Back
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL B. KATTI
W.A. NO.1463 OF 2019 (KVOA)
IN
W.P.Nos.6927/2019 & 8288-8290/2019 (KVOA)
BETWEEN:
1. GIRIYAPPA
S/O LATE YALAKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
2. VENKATARAMANAIAH
S/O LATE YALAKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
3. SRINIVASAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
4. MUDLAGIRAIAH
S/O LATE YALAKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
5. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE CHALUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
2
6. VENKATESHA .Y
S/O LATE YALAKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/O KAMBALAPURA
HEBBUR HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU-572120.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. SARAVANA S, ADV.,)
AND:
1.
TAHSILDAR AND TALUK MAGISTRATE
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU-572120.
2.
DASAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS
VENKATACHALAIAH
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED MAJOR.
3.
KORAMAMMA
D/O LATE DASAPPA, MAJOR
W/O GANGARANGAIAH.
4.
GANGAMMA
D/O LATE DASAPPA, MAJOR
W/O REVANNA.
5.
GIRIYAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ MOTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
6.
T. VENKATAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ MOTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
3
7.
YALAKKAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ MOTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
8.
LAKSHMAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ MOTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
9.
VENKATAKORAMAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ MOTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 9 ARE
R/O KAMBALAPURA
HEBBUR, TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU-572120.
10. CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, MAJOR.
10(a) SMT. HUCHAMM
W/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
10(b) RAJKUMAR
S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
10(c) PRAKASH
S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
AGED BOUT 38 YEARS.
11. GIRIYAPPA
S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH, MAJOR.
12. VENKATAIAH
S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH, MAJOR.
13. MUDLAGIRAIAH
S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH, MAJOR.
4
14. DODDAVENKATAIAH
S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH, MAJOR.
RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 14 ARE
R/O KAMBALAPURA
HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU-572120.
15. CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
S/O LATE RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
16. RANGASWAMAIAH
S/O LATE RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
17. KARIYAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
18. HUCHAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
19. NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE MANDAIAH
BIN LATE NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
20. CHIKKANARASAIAH
S/O LATE MANDAIAH
BIN LATE NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
21. MARIYAPPA, NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE MANDAIAH
BIN LATE NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
22. NARASIMHA MURTHY, NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE MANDAIAH
5
BIN LATE NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 15 TO 22 ARE
R/O RAJAPURA
HAMLET OF KAMBALAPURA
HEBBUR HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU-572120.
23. VENKATARAMAIAH
S/O LATE VENKATAGIRAIAH.
SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS
BHAGYAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATAKORAMAIAH
MAJOR
R/O KAMBALAPURA
HEBBUR HOBLI
TUMKURU TALUK.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R1
MR. SUNIL S. RAO, ADV., FOR R2-R9 & R11-R22
VK NOT FILED IN RESPECT OF R4
R10(a), R10(b), R10(c) & R23 SERVED)
- - -
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDERS DATED 18/02/2019, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP 6927/2019 AND WP NOS.8288-
8290/2019 DATED 18/2/2019, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
6
This intra court appeal has been filed against the
order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the learned single
Judge by which writ petition preferred by the
appellants has been disposed of.
2.
Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that Thoti Inam Right is to cultivate
and possess land bearing survey Nos.7, 14, 37 and 78
of Kambalapura Village, Hebbur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk.
The father of appellant Nos.1 to 6 namely Yalakkaiah
filed an application seeking regrant under the
provisions of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act,
1961. One Dasappa also submitted an application for
regrant of the land.
3.
Admittedly, the matter was adjudicated by
Tahsildar on three occasions and appeals were also
preferred. The District Court by an order dated
22.11.2018 set aside the order passed by the
7
Tahsildar and remitted the matter to him for afresh
adjudication. The said order was challenged by the
appellants in a writ petition. The learned Single
Judge by an order dated 18.02.2019 has disposed of
the petition with a direction to the Tahsildar to comply
with the order passed by the District Judge and to
decide the same within six months. The parties are
being directed to maintain statusquo. In the aforesaid
background, this appeal has been filed.
4.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants
submitted that the learned single Judge erred in
upholding the order passed by the District Judge and
in directing the Tahsildar to adjudicate the dispute.
In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been
placed on the decision in the case of BEERAPPA v
FAKIRAPPA BEERAPPA BANDROLLI - ILR KAR
2006 pg 4170. It is further submitted that the
matter should have been remitted to the Civil Court.
8
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents
supported the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
5.
We have considered the submissions made
on both sides and have perused the record. The
direction of remand has been issued for the fourth
time. From perusal of paragraph No.4 of the order
passed by the District Judge, it is evident that
Tahsildar has not taken into account the evidence
adduced by the parties and the District Court has
further held that Tahsildar has not recorded a
categorical finding with regard to claims of Yelakkaiah
and Dasappa. It is settled in law that when the
evidence on record is sufficient, an authority instead
of remanding the matter should decide the lis itself, as
an order of remand gives rise to another round of
litigation. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter
has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
9
6.
A finding has to be recorded on a question
of fact which cannot be done either in a proceeding
under Article 226 or in an appeal emanating
therefrom. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we
deem it appropriate to direct the District Judge to
decide the appeals by a speaking order, preferably
within a period of four months from the date of receipt
of copy of the order passed today. The parties are
directed to maintain statusquo with regard to the title
and possession of the property in dispute. The order
passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.
Accordingly the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
