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN PROCEEDINGS VIDE DT.26.3.2008 AND ANNEXURE-G THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DT.2.8.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIST., JUDGE, CHICKBALLAPUR IN MISC. APPEAL NO.19/2008.

¶45

IN WP NO. 14911/2015

¶46

BETWEEN:

¶47

SMT GANGAMMA W/O LATE NEERAGANIT NARASIMHAIAH

¶48

SINCE DEAD LEAVING BEHIND PETITIONER NOS. 2 TO 6 AS HER SOLE SURVIVING LEGAL HEIRS WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD

¶49

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE COURT DATED 25.08.2021

¶50

SMT. VENKATAMMA D/O LATE NEERAGANTI NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶51

SRI. OBANNA S/O LATE NEERAGANTI NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶52

SMT. KRISHNAMMA D/O LATE NEERAGANTI NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶53

SMT. RAMAKKA D/O LATE NEERAGANTI NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶54

SRI. P.N. NARASIMHAPPA S/O LATE NEERAGANTI NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶55

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶56

ALL ARE R/AT PERESANDRA VILLAGE CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DIST – 532 101

¶57

...PETITIONERS

¶58

(BY SRI. S VISWESWARAIAH., ADV. VIDE ORDER DATED 25.08.2021 ADV. FOR LR’S OF DECEASED P1 (P2 TO P6))

¶59

AND:

¶60

STATE BY TAHSILDAR CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DIST – 532 101

¶61

SRI. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶62

SRI. AVALAKONDAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶63

R2 AND R3 ARE R/O PERESANDRA VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DIST.

¶64

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER

¶65

HON’BLE COURT ORDER DATED 29.03.2016

¶66

SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA

¶67

RESPONDENT NO.4 SINCE DEAD BY LRS. OF R4 IE., R2 AND R3 ARE ALREADY ON RECORD

¶68

SMT. FAKRUMBI D/O PEER SABI W/O FAKRUSAB

¶69

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE ORDER OF HON’BLE COURT DATED 15.04.2021

¶70

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶71

5(a) SMT. PARVEEN TAJ W/O LATE SHAIK MANZOOR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶72

5(b) SMT.RAMEEZA W/O GHOUSE PEER AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶73

BOTH ARE R/AT 8^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR GLOBAL SCHOOL BAPUJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 026

¶74

SRI. TAJPIR S/O LATE BUDENSAB AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O PERESANDRA VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DIST – 532 101 ...RESPONDENTS

¶75

(BY SMT.RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2016 R2 AND R3 ARE LR’S OF R4; SRI. L. NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADV. FOR R2 & R3; SRI. K.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R5(a)&(b); SRI.J.N.NAVEEN, ADV. FOR R6)

¶76

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR, IN M.A.NO.22/2008, DTD.2.8.2014 VIDE ANNEX-A AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DTD.26.3.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R-1 TO RE-GRANT THE LANDS IN QUESTION ONLY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS.

¶77

IN WP NO. 32257/2016

¶78

BETWEEN:

¶79

CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA

¶80

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶81

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶82

AVALAKONDAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶83

BOTH ARE R/AT THIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK

¶84

CHICKBALLAPUR DIST. – 562 101 ...PETITIONERS

¶85

(BY SRI. L. NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADV.)

¶86

AND:

¶87

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

¶88

THE TAHSILDAR CHICKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKABALLAPUR DIST-562 101

¶89

SMT FAKRUMBI SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶90

3(a) SMT. PARVEEN TAJ W/O LATE SHAIK MANZOON AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶91

3(b) SMT.RAMEEZA

¶92

W/O GHOUSE PEER AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶93

RESPONDENT NO.3(a) & (b) BOTH ARE R/AT 8^TH CROSS

¶94

1^ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR GLOBAL SCHOOL BAPUJI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 026

¶95

P B TAJPEER S/O P BUDENSABI

¶96

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶97

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶98

SMT GANGAMMA W/O LATE NEERAGANTI NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶99

SMT VENKATAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶100

OBANNA S/O LATE NARASIMAHAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶101

SMT KRISHNAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶102

SMT RAMAKKA D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶103

P N NARSIMHAIAH S/O LATE NARASIMAHAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶104

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 10 ARE R/AT PERESANDRA VILLAGE, MANDIKA HOBLI CHICKABALLAPUR TALUK

¶105

CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST – 562 101 ...RESPONDENTS

¶106

(BY SMT.RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FPR R1 & R2; SRI.K.,VIJAY KUMAR, ADV. FOR R3(a) & (b); SRI. J. N. NAVEEN, ADV. FOR R4; SRI. S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADV. FOR R5 TO R10)

¶107

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-2 - AUTHORITY DATED 26.03.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE ORDER DATED

¶108

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶109

02.08.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, CHICKBALLAPUR IN MISC. APPEAL NO.17/2008 ANNEXURE-E CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE R-2.

¶110

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶111

ORAL ORDER

¶112

The following facts are not in dispute.

¶113

Kadirappa was the Neeraganti (Village Office holder) of the lands bearing Sy.No.273 measuring 25 guntas, Sy.No.298 measuring 2 acres, Sy.No.319 measuring 13 guntas, and Sy.No.320 measuring 36 guntas, all situated at Peresandra Village, Mandikal Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk.

¶114

Kadirappa had three children — the 1^st son Narasappa, who was married to Ademma, had no issues. The 2^nd son Mariyanna, who was married to Narasamma, also had no issues. The 3^rd child was a daughter named Ramakka.

¶115

*Page No.9 retyped & replaced vide Court order dated 29.11.2024

¶116

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶117

Narasamma, the wife of the 2^nd son–Mariyanna, is stated to have executed a Will in favour of Munishamappa. Munishamappa instituted a suit in on the basis of the Will in O.S. No.74/2000, which was dismissed on 19.01.2013 and this dismissal of the suit was confirmed by the dismissal of R.A. No.30/2013 on 26.09.2016. The order passed by the Appellate Court has also been confirmed in RSA. No.2399/2017 by an order dated 07.09.2023. Thus, the claim of the legatee of Narasamma i.e., Munishamappa on the basis of the Will has come to an end with the dismissal of RSA.No.2399/2017.

¶118

As the aforementioned lands were attached to Neeraganti (Village Office), applications were filed for regrant by Neeraganti Narasimhaiah i.e., the son of Ramakka.

¶119

In respect of aforesaid lands, a claim was also put forth by Fakrumbi contending that Narasamma–wife of Mariyanna had appointed her father Peerusabi as

¶120

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶121

Gumasta of Neeraganti (Village Office) and this was evidenced from the revenue records also. She also contended that her husband Fakrusabi was also a Gumasta of the Neeraganti Village Office and was working as such since the death of her father Peerusabi.

¶122

The Tahsildar accepted the claim of Neeraganti Narasimhaiah i.e., son of Ramakka (who was since dead and were represented by his LRs) and also the claim of Fakrumbi and PB Taj Peer, and regranted them lands in equal proportion.

¶123

Being aggrieved by said order, an appeal was preferred by the legatee of Narasamma and also by the successful re-grantees questioning the denial of regrant of the entire land in their favour. The Appellate Court has dismissed all the appeals and has confirmed the order of the Tahsildar. As a consequence, the legatee of Narasamma i.e.,

¶124

12 -

¶125

NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶126

Munishamappa and also the successful regrantees

¶127

are before this Court by way of these writ petitions.

¶128

The son of Ramakka i.e., Neeraganti Narasimhaiah contended that his mother was the only surviving legal heir of Kadirappa, the original holder of Neeraganti Village Office and as a consequence, regrant could have been made only to his branch especially when Kadirappa’s two sons i.e., Narasappa and Mariyanna had no issues.

¶129

It is also contended that Mariyanna’s wife Narasamma could not have executed a Will and she could not have also appointed Peerusabi as Gumasta of Neeraganti Village Office. It is submitted that even

¶130

if Peerusabi was appointed as Gumasta, he cannot claim to be the Neeraganti Village Office holder since, admittedly, the post of Neeraganti is a hereditary office.

¶131

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶132

Fakrumbi—the daughter of Peerusabi, on the other hand, contended that the land grant records do indicate that her father was appointed as Gumasta to the Neeraganti Village Office and after his death, her husband was actually discharging the function of Neeraganti Village Office holder and in light of this finding recorded by the Tahsildar himself, the entire land ought to have been regranted to her.

¶133

As far as the claim of Munishamappa—the legatee of Narasamma is concerned, in light of the fact that his entire claim to the lands was only on the basis of the Will executed in his favour by Narasamma and this claim under the Will has been refuted by the dismissal of O.S. No.74/2000 which has also been confirmed right up to this Court in RSA No. 2399/2017, it is obvious that neither he nor any of his successors in interest can lay any claim over the lands in question. Accordingly, the petition

¶134

14 -

¶135

NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶136

i.e.,W.P.No.32257/2016 filed by the legal heirs of Munishamappa is dismissed .

¶137

It cannot be in dispute that the office of Neeraganti is a hereditary office and only the successors of the Village Office holder can succeed to the said property.

¶138

The contention of Fakrumbi that her father— Peerusabi, though had been appointed as a Gumasta, and her husband was subsequently actually discharging the function of Neeraganti cannot be accepted for the simple reason that Peerusabi, even according to the plea set up, was only appointed as a Gumasta and cannot claim to be the Neerganti (village office holder).

¶139

The averment that he was discharging the function of a Neeraganti cannot make him the Neeraganti i.e., the actual Village Office holder. In order to be a Village Office holder, primarily, the person, who

¶140

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶141

claims the Village Office should be entitled to succeed to the office hereditarily or, in the alternative, there must be valid alienation of Village Office in his favour i.e., the alienation recognized under the relevant rules in vogue. Admittedly, it is not the case of Fakrumbi that Narasamma had transferred the Village Office in favour of her father—Peerusabi in a manner known to law.

¶142

The only claim put forth was that Peerusabi has been appointed as a Gumasta to the Neeraganti village office and, therefore, he was entitled for regrant. The argument advanced by Fakrumbi cannot be accepted because even according to the case set up by her, her father Peerusabi has been appointed as a Gumasta of Neeraganti Village Office and not as the actual Neeraganti, and, thus, even if Narasamma had appointed her father as a Gumasta, the Gumasta cannot turn around and claim that he has become

¶143

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶144

the Neeraganti merely because he was assisting or discharging the work of a Neeraganti.

¶145

As stated above, since the office of the Neeraganti is a hereditary office, Peerusabi cannot claim to be the holder of Neeraganti Village Office. Consequently, Fakrumbi would not be entitled to an order of regrant.

¶146

In the result, the order regranting lands to Fakrumbi and Tajpeer on the basis of her father Peerusabi being appointed as Gumasta of Neeraganti Village Office cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Accordingly, the petition i.e., W.P.No.14256/2015 filed by Fakrumbi is dismissed .

¶147

As a further consequence, since Neeraganti Narasimhaiah becomes the sole surviving legal heir of the original holder of Neeraganti Village Office i.e., Kadirappa, the entire land would have to be regranted to his branch. It is hereby made clear that

¶148

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:44476 WP No. 14256 of 2015 C/W WP No. 14911 of 2015 WP No. 32257 of 2016

¶149

only Neeraganti Narasimhaiah and his legal heirs are entitled to regrant of the aforementioned lands. Accordingly, the petition i.e., W.P.No.14911/2015 filed by the legal heirs of Neeraganti Narasimhaiah is

¶150

allowed .

¶151

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶152

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Smt. Fakrumbi v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Fakrumbi v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Smt a Selvi

Mr. N. J. Kiran Vs Mrs. Chaitra

Sri Yashwanth D Vs Sri Rafiq Ulla

Sri Bettaswamy Vs Sri Gangaiah

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Mahadevi

Mr Syed Aleem Vs Sri Harry Karthik