Sri Krishnappa Vs Sri Puttaswamy

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.07.1974 MADE IN HOA NO.156/1972-73, IN SO FAR AS THE LAND BEARING SY NO.222, MEASURING 5 ACRES 27 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT HULLIKEREKOPPALU VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, PASSED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Petitioners are before this Court seeking following reliefs;

¶32

"a) To quash the order dated 23.07.1974, made in HOA No.156/1972-73, in so far as the land bearing Sy.No.222, measuring 5 Acres 27 Guntas, situated at Hullikerekoppalu Village, Dudda Hobli, Mandya Taluk, passed by the 4th Respondent vide Annexure - A;

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:28950 WP No.301 of 2019

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

b) To quash the order dated 19.11.2018, made in No.M.A.(VOA) No.10/2018, passed by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, vide Annexure-F; AND

¶37

c) grant such other relief or relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant to meet the ends of justice."

¶38

2. Case of the petitioners is that they are the descendants of one Masthi, son of Chikka. Respondents are the descendants of one Jaguvana Kempaiah. That ancestors of the petitioners and the ancestor of respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the joint original Barawardars of Thoti Service Inam Land in Hullikerekoppalu village, Dudda Hobli, Mandya Taluk and District. An application for re-grant of land in Sy.No.8 measuring 6 acres 38 guntas situated at Hulikere Village and land measuring 5 acres 27 guntas in Sy.No.222 situated at Hullikerekoppalu village was filed by the descendants of Masthi as well as Jaguvana Kempaiah.

¶39

3. By Order dated 23.07.1974, the respondent No.4Assistant Commissioner, Mandya Sub-Division, Mandya, granted an extent of 3 acres 19 guntas out of 6 acres 38 guntas of land in Sy.No.8 of Hulikere Village in favour of descendants of Masthi, while remaining extent of 3 acres 19

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:28950 WP No.301 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

guntas of said survey number was re-granted in favour of descendants of Jaguvana Kempaiah.

¶44

4. As regards the land measuring 5 acres 27 guntas in Sy.No.222 of Hullikerekoppalu Village, the same was exclusively re-granted in favour of descendants of Jaguvana Kempaiah. However, in the revenue records, even after the said order of the respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner, the entries continued jointly in the names of descendants of Masthi as well as descendants of Jaguvana Kempaiah in respect of lands in Sy.No.222.

¶45

5. It appears that descendants of Jaguvana Kempaiah,

¶46

namely, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, initiated the proceedings challenging the mutation entry in respect of land in Sy.No.222 in the name of the petitioners vide M.R.No.11/19811982 by filing petition in R.Mis.No.406/2017 on the premise that no re-grant was accorded in favour of petitioners in respect of land in Sy.No.222.

¶47

6. Petitioners on receipt of the notice in the said proceedings in R.Mis.No.406/2017 on the file of Assistant

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:28950 WP No.301 of 2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Commissioner, Mandya, filed an appeal under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961 before the District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in M.A(VOA) No.10/2018 challenging the order dated 23.07.1974 passed in HOA No.156/1972-73 to the extent excluding their names while granting land in Sy.No.222. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the said appeal solely on the ground of petitioners not affording sufficient reasons to condone the enormous delay of 43 years 7 months and 6 days. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.

¶52

7. Records were called for. Perused the original records. Counsel for the parties also perused the records.

¶53

8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, taking this Court through the records, submitted;

¶54

(a) that in the original records of rights maintained in respect of the subject properties, much prior to initiation of proceedings under the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961, lands in Sy.No.8 as well as in Sy.No.222 has been reflected to be in the joint possession of Masthi and his

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:28950 WP No.301 of 2019

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

descendants on the one part and Jaguvana Kempaiah and his descendants on the other part.

¶59

(b) that it is based on this revenue entries and the factum of joint possession, order dated 23.07.1974 came to be passed upon the application filed only by the descendants of Masthi and no specific application was filed by Jaguvana Kempaiah or his descendants. It was a clear understanding that since their names were jointly reflected to be in joint possession of the property, however, while passing the re-grant order the respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner had not granted half of the extent in Sy.No.222 to the descendants of Masthi. This went unnoticed also for the reason that notwithstanding the said re-grant, the names of descendants of Masthi and Jaguvana Kempaiah continued to reflect in the revenue records as existed prior to and subsequent to the order dated 23.07.1974. It is only when the respondents being descendants of Jaguvana Kempaiah sought to question the revenue entries vide M.R.No.11/1981-1982 by initiating the proceedings in R.Mis.No.406/2017, the petitioners sought to

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:28950 WP No.301 of 2019

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

rectify the records by filing an appeal in M.A(VOA) No.10/2018 before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶64

(c) He submits both the petitioners being the

¶65

descendants of Masthi as well as respondents being the descendants of Jaguvana Kempaiah did not have any issue as their names continued to reflect jointly in the revenue records as it existed prior to the grant, in order to rectify the records, the appeal was filed, which has been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on the technical ground of limitation. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition and remittance of the matter to the trial Court for consideration on merits.

¶66

9. Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute the fact that the revenue records pertaining to lands in Sy.No.8 as well as Sy.No.222 were indeed reflect the joint names of Masthi son of Chikka and Jaguvana Kempaiah, both being in joint possession of the same and the nature of the land being the Thoti Inamthi. He fairly submits in the light of the original records being produced by the respondent- authorities and the order passed by the respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner dated 23.07.1974, solely on basis of application filed by Masthi,

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:28950 WP No.301 of 2019

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

matter requires reconsideration and he has no objection for remitting the matter, with liberty to the respondents also to present their case.

¶71

10. Submissions are placed on record.

¶72

11. It is necessary to note that prior to passing of the Order dated 23.07.1974 as per the original records, names of Masthi son of Chikka as well as Jaguvana Kempaiah being the ancestors of the petitioners and the respondents respectively have been reflected jointly in respect of lands in Sy.No.8 and Sy.No.222, which entries in the revenue records have continued till the respondents questioned the same by filing petition in R.Mis.No.406/2017. Therefore, the attribute of delay cannot be laid at the threshold of the petitioners alone. Presumption the revenue entries are rebuttable subject to production of acceptable evidence is the position of law. In the instant case, since the original record reveal the joint names of the ancestors of the petitioners as well as respondents to be in joint possession of the aforesaid lands, necessary presumption requires to be drawn.

¶73

9 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:28950 WP No.301 of 2019

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

12. Nonetheless since exclusive possession is being

¶77

claimed by the respondents, in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, on perusal of original records as well as the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties this Court deems it appropriate to afford an opportunity to the parties to place on record the factual aspect of the matter before the respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner for appropriate orders in the matter.

¶78

13. Accordingly, following;

¶79

ORDER

¶80

(i) Petition is allowed .

¶81

(ii) Order dated 23.07.1974 passed by the respondent No.4 in HOA No.156/1972-1973 vide Annexure-A to the extent of land in Sy.No.222 is quashed and order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in M.A.(VOA) No.10/2018 vide Annexure-F is set aside.

¶82

(iii) Matter is remitted to the respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner, who shall after affording sufficient

¶83

10 -

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:28950 WP No.301 of 2019

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

opportunities to the parties pass appropriate orders in on the respective claims of the parties in respect of land in Sy.No.222 within an outer limit of 6 months from the date

¶87

of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶88

(iv) Revenue entries as existing today shall continue till disposal of the matter by the respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner.

¶89

(v) Original records returned to the learned AGA

¶90

appearing for the respondent-authorities.

¶91

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶92

RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri Krishnappa v. Sri Puttaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnappa v. Sri Puttaswamy

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

Smt Priya S R Vs Canara Bank

Smt. K.N. Kalpana Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Nomadic Tribes Development Organisation(R) Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ganesh Nayak Vs the Commissioner for Rti Karnataka

Sri. B. G. Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Umesh N.D. @ N.D. Umamaheshwara Vs the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager