Dismissed

Smt.Maremma and Ors. v. the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2024WP/203971/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions filed by legal representatives of original Inamdars seeking re-grant of lands. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding them meritless due to lack of evidence regarding the death of original Inamdars before the abolition Act and continuity of Talwarship by petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were declared meritless and dismissed with no order as to costs.

Smt.Maremma and Ors. Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995 WP No. 203973 of 2018 C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No. 203972 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.203973 OF 2018 (KVOA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.203971 OF 2018 (KLR-LG) &

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.203972 OF 2018 (KLR-RR-SUR) IN W.P.NO.203973 OF 2018

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

BASAVARAJ

¶12

S/O AMARAPPA @ MALLAPPA AGE:46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O BELAGURKI VILLAGE, TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST: RAICHUR.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAICHUR-584102.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LINGASUGUR, TQ: LINGASUGUR DIST: RAICHUR-584102.

¶19

THE TAHASILDAR SINDHANOOR, TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST:RAICHUR-584102.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. MAYA T. R, HCGP)

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995 WP No. 203973 of 2018 C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No. 203972 of 2018

¶24

¶25

IN W.P.NO.203971 OF 2018

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SMT.MAREMMA, W/O PAMPA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.,

¶28

A) HAMPAMMA W/O MALLAPPA AGE:65 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD & AGRI,

¶29

B) BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,

¶30

BOTH ARE R/O. BELAGURKI VILLAGE, TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST: RAICHUR.

¶31

…PETITIONERS

¶32

(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAICHUR-584102.

¶35

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LINGASUGUR, TQ: LINGASUGUR DIST: RAICHUR-584102.

¶36

THE TAHASILDAR, SINDHANOOR, TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST: RAICHUR-584102.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SMT. MAYA T. R, HCGP)

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995 WP No. 203973 of 2018 C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No. 203972 of 2018

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/03/2018 BEARING NO ¸ÀAPÀA/vÁAwæPÀ/C¦Ã®/08-2015-16 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO,1 VIDE ANNEXURE-M.B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.KUM/BHU/SU/2012-13/79 DATED 27/3/2013, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ANNEXURE-K. C)ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT THE REQUISITE OCCUPANCY PRICE PAYABLE BY PETITIONER ETC.

¶42

IN W.P.NO.203972 OF 2018

¶43

BETWEEN:

¶44

SRI. PARASAPPA, S/O ERAPPA GUJJAL SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,

¶45

A) SMT. NAGAMMA W/O PARASAPPA AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶46

B) SRI.KARIYAPPA S/O PARASAPPA AGE:55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶47

C) SRI.VENKAPPA S/O PARASAPPA AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE ALL ARE R/O BELAGURKI VILLAGE, TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST: RAICHUR-584102.

¶48

…PETITIONERS

¶49

(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶50

AND:

¶51

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR-584102.

¶52

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995 WP No. 203973 of 2018 C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No. 203972 of 2018

¶55

LINGASUGUR, TQ: LINGASUGUR DIST: RAICHUR-584102.

¶56

THE TAHASILDAR, SINDHANOOR, TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST: RAICHUR-584102.

¶57

…RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SMT. MAYA T. R, HCGP)

¶59

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/03/2018 BEARING NO ¸ÀAPÀA/vÁAwæPÀ/C¦Ã®/10-2015-16 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO,1 VIDE ANNEXURE-N. B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.KUM/BHU/SU/2012-13/82 DATED 27/3/2013, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ANNEXURE-L. C) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT THE REQUISITE OCCUPANCY PRICE PAYABLE BY PETITIONER ETC.

¶60

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

Heard learned counsel Sri Mahantesh Patil for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. Maya T.R. for the respondents.

¶63

The memo along with documents filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995 WP No. 203973 of 2018 C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No. 203972 of 2018

¶66

In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are claiming that they are the legal representatives of original grantees, who were doing the job of Talwar in the village and their ancestors were granted Inam namely, ‘Shethsandi Inam’. Admittedly, after the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) came into force, the original Inamdars did not chose to file applications for re-grant under Section 5 of the said Rules.

¶67

Belatedly applications came to be filed in the year 2012 by the writ petitioners. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner considered the same and rejected the applications as they are time barred. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached the Deputy

¶68

Commissioner in Appeal Nos.¸ÀAPÀA/vÁAwæPÀ/C¦Ã®/09-2015-16, ¸ÀAPÀA/vÁAwæPÀ/C¦Ã®/08-2015-16 and ¸ÀAPÀA/vÁAwæPÀ/C¦Ã®/10-2015-16 in all these writ petitions.

¶69

The Deputy Commissioner after notifying the

¶70

Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar, held an enquiry

¶71

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995 WP No. 203973 of 2018 C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No. 203972 of 2018

¶73

and after affording necessary opportunities for the parties, formulated two points for his consideration.

¶74

The first point raised is that “whether the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar is arbitrary, whimsical and without holding proper enquiry thus, needs to be set aside and the lands in question need to be regranted in favour of the petitioners.”

¶75

The Deputy Commissioner after considering the

¶76

power vested in the authorities under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and coupled with Rule 4(2) and Rule 5(1)(b) of the said Rules and also the judgments of this Court in the case of Bhimanagouda vs. State of Karnataka and Others and in the case of G.V.Subbarao vs. Tahsildar, Chikkaballapur

¶77

and Others has rejected the appeals filed by the writ petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶78

Reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended

¶79

¶80

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995 WP No. 203973 of 2018 C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No. 203972 of 2018

¶81

that the petitioners are poor rustic villagers and they did not know the niceties of law and moment they came to know that the lands are not granted in their favour as per the law, they made applications to the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2012 and the same have not been properly considered by the Assistant Commissioner by issuing endorsement stating that there is no records available in the office of the Assistant Commissioner and re-grant of the land cannot be made as the applications are belated.

¶82

He further contended that the Deputy Commissioner without considering the fact that the petitioners are the poor rustic villagers and did not exercise the power vested in him under Rule 5(1)(b) of the said Rules and wrongly rejected the appeals filed by the petitioners, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the writ petitions.

¶83

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the petitioners are admittedly legal

¶84

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995 WP No. 203973 of 2018 C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No. 203972 of 2018

¶86

representatives of original grantees. In their applications filed at Annexure-C in all these writ petitioners, there is no mention as to when their ancestors were discharging the job of Talwarship before the Act came into force and when they died.

¶87

She also contended that when the original Inamdars themselves did not chose to apply for re-grant, being the legal representatives, the petitioners filing applications that too in the year 2012 is rightly considered by the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter rightly rejected the appeals filed by the petitioners. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.

¶88

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶89

On such perusal of the material on record especially the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

¶90

it is crystal clear that there is no explanation forthcoming as to the belated applications.

¶91

¶92

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995 WP No. 203973 of 2018 C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No. 203972 of 2018

¶93

Further, Annexure-C is silent as to the date of death of ancestors of the petitioners, who were the original Inamdars.

¶94

Further, the petitioners claim that they came to know about the proceedings on 18.12.1984 when the Revenue Inspector has made entry in the records that the lands belonging to the Government. What are the steps that have been taken by the petitioners and when they came to know about the order passed by the Government and when exactly they took the copies of the orders are all not forthcoming in Annexure-C.

¶95

Further, what are the steps that have been taken by the original Inamdars is not even mentioned in Annexure-C.

¶96

The endorsement issued by the Assistant Commissioner is discussed in detail by the Deputy Commissioner in the order, which is under challenge. In the said order itself, it has been specifically mentioned

¶97

10 -

¶98

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2995 WP No. 203973 of 2018 C/W WP No. 203971 of 2018, WP No. 203972 of 2018

¶99

that the mutation in the revenue records has been taken place on 07.08.1984. Admittedly, the applications are filed in the year 2012 after lapse of 28 years.

¶100

Further, in the applications itself, there is no specific mention that the petitioners were also discharging the job of Talwar after the death of original Inamdars.

¶101

Unless there is a factual averment that original Inamdars have died earlier to the Act coming into force and the petitioners continued the job of Talwarship in their respective areas and based on such Talwarship, they were holding the lands is established by the petitioners, there cannot be any order of re-grant that could be made in favour of the petitioners.

¶102

In other wards, the petitioners having continued the Talwarship before the Act coming into force and holding the lands as Inam lands is a pre-requisite and sine qua non for considering the applications for re-grant as per Rule 5 of the said Rules.

¶103