IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.15850 OF 2023 (KVOA)

BETWEEN:

SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O LATE M. NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT GOVINAHALU VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SUB-DIVISION Digitally signed by DAVANAGERE-577001.

MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT 3. THE TAHASILDAR, OF KARNATAKA HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE-577601.

4. SRI MAHESHWARAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA @

KAPALI GOWDRA SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GOVINAHALU VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3;

SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 (V/C))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE 3^RD RESPONDENT HEREIN WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 30.01.1999 MADE IN HACR/8/91-92 BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TAHASILDAR, HARIHARA AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the order dated

30.01.1999 passed by respondent No.3-Tahsildar Harihar, whereby the land bearing Sy.No.3/2 of Govinahalu Village, Harihar Taluk, originally a Begar Service Jodi Inam land, was re-granted in favour of late Siddappa, father of respondent No.4.

Brief facts:

2. The land in Sy.No.3/2 Govinahalu Village, Harihar Taluk, measuring 2 acres 14 guntas (‘schedule property’ for short), was originally a Begar Service Jodi Inam land was resumed by the Government under Section 4 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (‘KVOA Act, 1961’ for short). The father-in-law of the petitioner Sri A.K. Mariyappa was the village office holder and was cultivating the land.

3. The Tahsildar passed an order on 15.03.1987, re-granting 2 acres of land to Siddappa @ Kapaligowdra Siddappa (father of respondent No.4). The petitioner’s husband-Nagaraja challenged the said order in W.P.No.16766/1989. This Court set aside the Tahsildar’s order, holding that Siddappa was not the original owner and ineligible for re-grant, as he was only a purchaser and the said finding was affirmed in W.A.No.500/1990. Thereafter, Nagaraja filed an application for re-grant, by order dated 12.07.1991, the Tahsildar re-granted the land in favour of Nagaraja-petitioner’s husband. The petitioner, being the wife of Nagaraj, succeeded to the property of Nagaraja.

4. Thereafter, the said Siddappa filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner seeking to set aside the re-grant made in favour of Nagaraja and sought remand of the matter. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the re-grant order, and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tahsildar, it appears that the petitioner’s husband filed O.S. No.45/1997 seeking declaration and injunction against the father of respondent No.4. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.4 sought a stay before the Tahsildar, but the Tahasildar declined to grant any stay. During the pendency of the original suit in O.S. No.45/1997, counsel appearing for Nagaraja-plaintiff filed a memo stating that the matter had been settled, and suit came to be dismissed on

21.11.1998 on the basis of that memo..

5. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 created the compromise petition, claiming that Nagaraja had agreed to withdraw the suit. Relying on the order sheet in O.S. No.45/1997, the Tahsildar recorded that the matter had been ‘settled’ and by order dated 30.01.1999, re-granted the schedule property in favour of Siddappa.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahsild