Allowed

Pattabhiramaiah v. Rajanna

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2024WP/53496/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order of District Judge set aside the re-grant of land to petitioners who were Shanbhog baraward under the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961, remanding the matter for hearing the respondents. Court held that respondents were not rivals and court quashed the impugned order allowing responde

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.06.2017 passed by the I Additional District Judge is quashed and the order of re-grant is confirmed. Respondents directed to approach civil court.

Pattabhiramaiah Vs Rajanna — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10672 WP No. 53496 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 53496 OF 2017 (KVOA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1. PATTABHIRAMAIAH

¶9

SON OF LATE R. SUBBA RAO

¶10

SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.

¶11

1(A). SUBBA RAO,

¶12

SON OF LATE PATTABHIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4/5/6, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, GORAGUNTEPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 022.

¶13

1(B). ACHUTHA RAO P.,

¶14

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SON OF LATE PATTABHIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT ADDE VISHWANATHAPURA VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH - 561 203.

¶16

GOPAL RAO, SON OF LATE V.G. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶17

SAVITHRAMMA, WIFE OF LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10672 WP No. 53496 of 2017

¶19

ALL ARE R/AT ADDE VISHWANATHAPURA VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK - 560 088.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. PRADEEP C YADAV, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

RAJANNA SON OF LATE K.M. GANGAPPA, SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

¶24

RATHNAMMA, WIFE OF LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT KADATHANAMALE VILLAGE, AREKERE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 088.

¶25

RANGANATH,

¶26

S/O LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KADATHANAMALE VILLAGE, AREKERE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 088.

¶27

NETHRA,

¶28

D/O LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KADATHANAMALE VILLAGE, AREKERE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 088.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10672 WP No. 53496 of 2017

¶30

ROOPA.

¶31

D/O LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶32

R/AT KADATHANAMALE VILLAGE, AREKERE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 088.

¶33

BHAGYA, D/O LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT KADATHANAMALE VILLAGE, AREKERE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 088.

¶34

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 064.

¶35

LAKKAMMA,

¶36

W/O LATE T. MUTHURAYAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE,

¶37

R/AT KADATHANAMALE VILLAGE, AREKERE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 088.

¶38

MUNIKRISHNAPPA,

¶39

S/O LATE CHANNARANGAPPA MAJOR IN AGE AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KADATHANAMALE VILLAGE, AREKERE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 088.

¶40

VEERABHADRASWAMI MAJOR IN AGE

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10672 WP No. 53496 of 2017

¶42

S/O LATE K. VISHWANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KADATHANAMALE VILLAGE, AREKERE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 088.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI. B.C. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R6; VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.2021, NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R7, R8 AND R9 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶45

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:28.6.2017 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE IN M.A.NO.60/2014

¶46

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

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petitioners assert that they were the

¶49

barawardars of Shanbhog office, Kadathanamale Village, Sadenahalli Village and Adde Vishwanathapura Village and

¶50

the land bearing Sy.No.125 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas situated at Kadathanamale Village among other lands were granted to them in lieu of the services rendered by them as Shanbhogs towards emoluments.

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10672 WP No. 53496 of 2017

¶52

The Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act,

¶53

1961 came into effect from 01.07.1961, by which all the village offices which were held hereditarily were abolished and the lands attached to the said village officers were resumed and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. The petitioners claiming to be holder of the village officers filed an application under Section 5 of the of the Act, 1961 for re-grant of the land bearing Sy.No.125 among other lands.

¶54

The respondent No.6 by order dated 05.03.1991 rejected the application submitted by the petitioners for re-grant of the land bearing Sy.No.125 stating that the land is either in possession of the purchaser or in possession of the tenants. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1961 before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent No.6 and remitted the matter to respondent No.6 to reconsider the claim of

¶55

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10672 WP No. 53496 of 2017

¶56

the petitioner for the grant of the subject land. After remand, the father of respondent No.1 filed an application for impleading before respondent No.6 stating that he is in possession of the subject land since 1976 and sought for regularisation of his possession.

¶57

The respondent No.6 by order dated 28.10.2014 re-granted the subject land among other lands in favour of the petitioners against which the father of respondents No.1 to 5 filed an appeal under Section (2) of the Act 1961. The learned District judge by an order dated 28.06.2017 set aside the order passed by respondent No.6 and remanded the matter to respondent No.6 to hold denova enquiry after giving an opportunity to respondents No.1 to 5 and all interested parties. The impugned order was passed by the learned District Judge mainly on the ground that the father of the respondents No.1 to 5 who claims to be in possession of the subject land was not afforded an opportunity of hearing.

¶58

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10672 WP No. 53496 of 2017

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶60

there is no provision contained in Section 5 of the Act

¶61

1961 to hear the father of respondents No.1 to 5 before re-granting the subject land in favour of petitioners since, the father of respondents No.1 to 5 was not the rival claimant, and his possession cannot be regularised under Section 5 of the Act 1961. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is not sustainable in law.

¶62

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 submits that the father of respondents No.1 to 5 and his grandfather were in possession of the subject land since 1976 and the petitioners who are not in possession of the subject land are not entitled for re-grant of the subject land as stated under Section 5 of the Act 1961. He further submits that the documents produced along with the statement of objection clearly establish that the father of respondents No.1 to 5 was in possession of the subject land since 1976.

¶63

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:10672 WP No. 53496 of 2017

¶65

7. I have considered in the submissions made by

¶66

learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶67

Admittedly, the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records as holders of the subject land. Admittedly, the subject land was a Shanbhog Inam

¶68

land and vested with the Government free from all encumbrances after commencement of the Act 1961. The respondent No.6 after considering the revenue records has recorded a categorical finding that the subject land is a Shanbhog Inam land, which had vested with the Government, free from all encumbrances and the petitioners who are legal heirs of the deceased holder, regranted the subject land in favour of the petitioners.

¶69

The respondents No.1 to 5 admittedly, are not the rival claimants except stating that they are in possession of the said subject land since 1976 and they continue to be in possession as of today. Therefore, respondents No.1 to 5 who are not rival claimants had no

¶70

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:10672 WP No. 53496 of 2017

¶71

locus standi to question the order passed by the respondent No.6 re-granting the subject land in favour of the petitioners.

¶72

When the respondents No.1 to 5 had no locus standi to participate in the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act 1961, the learned District Judge committed an error in passing the impugned order instead of relegating the respondents No.1 to 5 to approach the jurisdictional civil court to protect their alleged possession in accordance with law.

¶73

It is also brought to the notice of this court that there are suits pending between the parties with regard to declaration and possession, and it is open for respondents No.1 to 5 to protect their alleged possession in accordance with law before the jurisdictional civil court in the pending suit in O.S.No.6/2023on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge Bangalore District, Bangalore.

¶74

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 28.06.2017 passed by the I

¶75

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:10672 WP No. 53496 of 2017

¶76

Additional District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in M.A.No.60/2014 is hereby quashed, and appeal stands dismissed, and the order passed by respondent No.6 re-granting the subject land in favour of the petitioners is confirmed.

¶77

This order shall not preclude the respondents

¶78

No.1 to 5 from agitating their claim in the pending suit in O.S.No.6/2023.

¶79

This court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the possession of the parties with respect to the subject land, and the trial court is at liberty to adjudicate the claim of the parties on the available material on record without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, and the observation made, if any, is only for the purpose of the present petition.

¶80

All contentions are kept open.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Pattabhiramaiah v. Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pattabhiramaiah v. Rajanna

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

Smt Kempamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.P. Sharvani Vs Mrs. Shabanas Abdul Jaleel

Sri. Seenappa Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Sri Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka