Dismissed

Sri Rajappa v. the Tahasildar

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024WP/44207/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking quashing of an order dismissing an appeal as time-barred. The Court held the initial order was final and functus officio, but the Thasildhar re-granted land after correcting shares, a right accepted and acted upon by the petitioner's father, making the subsequent appeal un-tenable due to inordinate delay and established third-party

What did the court decide?

Petition stands dismissed. The impugned order of the Learned District Judge dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay is not illegal.

Sri Rajappa Vs the Tahasildar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11795 WP No. 44207 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 44207 OF 2018 (KVOA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI RAJAPPA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶8

1(A) SRI MANJUNATH R S/O LATE RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT KONASANDRA VILLAGE KALLUBALU POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106.

¶9

1(B). SMT. K.R. SWARNALATHA W/O LATE R. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

RESIDING AT NO.177, PANATHUR VILLAGE BELLANDURU HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560 103.

¶12

1(C). SMT. P.R. VIJAYA LAKSHMI W/O SAMPANGI RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶13

RESIDING AT NO.176, PANATHUR VILLAGE BELLANDURU HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560 003

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11795 WP No. 44207 of 2018

¶15

SRI MUNIRAJAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶16

(SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS)

¶17

2(A) SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNIRAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT KONASANDRA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.

¶18

SRI CHIKKATHIMMARAYAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶19

SMT. RATHANAMMA D/O LATE MUNEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶20

SMT. VENKATAMMA D/O LATE MUNEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶21

SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶22

SMT. THIMMAKKA D/O LATE H. MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶23

SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O YELASAPPA @ YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶24

SMT. LAGUMAMMA W/O LATE MUNIPAPA DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶25

PETITIONERS NO.3 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT KONASANDRA VILLAGE

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11795 WP No. 44207 of 2018

¶27

JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106

¶28

PETITIONERS NO.1(B), 1(C), 2(A), AND 3 TO 9 ARE REPRESENTING THROUGH THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI MANJUNATHA R. THE PETITIONER NO.1(A).

¶29

…PETITIONERS

¶30

(BY SRI. SANKET M YENAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL-562 106.

¶33

SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶34

SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶35

SRI V RAJU S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶36

SMT. VIMALA W/O V. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶37

SMT. SHAMBAKKA D/O LATE MUNIBASAVA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, (SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 10)

¶38

SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O SHAMBAKKA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶39

SRI S. NAGARAJ S/O GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶40

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11795 WP No. 44207 of 2018

¶41

SRI THIMMARAYAPPA S/O GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶42

SRI MADHU S/O GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

¶43

SRI THIMMARAYAPPA S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶44

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 11 ARE R/AT KONASANDRA VILLAGE, KALLUBALU POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106.

¶45

SRI M. MUNINARAYANAPPA S/O MALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS)

¶46

12(A) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶47

12(B). SRI N. PUTTARAJU S/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶48

12(C). SMT. MALA D/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶49

RESPONDENTS NO.12(A) TO 12(C) ARE RESIDING AT NO.66, VINAYAKA NAGARA, DODDA KAMMANAHALLI, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 068.

¶50

SMT. MANJULA W/O J.C. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11795 WP No. 44207 of 2018

¶52

R/AT JIGANI VILLAGE, JINGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 106.

¶53

SRI NANJAPPA S/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KOPPA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 106.

¶54

SRI DEVENDRA S/O PREMA RAM JI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶55

SRI PRAKASH S/O PREMA RAM JI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶56

RESPONDENTS' NO.15 AND 16 ARE R/AT NO.7, KRISHNAREDDY BUILDING, YARANDAHALLI VILLAGE, JINGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106.

¶57

SMT. MALA W/O BABU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT JIGANI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 106.

¶58

SMT. NANJAMMA W/O MUTHURAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NOSENOOR VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-56 106.

¶59

SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT JIGANI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 106.

¶60

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11795 WP No. 44207 of 2018

¶61

SRI. BHAGAVANTHAPPA B DURGA S/O BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.65, 5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018.

¶62

SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O SIDDESHWARA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT BANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 106.

¶63

SRI. G. NANJAPPA S/O LATE GULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT JIGANI VILLAGE, JIGANI TALUK, BENGALURU-562 106.

¶64

SRI LAKSHMAIAH S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT KONASANDRA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 106.

¶65

SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT KONASANDRA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 106.

¶66

SMT. SHOBHA W/O. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT BOMANDAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 106.

¶67

SRI SUBRAMANYA S/O MUNIYAPPA

¶68

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:11795 WP No. 44207 of 2018

¶69

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KITTAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 106.

¶70

SMT. HEMA W/O. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT CHANDAPURA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 106.

¶71

SMT. BHARATHI W/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT CHANDAPURA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 106.

¶72

SRI. M. GOPALA REDDY S/O. LATE. MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT MADAPATNA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 106.

¶73

SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE. LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT KONASANDRA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 106.

¶74

SRI. CHIKKAVEERAPPA S/O. LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT KONASANDRA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 106.

¶75

…RESPONDENTS

¶76

(BY SRI. S.R. KHAMROX KHAN, AGA FOR R1; SRI. P. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV., FOR R2 TO R5 & R7 TO R10; SRI. V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DUSHYANTH ARADHYA H.C, ADVOCATE FOR R26;

¶77

¶78

NC: 2024:KHC:11795 WP No. 44207 of 2018

¶79

SRI. S. VENKATESH SHASTRY, ADVOCATE, FOR R29; NOTICE TO R11, R12(A), (B), R13, R14, R17 TO R19, R22 TO R25, R30 & R31 ARE SERVED; R6 DECEASED V/O DATED 28.07.2022, NOTICE TO R12(C), R15, R16, R20, R21, R27 AND R28 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶80

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.8.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALOE RURAL DISTRICT SIT AT ANEKAL, PASSED IN M.A.NO.5/2013 AT ANNEXURE-K; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.6.1984 PASSED IN CASE NO.VOA. NO.105/82-83 PASSED BY THE R-1 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶81

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

¶82

ORDER

¶83

1^St respondent by order dated 4.6.1984 in exercise of power under Section 5(3) of KVOA re-granted the subject land bearing Sy.Nos.27, 48, 75 measuring 1.11 guntas, 2.20 guntas, 1.30 guntas and 2.21 guntas respectively, in all 8 acres 2 guntas, in favor of the petitioner's father and other Barwardars to the extent of shares to which they were entitled to.

¶84

Given the circumstances, the 1^st respondent by order dated 27.6.1984 re-granted the very same lands to the petitioner's father and other barwardars. However, the shares allotted in the earlier order were modified.

¶85

Petitioners contended that the order dated 4.6.1984 having become final, the 1^st respondent could not have modified the shares by passing the 2^nd order dated 27.6.1984 without revoking the previous order, and also without issuance of notice to

¶86

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC:11795 WP No. 44207 of 2018

¶88

the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 3(2) of the Act before the learned District Judge.

¶89

The learned District Judge, by the impugned order dated 7.8.2018 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of more than 29 years without offering any plausible explanation. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶90

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the learned district Judge committed an error in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, and he further submits that the order impugned before the learned District Judge was without issuing notice to the petitioners, and therefore, the learned District Judge ought to have condoned the delay, if any, and adjudicated the appeal on merits and set aside the order.

¶91

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.26 and the learned counsel for the other respondents would contend that, the order dated 27.6.1984 passed by the 1^st respondent was acted upon by the petitioners, and the names of the father of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records to the extent of land re-granted in their favour. They further submitted that the petitioners' father had participated in the proceedings before the 1^st respondent and thereafter the said order was passed, and the same cannot be held to be violative of principles of natural justice.

¶92

They further submitted that, subsequent to the order dated 27.6.1984, land allotted to their share has been conveyed in favour to various persons, and therefore, the petitioners are not

¶93

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:11795 WP No. 44207 of 2018

¶94

entitled for relief sought for under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶95

Learned AGA reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶96

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶97

The 1^st respondent by order dated 4.6.1984 re-granted the subject lands in favour of the petitioner's father and other barwardars to the extent of shares which they were entitled to.

¶98

It is undisputed that the 1^st respondent having passed the order under Section 5 of the Act had become functus officio, since there is no provision either to modify or pass the order. However, the Thasildhar, again initiated proceedings in respect of the very same lands and by order dated 27.6.1984, re-granted the subject land in favour of the petitioner's father and other barwardars by modifying the extent of shares re-granted. The petitioner's fathers had participated in the proceedings before the 1^st respondent and during their lifetime accepted the said order.

¶99

In pursuance of the order dated 27.6.1984, the name of the petitioner’s father and other barwardars were mutated in the records of rights to the extent of shares allotted, and the order dated 27.6.1984 having been accepted and having been acted upon by the petitioner’s father during his lifetime, the appeal filed after an inordinate delay of more than 29 years was not

¶100

11 -

¶101

NC: 2024:KHC:11795 WP No. 44207 of 2018

¶102

maintainable, and the learned District Judge taking into consideration the same has rightly dismissed the appeal.

¶103

It is also undisputed that third party rights are created in respect of lands allotted to the share of other barwardars, and if the appeal is entertained , it would cause miscarriage of justice.

¶104

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

¶105

Sd/JUDGE

¶106

Sri Rajappa v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajappa 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

Sharada Auto Union (Regd) Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T Pavan Kumar, Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Srinivasamurthy. P. C. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt C a Shantha Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

M/S. Siddhi Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R S Chandrashekar, Vs Tahsildar