The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 5 of the Village Office Abolition Act, specifically regarding the regrant of land and the limitations on partitioning the property before regrant.

M. P. CHINNAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Order dated 28-6-1991 'passed in m. a. No. 56 of 1983 on the file of the additional district judge, shimoga, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Order dated 8-8-1983 in v. o. a. c. 6 of 1982-83 passed by the tahsildar, bhadravathi.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that s. No. 33 measuring 21. 33 gs. , s. No. 35 measuring 1. 34 gs. , s. No. 37 measuring 9. 10 gs. And s. No. 70 measuring 16. 33 gs. Of thimmalapura village were patel service inam lands of thimmalapura. Patel veerabasappa was the patel of thimmalapura village till the Karnataka village offices abolition Act, 1961 (for short 'the act') came into force. Prior to patel veerabasappa holding the office of patel, his elder brother sangappa was holding the same. Patel sangappa died in the year 1938 leaving behind only basamma his wife. Basamma, on the death of her husband stayed in her parents house at holegalalu village. Veerabasappa s/o veerappa was appointed the patel of village thimmalapura on 21-1-1940. On his becoming patel, the inam land accrued to him as the holder of the office. Since then, he has been in possession and cultivating the said lands. On 29-12-1966 patel veerabasappa filed an application before the tahsildar for regrant of the land and he has paid taxes in a sum of Rs. 417/- vide challan No. 52. The said veerabassappa died subsequently and these petitioners were brought on record. In the meantime, basamma also filed application. After hearing both the parties, the tahsildar passed an Order holding that these petitioners are entitled for s. Nos. 37 and 70 in all measuring 24-15 acres and Smt. Basamma is entitled to s. Nos. 33, 35 and 70 in all measuring 24. 14 acres.

( 3 ) AS against that Order, the petitioners preferred m. a. No. 56 of 1983 before the additional district judge, shimoga. The learned district judge, by his Order dated 28-6-1991 dismissed that appeal confirming the Order passed by the learned tahsildar. The said Order is impugned in this revision petition.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel Sri Ashok Patil for the petitioners and Sri B. Rudregowda for the respondents.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deceased veerabasappa was the village officer of thimmalapura when the ACT came into force. After coming into force of this Act, the land vested with the government as per Section 4 of the act. Veerabasappa filed application to the village officer under Section 5 of the ACT for regranting the same. Respondents filed objections. The learned tahsildar instead of granting the land in toto to veerabasappa and his legal representatives, partitioned the properties between the l. rs. Of veerabasappa and basamma which is contrary to the provisions of law. He also submitted that the respondents neither filed their application nor paid the necessary fee payable to the government for regrant of the land. According to him, before the property is regranted to the petitioners, the respondents cannot claim share in the property. The tahsildar had no jurisdiction to partition the property. Sangappa the husband of basamma was the patel of that village but he died long ago and thereafter, veerabasappa became the patel of the property. Therefore, he claims that the Order passed by the learned tahsildar and confirmed by the learned district judge are liable to be set aside. However, the learned Advocate for the respondents fully supported the orders passed by the courts below. He also further submitted that the learned tahsildar after having considered all the aspects allotted these items of the property in favour of the respondents and the other property in favour of the petitioners herein applying the equitable principle and this Order also has been confirmed by the district judge. therefore, he submitted that the impugned Order may not be disturbed at this belated stage.

( 6 )

Click Here to Read the rest of this document