Davanageré DisiriCit_, 7'j_ '
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 22ND my OF NOVEMBERMQG1.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1<:E "?€.KtJM+A.§ :'
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTI'CEARAL}- %
WRIT APPEAL NO.2538 0F:2.00.9 (KVOAJAV
Between: __
Sri N.Prasarma "
S / 0 N.RudregoWc1é* _ _
Aged about 394y€;I§.1I*S 'V '
R/0 Jigaii 'i7i11ag<_3 '
Harihar__Talu}g " *1: ,.__ _
. . .Appei1ar1t
(By Sri Yad1:1aVét-- IV{Var!<;Ve 1{i,V ( )f/s*;'A.Nagaraj appa 8:
Assts.,AdVs) % ' 7 " V.
And?
1;'
t'{'I:1r;-V 'Assistant 4. Commissioner
DLaVa._nage1*e. ab Qivision
Davariagere; j .
. 'Smt.Da;f1zin_1ma
" " 'A --W'/no Tshivapuji Karibasappa
é Karibasappa
" ' " Ag'ed'~::.-bout 69 years
5 __ R/(3; Ukkadagatri Village
T ..'_"Ha1-"ihar Taluk
Davanagere District.
Smt.Gowramma
W/0 Jigaiera Nagendrappa
Aged about 50 years V/'
R/o Kukkuwada Village
Davanagere Taluk
Davanagere District.
Smt.Gadiga11"1ma @ Shantha
W/o M.Virupakshappa
Aged about 45 years
Harihar Taluk
Davanagere District.
Sri Ramariagowda A _}
s /o Veerabhadraiah Patil [R.V.:Patil)'
Since dead by LRs.
5(a) Srr1t.Nagarathnar11rna
5(1)) Gadig.aia.h i
W/ o Para.rI1eshWaré;ppa r V " '
Aged about 46 years d
Kaginahalli. I-Iousew . if V
Madapuia V. ; »
Hirek_er§.1r 7f§l,ul: _ _
Irlave-ri " l
. 8/ o R.é1I11ai"ia' Gowda
_~ ' about . 4__}___yyears
Karib'a.sai.ah
_ «AS,/fc,Ra:11ana Gowda
Agedfabsout 39 years
5[b'}«._and' '.'3{,c} are residing at
_ _ _ l V Ukkaclagatri Village
' i<:lariha'ra Taluk
" . _ " Davajnagere District.
Gadigeyya
S/o Rudraiah Mulimani
Aged about 53 years
R/o Sarina Sangapura Village
Ranebermur Taluk
Haveri District.
xx
//.
7. Sri Karibasaiah
S/0 Rudraiah Mulimani
Head Master
Sri Karibasaveshwara High School
Ukkadagatri Village
Harihara Taluk
Davanagere District.
. respondents'
(By Sri K.Krishna, AGA for R1, Sri._S’;P.Ku11:arn’i, “‘Adx?W i’
for R2 to R4, R5 (A to C), 6 V _ _
This Writ Appeal is 4}_._of theKarnataka
High Court Act prayingvto set asidegthe order passed
in the Writ Petition No.a984;*.2007 datedi 03.06.2009.
This Writ appeal” .on I a Preliminary
Hearing this day’;«Ag:.i\_T ‘Kuimar deli’v?ered.– the following:
against the order of the
learned lf3in’gle “has set–aside the order
passed by ..:le’arned’ Ijistrict Judge and remanded
“t’h_e V’matter hack to him for fresh consideration in
aecordan Wit}”1. -law.
liieiacts leading to this appeal are as under:
it {a) One Sri Gowdara Karibasappa, was the
ancestor of the respondent Nos.8 to 12
in the writ petition and he was in
possession and enjoyment of the land in
question i.e., Sy.No.l2/4, measuring 5
~ h’isp”‘orde’r”‘dated 15.05.1975
acres 17 guntas situate at Ukkadagatri
Village, Harihar Taluk as a Patel of the
Village.
land. Thereafter, it Vested with
Government with the passing of
The said land was an inam
Karnataka Village Offices Ab01i_tiOn-:.:g%h(#f;.’:: =
The said Gowdara
application for regrant of Sy.N0s’.i2’/4; it
12/7, 13/8, 37’/4_?jo-~…;35/4 _ami’~_3a;/’4-~V
measuring, in all 21____a’e.r_es_p28 guntas
situate at U’i:l:{a-dagatzri _ Harihara
Taluk. The Alssistanlt .-Clonipniissioner.
Davanagere §:’Sub{I)ivilsilo-n, Davariagere,
»a,lA-‘a).,_:”regranted the entire
_ lb)
A extent “of it
After” . _ [.+..he=_ ” death of Gowdara
V Kariba”sappa, his children viz.,
wl.re.s:pondent Nos.8 to 12 inherited the
They sold the said lands
. a Registered Sale Deed dated
Vl}_2O.O7.1998 in favour of the appellant
herein.
After such purchase, on
02.11.1998, the respondent Nos.2 to 7
in this appeal preferred an appeal under
the provisions of the Karnataka Village
Offices Abolition Act, 1961 challenging
it/its
“Ls”i
the order of grant only in respect of
Sy.No.12/4 measuring 5 acres 17
guntas. The learned District Judge.”-.
ailowed the appeal by an order Dated’–w.’f”-«_;”‘*,u
09.03.2007 and set–aside the -1-
order passed by the ._
Commissioner. Aggrieiieddllbgrv the’
order, the appellant a
writ petition berm; this court 7-[on
11.07.2007. The Single: i_;J’uc1ge
setwaside the’order_ the
District Judge’ and matter
back 4_tohin1Wfor.t. fresh__ consideration.
appellant is
in
__§3″. rrhé Counsel for the appeilant
the order of regrant was passed on
the appeal challenging the grant in
a respect the land in dispute was filed before the
llV’40ljilisitripctlldudge in the year 1998 i.e., after lapse of -23
An application was filed under Section 14 of
Limitation Act seeking condonation of the deiay.
Subsequently, the said application was not pressed
and accordingly it came to be dismissed. The ieamed
District Judge was of the View that as the respondent
Nos.2 to 7 were not parties to the original proceedings
of regrant and they came to know of the same onlyflin
the year 1998 when the legal representatives”–oi’;theT
original grantee sold the property in fa\rouifi.Vvot.::the xv”
appellant and therefore the appeal
He set«~aside the order on the .g.1~ound_lthat
Nos.2 to 7 were not heard in tlh’ellpvniatter”andltherefore
the impugned order l’b_e..ll’set–aside: The
learned Single ..I.udge_dec_linedAto with the
said oifldelrl of the ground that the
finding reco’rded..1.Jy:.th:e”l§i’s«trict Judge on the question
of condonation ofidelay is in accordance with law and
the persons who were claiming regrant
I ‘werie in the matter and therefore he
declined”tdihterfere with the order and directed the
JD.iSt_rictV*@.Judge to hold an enquiry afresh, after
–affording an opportunity to ail the parties and to
it “decide the appeal. According to the learned Counsel
for the appellant, the said order is erroneous and
requires to be interfered with.
4. From the aforesaid material on record, it is
clear that the land in question was a Patelike inam
land. One Karibasappa had filed an application.l_lo.nr~.__
16.05.1975 for regrant of the same and it ~
regranted. However. the contesting
contend that it is one
who was holding the said
date and therefore, there wasdxan ‘obligatig-ii. on
the authorities under the said
person to pay.-the the said
land. anj/’l?rate€;.Vlas._ti*ieyare the persons who are
entitled to regrant;.dj”\lrh:ey,:’:ph’aiIe not been heard in the
procfsedings and ‘therefore the order of regrant insofar
concerned is Vitiated and liable to be
“‘set¥_aside’;’* ._ ~ ‘ v V
5,.__v”i’h.e:’~”contesting respondents have not filed any
vfldapplication under Section 5 of the Act for such
regrant. In the absence of such an application, at
“their instance, the order of regrant could not have
been setwaside. It is in these circumstances, the
authority has to consider the question whether it is
Gowdara Karibasappa or Shivapiiji
Sannakaribasappa who was the person in whose
name the Village Office stood as on the appointed.
date entitled to regrant of the said
Similarly, the question is, without
being filed, a person would be
under the Act is also to be con_svidered,l”a.s tliie’
regrant dated 16.05.1975 K without
irnpleading Shivapuji or his legal
representatives esince.-” ‘- also clavirn regrant.
Therefore, th’elv:’.leaVr:ned.Single_–iliidge was justified in
holding .that l it inatter which requires
reconsideration District Judge after hearing all
the concerned.
it of the matter, we do not see any
V V’ _ intir’rnit}..§'”i_n,the said order. Insofar as the limitation is
concerned, as the contesting respondents admittedly
lwere’*’lnot parties to the order of regrant dated
it “ld.05.l975, the appeal filed by them was within the
it period of limitation from the date of their knowledge
of the order as held by the learned District Judge as
well as the learned Single Judge. We do not see any
reason for interfering with the said orders.
7. However, we have to malge_it clear
Gowdara Karibasappa sought
in respect of six Sy. Numbe:*s_V.
regarding only one Sy. No.3y_..4.l.l”h.erefore.l Diistrict
Judge was not justifiedthinl the entire
order of the Assist_ant there was no
claim in respectg Therefore it is
made Ifwhatlydg set-Vaside by the learned
Single :V§l_u’c”lge’VV the subject matter of
ad}’udication_Vaa before A’.the..”-7District Judge is only in
._Vrespfe3et the laiidhearing Sy.No.12/4 measuring 5
acres. T1′? guntae. and in respect of the remaining five
itenisfof which is the subject matter of the
‘rorder ofvithe Assistant Commissioner, the order of the
Commissioner stands and the land in other
Nos. granted in favour of Karibasappa stands, as
there is no challenge from any quarter. Insofar as
Sy.l\lo.12/4 is concerned, the learned District Judge
shall decide the following questions: /-
i] Who was the holder of the Village
Office as on the appointed date ‘E’
ii] Who are the legal representatives of T T
Shivapuji Sannakribasappa entitleri f =
to regrant even without filing
application under the ‘? ‘h V
iii) In terms of the provisions’of:’the }kct’;
who is the persona’entitle*d_ ‘for regrant: 1
of the aforesaid land:V’?i. 3 V V.
Ordered accordingly. icontentionsiivof the
partiesilare letti”o.per1’to”ihe”*–agidtated before the learned
District Jt1*d_ge._ V’
A ” » _ VPartiec~,_t’o bear their own costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/3
JUDGE
JT/~