Shamrao S/O Rangnathrao Police Patil Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 226091 OF 2020 (KLR-RR/SUR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 225871 OF 2020 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

W.P. NO.226091/2020:

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHAMRAO S/O RANGNATHRAO POLICE PATIL AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO. 9-4-108, GANDI GUNJ ROAD, BEHIND NANDI PETROL PUMP, BIDAR-585401.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R.S.SIDHAPURKER, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BIDAR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BIDAR-585401.

¶14

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, BIDAR OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, BIDAR-585401.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, BIDAR OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, BIDAR-585401.

¶16

GOURAMMA D/O LAXMANRAO AGED ABOUT: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶18

R/O: KOLHAR(K) VILLAGE,

¶19

TQ: & DIST: BIDAR-585401.

¶20

RAJSHEKHAR S/O SHANKREPPA TANDURE AGED ABOUT: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEAR OLD GOVT. HOSPITAL, BIDAR-585401.

¶21

SHIVAKUMAR S/O SHAMRAO AGED ABOUT: 59 YEARS, OCC: PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O: L.I.G. HOUSING COLONY, BIDAR-585401.

¶22

RAJAKUMAR S/O SHAMRAO AGED ABOUT: 56 YEARS, OCC: PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O: L.I.G. HOUSING COLONY, BIDAR-585401.

¶23

ASHOK S/O SHAMRAO AGED ABOUT: 56 YEARS, OCC: PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O: L.I.G. HOUSING COLONY, BIDAR-585401.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4;

¶26

SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5, 7 AND 8;

¶27

SRI. D.P.AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.05.2020 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN FILE NO.APPL/CR-7/2019-20 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-R AND ETC.,

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶30

W.P. NO.225871/2020:

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

GOURAMMA D/O LAXMANRAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O KOLHAR (K) VILLAGE TQ AND DIST: BIDAR

¶33

…PETITIONER

¶34

(BY SRI. KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BIDAR-585401

¶37

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BIDAR , BIDAR-585401

¶38

THE TAHASILDAR, BIDAR BIDAR-585401

¶39

RAJASHEKHAR S/O. SHANKREPPA TANDURE AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NEAR OLD GOVT. HOSPITAL BIDAR-585401

¶40

SHIVAKUMAR S/O SHAMRAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC: PVT.EMPLOYMENT R/O. H.NO.8/8/93, LIG HOUSING COLONY BIDAR-585401

¶41

RAJ KUMAR S/O SHAMRAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O.H.NO.8/8/93, LIG HOUSING COLONY BIDAR-585401

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶43

ASHOK S/O SHAMRAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O LIG HOUSING COLONY BIDAR-585401

¶44

KALLAPPA S/O RATNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O CRISTA COLONY, H.NO.245, KOLHAR (K) VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR - 585402

¶45

SIMON S/O MANIK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KOLHAR (K) VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST.: BIDAR - 585402

¶46

SMT. VIMALAMMA W/O KASHINATH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O CRISTA COLONY, H.NO.133, KOLHAR (K) VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR - 585402 (REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. VAIJINATH S/O CHANDRAPPA DHUMALE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.21/T, KEB ROAD, FOREST RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS, OPP: IMA HALL, BIDAR, DIST. BIDAR

¶47

NOTE: AGE OF RESPONDENT NOS.8 TO 10 ARE UPDATED WITH REFERENCE TO THEIR AGE ON THE DATE OF FILING OF IMPLEADING APPLICATION.

¶48

AMENDED IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 11.02.2025)

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶51

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI.D.P.AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.4; SRI. AMEETKUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7;

¶52

SRI. R.S.SIDHAPURKER, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.8 TO 10)

¶53

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.APPL/CR-07/2019-20 DATED 18.05.2020 AS AT ANNEXURE-N PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BIDAR AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND ETC.

¶54

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 11.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶55

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶56

CAV ORDER

¶57

The petitioner in W.P.No.226091/2020 has challenged an order dated 18.05.2020 passed by the respondent No.1 in appeal/CR-7/2019-20 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.230 of Kolhar village measuring 1 acre 20 guntas out of 1 acre 36 guntas.

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶59

(i) The petitioner contends that the land bearing erstwhile Sy.Nos.95, 95/Aa, 95/A, 95/I, 95/Aa, 95/E, 95/A, 95/I, 95/I, 95/AA are presently bearing Sy.Nos.230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238 and 239 respectively all situate at Kolhar village were endowed to madiga inam and khasra pahani in respect of the above lands for the year - 1954-1955, the inam patrika and the record of rights establish the above fact.

¶60

(ii) The petitioner contends that the above lands were held by the inamdar Sri. Laxya son of Narsya. The revenue records stood the test of time and therefore are binding upon the revenue authorities. He contends that the inamdar expired long back leaving behind his wife Smt. Sharnamma and his daughter Smt. Gouramma, whose names were entered in the revenue records. Later Smt. Sharnamma died and the name of Smt. Gouramma appears in the revenue records. The petitioner contends that during her life time, Smt. Sharnamma had executed a Will in his favour and in favour of her grand son. Based on the Will, the petitioner filed an application to enter his name in the record of rights and that the said application is pending consideration.

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶62

(iii) When things stood thus, Sri. Prabhakar son of Laxya, Sri. Laxman son of Siddappa and Sri. Prabhu son of Narsappa claimed that they succeeded to the above properties and executed a deed of absolute sale in the year 1979 in favour of Sri. Ishwarappa son of Bakkappa. The petitioner contends that the above sale is unconscionable and unenforceable, as Sri. Prabhakar and others were not the legal representatives of Sri. Laxya son of Narsya and none of them had any right, title or interest over the property. He contends that the above properties being inam lands, could not have been alienated. He contends that Sri. Ishwarappa son of Bakkappa thereafter alienated the properties in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein, which too did not confer any right, title and interest upon the respondent Nos.5 to 8. The respondent Nos.5 to 8 then tried to interfere with the possession of Smt. Gouramma and Smt. Sharnamma in the year 2004 which compelled them to file O.S.No.158/2004 for perpetual injunction.

¶63

(iv) A complaint was also filed before the Assistant Commissioner, Bidar contending that the lands in question were endowed to madiga inam and that Sri. Ishwarappa son of Bakkappa had no right or authority to alienate the land in

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶65

favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8. Therefore, action was sought against the respondent Nos.5 to 8 under the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1977' for short) and the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (henceforth referred to as 'PTCL Act' for short).

¶66

(v) The respondent No.2 passed an order dated 07.07.2007 holding that the transaction between the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and their predecessor in title as well as the transaction between Sri. Prabhakar and others in favour of Sri. Ishwarappa were in violation of the provisions of Act, 1977 and also PTCL Act and declared the said transactions as null and void. The respondent No.2 clearly observed in his order that Smt. Gouramma was the only successor of the inamdar - Sri. Laxya.

¶67

(vi) The respondent Nos.5 to 8 then challenged the order passed by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 passed an order directing restoration of revenue entries, as it stood prior to 16.08.2011.

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶69

This order was challenged by the authorised holders - Smt. Sharnamma and Smt. Gouramma in W.P.No.19952/2007. This Court in terms of the order dated 21.10.2008 allowed the petition and directed the respondent No.1 to re-consider the case afresh within one month and parties were directed to maintain status-quo regarding possession and entries in the record of rights.

¶70

(vii) As per the direction, the respondent No.1 after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and observed that Sri. Laxman son of Siddappa and others, who had executed the sale deed were not the inamdars or their successors. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent Nos.5 to 8 filed W.P.No.83404-405/2009 which was allowed and the case was again remitted back to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration.

¶71

(viii) After remand, the respondent No.1 perused the documents and vide his order dated 27.05.2015, held that the sale in favour of the respondent Nos.5 to 8 was hit by the provisions of the Act, 1977. He therefore, directed the respondent No.3 to examine the revenue records, nature of

¶72

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶73

inam, the inam patrika, faisal patrika and inam register etc., in respect of the lands in question and also to verify the sale transactions and application for re-grant before any authority and directed him to submit a report.

¶74

(ix) The above order of the respondent No.1 was challenged by the inamdars as well as respondent Nos.5 to 8 in W.P.Nos.203175/2015 & 203209-216/2015 and 203620/2015 & 203728/2015. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.3 submitted a detailed report to the respondent No.1 on 31.03.2017 holding that the lands in question were kidmathi inam lands and that there was no application for re-grant pending before the authorities. In view of this report, this Court dismissed both the sets of writ petitions, but reserved liberty to both the parties to challenge the report of the respondent No.3.

¶75

(x) The respondent Nos.5 to 8 aggrieved by the report of the respondent No.3 filed a revision petition before the respondent No.1. The petitioner contends that Smt. Gouramma was not arrayed as a party in the said revision petition. Likewise, they contend that all interested parties were not arrayed as parties in the said revision petition. The respondent

¶76

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶77

No.1 allowed the revision petition and set aside the report of the respondent No.3 and observed that the sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos.5 to 8 was not challenged.

¶78

(i) The respondent No.1 held that the persons who had sold the property to Sri. Ishwarappa son of Bakkappa did not challenge the transaction and subsequently, the respondent No.5 became the owner of the properties by virtue of a compromise reported in O.S.No.261/1985. The respondent No.1 did not accept the report of the respondent No.3 on the ground that the lands were converted into non-agricultural use and a plan of a layout of residential sites was approved by the Mandal Panchayat and therefore, there was no violation of either the Act, 1977 or PTCL Act. The respondent No.1 also held that the lands were patta lands as per the circular issued by the then Hyderabad Government. The respondent No.1 also held that the inamadar had no male issues and he adopted Sri.Prabhakar and as per the partition between them on 28.09.1977 two extents of land in Sy.Nos.230 and 236 measuring 01 acre 36 guntas and 17 guntas respectively were allotted to the share of Sri. Laxya. Therefore, it was held that the legal representatives of Sri. Laxya namely Smt.

¶79

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶80

Sharnamma and Smt.Gouramma had no right in the property that fell to the share of Sri. Prabhakar. The respondent No.1 therefore set aside the report of the respondent No.3 as well as the order of the respondent No.2 dated 07.07.2007. The respondent No.3 was directed to restore the revenue entries.

¶81

(ii) The petitioner contends that he had also filed an application to be impleaded in the proceedings before the respondent No.1, but the said application was not considered, when the impugned order was passed by respondent No.1.

¶82

Therefore being aggrieved by the order dated

¶83

18.05.2020 passed by the respondent No.1, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶84

Facts as pleaded in W.P. No.225871/2020:

¶85

The petitioner in W.P.No.225871/2020 has challenged an order dated 18.05.2020 passed by the respondent No.1 in Appeal.CR-07/2019-20. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to initiate any action to dispossess her from the suit schedule properties without due process of law.

¶86

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶87

The petitioner contends that the above mentioned lands were madiga inam lands and stood in the name of her father Sri. Laxya as per the Khasra pahani for the year 19541955. She also claimed that the name of her father was entered in the inam patrika takta. She claimed that after the death of her father, her mother - Smt. Sharnamma and she succeeded to the properties. She claimed that Sri. Prabhakar and others claiming to be the successors of Sri. Laxya, had executed a sale deed in favour of Sri. Ishwarappa son of Bakkappa in the year 1979 and respondent Nos.4 to 7 claimed to be the successors of Sri. Ishwarappa were interfering with her possession. She claimed that she filed O.S.No.158/2004 for perpetual injunction. She also lodged a complaint before the respondent No.2 on 01.09.2004 to cancel the sale deed as it violated the provisions of the Act, 1977 and PTCL Act. Following this, the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 07.07.2007 holding that the transactions in respect of the above properties was in violation of the Act, 1977 and PTCL Act. He also observed that Smt. Gouramma was the daughter of inamdar. The respondent Nos.4 to 7 challenged the above order before the respondent No.1 who passed an order dated 27.11.2007 to

¶88

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶89

restore the revenue entries, as it stood prior to 16.08.2011. This order was then called in question by the petitioner in W.P.No.19952/2007. This Court allowed the said petition and directed the respondent No.1 to dispose off the appeal within one month and directed the parties to maintain status-quo of the property as on the date the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 07.07.2007. The respondent No.1 thereafter in terms of the order dated 09.10.2009 specifically held that Sri. Laxman son of Siddappa who had executed the sale deeds in favour of predecessor of respondent Nos.4 to 7 in W.P.No.225871/2020 was not related to the inamdar - Sri.Laxya son of Narsya. He therefore dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 in W.P.No.225871/2020 and the petitioner in W.P.No.226091/2020. This was challenged by the respondent Nos.4 to 7 in W.P.Nos.83404-405/2009. This Court allowed the said writ petitions vide order dated 01.12.2010 and directed the respondent No.1 to consider the matter afresh. The respondent No.1 in terms of the order dated 27.05.2015 held that the provisions of the PTCL Act was not violated, but the provisions of the Act, 1977 were violated. He therefore directed the Tahsildar, Bidar to examine the revenue

¶90

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶91

records, the nature of inam, inam patrika, faisal patrika and inam register and to verify the sale transactions and also to check whether there was any application for re-grant pending with the land tribunal or any other authority and directed him to submit a report. The petitioner challenged the order of respondent No.1 in so far as his finding that the alienation did not violate the provisions of PTCL Act in W.P.No.203175/2015 while the respondent Nos.4 to 7 filed W.P.No.203620/2015. This Court after considering the matter on merits and in view of the report submitted by the respondent No.3, that the land in question is a kidmathi inam land and that there was no application for re-grant, dismissed both the writ petitions, holding that the petitions filed challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1 does not survive for consideration.

¶92

The respondent No.4 being aggrieved by the report of the Tahsildar dated 31.03.2017 filed a revision petition before the respondent No.1 in Appeal/CR-07/2019-2020. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 without even issuing notice to the respondents in the revision petition proceeded to post the matter for orders. He thereafter passed the impugned order dated 18.05.2020 holding that the land in

¶93

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶94

question was converted as patta lands and the provisions of the Act, 1977 and PTCL Act were not applicable to the patta land, as they were earlier recorded as Jagir land. He also held that in the record of rights there was a reference to an order passed by the Collector, Bidar dated 20.10.1953. He held that since Sri.Laxya did not have male issue, he adopted Sri.Prabhakar and in the partition dated 28.10.1977, Sy.Nos.230 and 236 were allotted to the share of Sri. Laxya. Therefore it was held that the legal representatives of Sri. Laxya had no right to file any application as they were not the owners of the properties which had fallen to the share of Sri.Prabhakar under the partition deed. Therefore, he rejected the report of the respondent No.3 dated 31.03.2017 and the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 07.07.2007 and directed the respondent No.3 to restore the entries in respect of the property as it stood prior to the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 07.07.2007. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said order.

¶95

The learned counsels for the petitioners in both these writ petitions raised the following contentions:

¶96

17 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶98

(i) that the petitioners were litigating before various forum and therefore, the respondent Nos.4 to 7 in W.P.No.225871/2020 were aware of the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, the respondent Nos.4 to 7 were bound to array the petitioners as parties in the revision petition filed before the respondent No.1

¶99

(ii) that the respondent No.1 had recorded a totally alien finding that the land in question was Jagir inam land and therefore, the provisions of the Act, 1977 and PTCL Act were not applicable. They contend that Sri. Laxman son of Siddappa had not executed the sale deed in favour of Sri. Ishwarappa and the same was evident from the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 07.07.2007.

¶100

(iii) that an application was filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code by Sri. Shamrao who claimed to be a beneficiary of the Will executed by Smt. Sharnamma W/o. Sri. Laxya. They contended that the respondent Nos.4 to 8 in W.P.No.226091/2020 had filed their objections to the said application, however the said application was not allowed.

¶101

18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶102

(iv) They further contend that the land in question was endowed to madiga inam and the same was evident from the revenue records from the year 1954-1955 and onwards. They contend that the respondent No.1 without referring to these records, returned a finding that the land in question was under the erstwhile Hyderabad State and was registered as Shamrajpur-Agrahar Jagirdar Lands. He also recorded a finding that Kolhar village was not a Khalsa village. He also recorded that after police action in the year 1948, the Government of India abolished all Jagir lands and the Government of Hyderabad, through its revenue department issued Circular No.2 dated 18.10.1949 and directed all civil administrators that the land lying in Jagir areas including inam lands have become patta lands. That Hyderabad Government had enacted Inams Abolition Act, 1954 which extended to the whole State of Hyderabad and was applicable to all the inam lands. He therefore held that Sri. Laxya son of Narsya became the pattedars of the land. They contend that the respondent No.1 therefore, must have heard the petitioners before returning such a finding.

¶103

19 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶104

Per contra, the writ petitions are opposed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in W.P.No.226091/2020.

¶105

The learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 contended that Sri. Laxya did not have any male children and therefore he adopted Sri. Prabhakar in terms of a deed of adoption. Later there was a partition between Sri. Laxya and Sri. Prabhakar on 28.10.1977. The land bearing Sy.Nos.230 and 236 was allotted to the share of Sri. Prabhakar while an ancestral house fell to the share of Sri. Laxya. Therefore, he contended that the wife and daughter of Sri. Laxya have no locus standi to initiate any proceedings before any Court in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.230 and 236 of the Kolhar village. He further contended that the respondent No.1 had summoned the records and had found that Kolhar village was under the erstwhile Hyderabad State and was notified as a Jagir land in Shamrajpur-Agrahara. He contends that as per the circular issued by the then Government of Hyderabad dated 18.10.1949, all lands situated in Jagir areas, would be deemed to have become patta lands. Therefore, he contends that the provisions of Act, 1977 and PTCL Act are not applicable.

¶106

20 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶107

At any rate, he contends that Sri. Prabhakar had conveyed the property to Sri. Ishwarappa in terms of a sale deed dated 05.01.1979 and Sri. Laxya had also joined in execution of sale deed, as the record of rights stood in his name. He contends that Sri. Ishwarappa got his name entered in the revenue records and thereafter sold the land to the respondent No.4/Rajashekar on 16.01.1985 and his name was entered in the record of rights. He contends that the land is now converted for non-agricultural residential use and a layout of residential sites was approved by the mandal panchayat. He submits that 112 residential plots of different sizes are now formed with all amenities and the sites formed are assessed to tax by the panchayat. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶108

He also contended that it is the respondent Nos.4 to 7 in W.P.No.225871/2020 who are in possession of the property and the same is evident from the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.261/1985, not only in respect of Sy.Nos.230 and 236, but also in respect of other survey numbers and that Sri. Laxya and Sri.Prabhakar were also parties in the said suit.

¶109

21 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶110

Therefore, the petitioners in both these petitions are bound by the decree passed in O.S.No.261/1985.

¶111

He next contended that the application was not filed by the petitioners herein for impleadment in the revision petition before the respondent No.1, but it was filed by an absolute stranger named Sri. Sham Rao who claimed to be a beneficiary under the Will executed by Smt. Sharnamma. He therefore, contends that the petitioner/Sri. Sham Rao in W.P.No.226091/2020 does not have any subsisting right, title and interest to come on record in the proceedings before the respondent No.1. He further contends that none of the petitioners had filed any application for re-grant and the properties in question were treated as a Jagir land and therefore, none of the petitioners have any locus standi to challenge the order passed by the respondent No.1.

¶112

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶113

22 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶114

In order to verify whether the respondent No.1 had held proceedings in accordance with law, the file from the respondent No.1 was summoned.

¶115

The file maintained by the respondent No.1 discloses that the revision petition was filed on 11.11.2019. A direction was issued to the Tahsildar on 25.11.2019 to produce the relevant records. The first date of hearing was on 05.11.2019, on which day, the respondent No.1 directed to secure report from the respondent No.3. The petition was advanced to 02.12.2019 and in the absence of the report of the Tahsildar, the case was adjourned to 05.12.2019. On the said day, an application was filed by Mr. Sham Rao to come on record. The respondent No.1 heard the arguments on the application so filed and reserved the matter for orders on the application. However, on 18.05.2020, the respondent No.1 instead of considering the application, disposed off the revision petition itself. It is also evident that the petitioner in W.P.No.225871/2020 was not arrayed as party in revision petition.

¶116

23 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶117

The records of the respondent No.1 does not disclose whether the report of the Tahsildar was received before deciding the revision petition. However there are some documents in the file of respondent No.1 such as the list of Jagir lands. It also seems that a Circular No.2 dated 18.10.1949 was issued by the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad declaring that on coming into force of Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 F, the administration of all Jagir areas was taken over by the Government and the lands lying in Jagir areas were treated as patta lands of the inamdars. It is not known whether these documents were furnished by the Tahsildar as there is no report of the Tahsildar in the file. On the contrary, these documents seem to have been produced by the respondent No.4/Rajashekhar on 09.12.2019 , based upon which the impugned order is passed. The respondent No.1 must have considered the fact that the petitioner in W.P.No.225871/2020 was litigating the issue before various forum and therefore, he could not have passed the impugned order without arraying her as a party in the proceedings. This is all the more necessary, since the respondent No.2 had in terms of his order dated 07.07.2007 recorded a finding that the

¶118

24 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶119

transaction made in respect of the properties was in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1977 and PTCL Act, and that the petitioner in W.P.No.225871/2020 was the only daughter of Sri. Laxya son of Sri.Narsya. Further the respondent No.1 had also observed in his order dated 09.10.2009 that Sri. Laxman S/o. Siddappa who had executed the sale deed in favour of Sri. Ishwarappa was not the inamdar. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to have impleaded the petitioner in W.P.No.225871/2020 as one of the respondents.

¶120

Therefore, on this short ground alone the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 deserves to be interfered. However, in so far as the petitioner in W.P.226091/2020 is concerned, his application was not considered by respondent No.1 and therefore this Court does not consider it appropriate to recognise the right of the petitioner. However, the petitioner is entitled to pursue the respondent No.1 to consider his application in accordance with law.

¶121

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the petition filed in W.P.No.225871/2020 is allowed-in-part and the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 in Appl./CR-07-

¶122

25 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2319 WP No. 226091 of 2020 C/W WP No. 225871 of 2020

¶123

2019-2020 dated 18.05.2020 is quashed. The case is remitted back to the respondent No.1 who shall implead the petitioner in W.P.No.225871/2020, hear her and consider the revision petition filed by the respondent Nos.4 to 7 in accordance with law.

¶124

W.P.No.226091/2020 is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge all contentions in the revision petition before the respondent No.1 and also request the respondent No.1 to consider his application for impleadment in the proceedings.

¶125

The Registry is directed to return the file summoned

¶126

from the office of respondent No.1 to the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶127

Sd/(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶128

HJ

¶129

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

Shamrao S/O Rangnathrao Police Patil v. the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamrao S/O Rangnathrao Police Patil v. the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

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

Giriraj and Anr. Vs the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Fakkirappa S/O Hanamanthappa Rottigawad Vs Registrar General

M/S Heliocon Agro Chemicals Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Khazi Hamid Faisal Siddique S/O Late Khazi Mohammed Hussain Siddique and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Kumari Shilpa D/O Dundayya Kulkarni Vs State of Karnataka

Koganti Power Limited Vs Power Company of Karnataka Limited and Ors.