This petition sought quashing of a circular and endorsement rejecting an application for regrant of service inam land. The Court held that payment of occupancy price by 31.03.1992 was the mandatory precondition with a corresponding limitation, which the petitioner failed to satisfy, leading to dismissal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34056 WP No. 49849 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 49849 OF 2015 (KVOA)
BETWEEN:
RANGASWAMAIAH, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O HERURU, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 216.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRACHOODA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR DATED 12.12.2002 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE - D, BY DECLARING THE SAME AS INAPPLICABLE AND WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND DO NOT COME IN THE WAY OF THE AUTHORITIES CONSIDERING THE DISPOSING OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGRANT OF SERVICE INAM LANDS UNDER THE KARNATAKA VILLAGE OFFICES ABOLITION ACT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for
the following prayers:
(a) a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the circular bearing No.RD/10/INM/2000 (Part - 1) dated 12/12/2002 issued by the 1st respondent produced as Annexure - D by declaring the same as inapplicable and wholly without jurisdiction and do not come in the way of the authorities considering and disposing of the application for regrant of service inam lands under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act;
(b) a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the impugned endorsement bearing No.INA.CR1/15-16 dated 12/06/2015 issued by the 2nd respondent, produced as Annexure B and direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the application filed by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law true copy of which is produced a Annexure -A;
( c) any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including an order as to cost.
the petition land by personal cultivation and an application was made by the petitioner to the second respondent under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (Act, 1961 for short). It is the case of the petitioner that there is no prescribed limitation for filing the application for regrant. The second respondent by the impugned endorsement at Annexure 'D' rejected the application of the petitioner for regrant of service inam lands under the Abolition Act, 1961.
interfered as the second respondent has failed to understand the circular and has erroneously issued the impugned endorsement.
has not paid any occupancy price as contemplated under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1961.
" Whether there prescribes any time limit for filing an application for regrant under Section 5(1) of the Act, 1961? "
notwithstanding anything in any usage, custom,
settlement, grant, agreement, sanad, or in any decree or order of a Court, or an existing law relating to village offices, with effect on and from the appointed date - (1) all village offices shall be and are hereby abolished; (2) all incidents (including the right to hold office and the emoluments attached thereto, the right to levy customary fees or perquisites in money or in kind and the liability to render service) appertaining to the said village offices shall be and are hereby extinguished; (3) subject to the
provisions of section 5, section 6 and section 7, all land granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State shall be and is hereby resumed, and shall be subject to the payment of land revenue under the provisions of the Code and the rules and orders made thereunder as if it were an unalienated land or ryotwari land.
an occupant or holder of a ryotwari patta within the meaning of the Code in respect of such land.
(3) to Section 4 has paid the full occupancy price under Rule 4, cost to be shown on notice on every such person intimating that he shall make an application, the Deputy Commissioner for such regrant, within three months from the date of payment of the full occupancy price under Rule 4.
NC: 2024:KHC:34056 WP No. 49849 of 2015
the prescribed limit for filing an application is envisaged as under Rule 4 on payment of occupancy price on or before 31.03.1992. The endorsement issued by the respondent does not warrant any interference and accordingly this Court pass the following -
ORDER
The writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a prescribed time limit for filing an application for regrant of service inam land under Section 5(1) of the Act?
Whether the condition precedent of payment of occupancy price within the prescribed period was satisfied for filing the application?
Whether the impugned endorsement rejecting the application was liable to be interfered by the Court?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rangaswamaiah
The State of Karnataka
The Tahsildar, Gubbi Taluk
K.S. Hemalekha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
