The Tahasildar Vs Sri Lingaiah @ Ningaiah

SRI LINGAIAH @ NINGAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH @ KULLAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O. ANEKEMPAYYANADOODI VILLAGE MANCHANABELE POST MADBAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 128

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47183-DB WA No. 1728 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/09/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.15914/2021(KLR-RR/SUR) AND ETC.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶27

The State Authorities have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 02.09.2021 [ impugned order ] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15914/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR), whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent [ writ petitioner ] was allowed and the appellants were directed to issue saguvali chit in respect of 2 acres of land falling in Survey No.46 of Manchinabele Village, Madbal Hobli, Magadi Taluk [ the subject land ] and to mutate the same in the writ petitioner's name.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:47183-DB WA No. 1728 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The present appeal is filed after an inordinate delay of 958 days. The appellants have filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.

¶32

The appellants explain that the delay in filing the appeal was due to several reasons. First, that the initial opinion was to file a review petition against the impugned order. However, subsequently, the learned Government Advocate opined that an appeal be filed. There is also reference to a case which was registered and filed before the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub-Division. Additionally, it is stated that the outbreak of COVID-19 had also impeded in filing the present appeal. Over and above the same, there were also bureaucratic delays.

¶33

We may note that the principal challenge to the impugned order is that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is on an erroneous assumption that the writ petitioner was granted the subject land. It is claimed that no grant order was produced before the learned Single Judge and the Grant Register

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47183-DB WA No. 1728 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

indicates that the writ petitioner was granted only 25 guntas of land and not 2 acres.

¶37

Considering that the matter involves dispensation of immovable property and the reasons for the delay as set out in the application filed by the appellants, we consider it apposite to allow the same. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 is allowed.

¶38

The writ petitioner had filed the aforementioned petition, inter alia, praying as under:

¶39

"Grant a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the Respondent No.1 to consider the representations given by the petitioner dated 20.11.2020 and 12.12.2019 produced as AnnexureA & B, within a reasonable time and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to issue Saguvali chit/hakku patra in the name of the petitioner in respect of the land in Sy.No.46, measuring 2 acres of Manchanabele village, Madabal Hobli, Magadi Taluk, further direct the 1^st respondent to mutate the name of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.46, measuring to an extent of 1 acre land, by allowing this writ petition."

¶40

The averments made in the said petition were to the effect

¶41

that the Land Grant Committee [ Grant Committee ] had passed an order in Case No.LND.CR.(3)1082/1991-92 granting the subject land (two acres of land in Survey No.46) in favour of the

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47183-DB WA No. 1728 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

writ petitioner. Thereafter, the writ petitioner had planted mango trees and neem trees and had cultivated the said subject land without any obstruction.

¶45

On an earlier occasion, an order dated 17.06.1999 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, apparently cancelling the grant in respect of 1 acre out of the 2 acres of the subject land. The said order was the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition (being W.P.No.36018/1999). The same was disposed of by an order dated 07.07.2000, whereby this Court had set aside the said order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to pass an appropriate order after hearing the writ petitioner. It is the writ petitioner's case that, in compliance of the said order, the Assistant Commissioner had passed a fresh order regularising 2 acres of land as per the decision of the Grant Committee dated 11.06.1998. It does not appear that the appellants at any stage controverted the averment that the writ petitioner had been granted 2 acres of land in terms of the decision of the Grant Committee as referred to by the writ petitioner.

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:47183-DB WA No. 1728 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Since the saguvali chit had not been issued to the writ petitioner, he had made representations dated 12.12.2019 and 20.11.2020. Since the same were not considered, the writ petitioner had filed the present writ petition (being W.P.No.15914/2021). In the backdrop of uncontroverted assertions that the writ petitioner had been granted 2 acres of land by the Grant Committee, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and directed appellant No.1 to issue a saguvali chit within a period of two months from the date of the said decision.

¶50

Since an issue is now raised regarding the existence of a grant order in favour of the writ petitioner, we consider it apposite to modify the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. We may note that the appellant's submission before this Court is that the Grant Committee had granted 25 guntas of land in favour of the writ petitioner. To this extent, there is no dispute whatsoever. Thus, the operative part of the impugned order directing the appellants to issue a saguvali chit is confined to 25 guntas of land, which according to the appellants had been

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47183-DB WA No. 1728 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

granted to the writ petitioner. Insofar as the remaining land (1 acre and 15 guntas) is concerned, we consider it apposite to modify the impugned order by directing that the writ petitioner's representation for grant of a saguvali chit in respect of 1 acre 15 guntas shall be considered by the Tahsildar on the basis of the record.

¶54

We clarify that the present order should not be construed as permitting the authorities to review any order granting land in favour of the writ petitioner. The examination by the appellants is required to be confined to the orders already passed on record. Needless to state that if any application is pending on which no orders have been passed, the same would obviously be required to be considered. However, the appellants will not review or recall any order that has been passed in favour of the writ petitioner. We consider it apposite to confine the examination as aforesaid, considering that more than two and a half decades have passed since the writ petitioner had applied for being recognised as an authorised cultivator of the subject land; the fact that subject land was granted to the writ petitioner was not

¶55

8 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:47183-DB WA No. 1728 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

controverted in earlier proceedings; and the only ground canvassed to challenge the impugned order is that it rests on an erroneous assumption that the subject land was granted to the writ petitioner.

¶59

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from date.

¶60

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶61

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶62

KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

The Tahasildar v. Sri Lingaiah @ Ningaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tahasildar v. Sri Lingaiah @ Ningaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Gurunath Vadde Vs the State of Karnataka

Ann Varghese Vs K. v. Prasad

Commissioner Vs C a Suresha

Ramaiah Vs the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps

Sri.a.v.Ananda Ram Vs Sri.Rakshith K.R.

M/S Control Engineers Vs Mallikarjuna M