Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38515
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.2275/2012 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. RAMAIAH,
SON OF LATE S.ADEPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUMBARPET,
MALUR TOWN KOLAR.
SINCE DECEASED BY LRs.,
1(a) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
WIFE OF LATE A.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUMBESHWARA LAYOUT,
MALUR TOWN,
MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
1(b) SRI. M.R.ADIMURTHY,
SON OF LATE A.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUMBESHWARA LAYOUT,
MALUR TOWN, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
2.
SRI. A.NAGARAJU,
SON OF LATE S.ADEPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUMBARPET,
MALUR TOWN, KOLAR.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.L.M.CHIDANANDAYYA, ADV.)
2
AND:
1 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
INAM ABOLITION,
KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR.
2 . THE ASST. COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR.
3 . THE THASILDAR,
MALUR TALUK, MALUR,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
4 . SRI NARASIMHAPPA,
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
5 . SRI CHINNAPPA,
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
6 . SRI KRISHNAPPA,
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
7 . SMT VENKATAMMA,
W/O EERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
3
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
8 . SMT EERAMMA,
W/O EERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
9 . SMT MUNIYAMMA,
W/O EERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
10 . SMT MUNIHANUMAMMA,
W/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
11 . SRI NARAYANAPPA,
S/O CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
12 . SRI MANJUNATH,
W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK,
4
KOLAR DISTRICT.
13 . SMT NARAYANAMMA,
W/O NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
14 . SRI MUNEERAPPA,
S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
15 . SRI GOPALAPPA,
S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
16 . SMT NASAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
17 . SR NARASIMHAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK,
5
KOLAR DISTRICT.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SMT.NEERAJA KARANTH ADV., FOR
SRI K.SHRIHARI, ADV., FOR R-4 TO R-17)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 3
RELATING
TO
THE
IMPUGNED
PASSED
VIDE
ANNEXURE-A ON 01.08.1963 IN CASE No.1968/1963 PASSED
BY RESPONDENT NO.1, & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1.
Writ Petition No.2275 of 2012 [LR] is filed
challenging order dated 01.08.1963 in Case No.1968 of
1963 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner
(Inams Abolition). By the said order, the Special Deputy
Commissioner has registered Sy.Nos.18 and 21 in favour
of one Gaadi Munivenkatappa and his brother Gaadi
Chinnappa.
2.
The petitioners contend that even before this order
was passed in the year 1963, Gaadi Chinnappa had sold
the property to one Mohammed Gouse Sab under a
6
registered sale deed dated 22.10.1953 and Mohammed
Gouse Sab had in turn sold the property in favour of the
petitioners’ father—Adiveppa under a registered sale
deed dated 16.06.1961.
3.
In my view, since the petitioners claim title through
Gaadi Chinnappa, who was one of the beneficiary of the
order as per Annexure ‘A’, the writ petition filed
challenging the registration of occupancy rights in favour
of Gaadi Chinnappa is misconceived.
4.
Furthermore, the writ petition filed in the year 2012
challenging an order of the year 1963 cannot be
entertained in view of enormous delay of nearly 49 years
in filing the writ petition.
5.
The petitioners have also sought for a direction that
they have perfected their right by the application of the
doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel.
6.
In my view, having regard to the fact that the
petitioners claim that their father had purchased the
7
property, the only remedy available to the petitioners
would be to establish that their father in deed had
acquired the title over the lands in question and it cannot
be by way of a challenge to the order passed in favour of
Gaadi Chinnappa.
7.
Writ Petition No.2275 of 2012 is, therefore,
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK
CT: SN
