- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5151 OF 2019 (KVOA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 2224 OF 2019 (KVOA) IN WP No. 5151/2019 BETWEEN: SMT. PUTTANANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O. MALLESHA, R/AT NO. 4446, SHANKARAPURA EXTENSION, NANJANAGUD TOWN, NANJANAGUD, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H MOHAN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHASILDAR NANJANAGUD TALUK OFFICE, NANJANAGUD, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 301. 2. SRI. NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O. LATE DEVEERAMMA AND CHELUVAIAH, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 2(A) SMT. THAYAMMA W/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2(B) SMT. GEETHA D/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2(C) SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2(D) SRI. JAYARAM S/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT 3RD CROSS, ANANDAPURA NANJANGUD TOWN MYSORE DISTRICT 571 301. 3. SRI. RACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH, R/AT SHANKARAPURA EXTENSION, 2ND CROSS, NANJANAGUD TOWN, NANJANAGUD, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 301. 4. SMT. MADAMMA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, W/O. LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH, R/AT SHANKARAPURA EXTENSION, 2ND CROSS, NANJANAGUD TOWN, NANJANAGUD, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 301. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 5. SMT. SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O. LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH, R/AT SHANKARAPURA EXTENSION, 2ND CROSS, NANJANAGUD TOWN, NANJANAGUD, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 301. 6. SRI. MASANASHETTY AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, S/O. LATE RACHASHETTY, R/AT NEELAKANTANAGAR, NANJANAGUD TOWN, NANJANAGUD, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1; MS. AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GURURAJ R, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (A TO D); SRI. B. PURANDARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5; SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT MYSURU, IN M.A.NO.50/2017 AND M.A.NO.51/2017 DATED 6.10.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-H. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 IN WP NO. 2224/2019 BETWEEN: SRI NANJAIAH S/O LATE DEVEERAMMA& CHELUVAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(A) SMT. THYAMMA W/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OCCUPATION : HOUSE HOLD AND AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT NO.1012 ANANDAPURA EXTENSION NANJANGUDU TOWN AND TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT -571 301. 1(B) SMT. N. GEETHA D/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCCUPATION : HOUSE HOLD AND AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT NO.1012 ANANDAPURA EXTENSION NANJANGUDU TOWN AND TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT -571 301. 1(C) SHRI. A.N. SIDDAPPA S/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCCUPATION : AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT NO.1012 ANANDAPURA EXTENSION NANJANGUDU TOWN AND TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT -571 301. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 1(D) SHRI. N. JAYARAM S/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT NO.1012 ANANDAPURA EXTENSION NANJANGUDU TOWN AND TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT -571 301. ...PETITIONERS (BY MS. AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRANEETH G N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTEDBY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE THASILDAR NANJANGUD TALUK OFFICE, NANJANGUD, MYSURU DISTRICT 571301. 3. RACHAIAH S/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT SHANKARAPURA EXTENSION 2ND CROSS, NANJANGUD TOWN NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 571301. 4. MADAMMA W/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT SHANKARAPURA EXTENSION 2ND CROSS, NANJANGUD TOWN - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 571301. 5. SMT. SAROJAMMA D/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT SHANKARAPURA EXTENSION 2ND CROSS, NANJANGUD TOWN NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 571301. 6. MASANASHETTY S/O LATE RACHASHETTY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NEELAKANTANAGAR, NANJANGUD TOWN NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 571301. 7. PUTTANANJAMMA W/O MALLESHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/ATNO.4446, SHANKARAPURA EXTENSION, NANJANGUD TOWN, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 571301. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRANEETH G.N., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. DHARMESH R AND SRI. B. PURANDARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5; SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. H. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2018 PASSED IN MA NO.50/2017 AND MA NO.51/2017 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU VIDE ANNX- AB AND ORDER DATED 14.11.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN HOA NO.3/2015-16 VIDE ANNX-V; DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO RE-GRANT THE SCHEDULE LAND EXCLUSIVELY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA VILLAGE OFFICERS ABOLITION ACT, 1961. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER These writ petitions are filed calling in question the common Order dated 06.10.2018 in Misc. Appeal Nos.50/2017 and 51/2017 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Mysuru [for short, 'the District Court']. These appeals are under Section 3[2] of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 [for short, 'the KVOA Act'], and these appeals are filed - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 calling in question the jurisdictional Tahsildar's Order dated 14.11.2017 in HOA No.3/2015-16. 2. The Tahsildar, by this Order dated 14.11.2017, has examined the merits of the application filed by Mr.Nanjaiah, has re-granted the Occupancy Rights to the land measuring 1 Acre 5 Guntas in Sy. No.1325 of Nanjangud Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk [the subject land] in favour of Mrs. Puttananjamma, wife of Mr. Mallesh. It is undisputed that Mrs. Puttananjamma, consequent to the Tahsildar's aforesaid Order dated 14.11.2017 has paid the Occupancy Price, and she is issued with the Re-grant Certificate. 3. The District Judge, by the impugned order dated 06.10.2018, has allowed these appeals filed by Mr. Nanjaiah [in M.A. No.50/2017] and Mr.Masanashetty [in M.A. No.51/2017] either in part or in full modifying the Tahsildar's Order dated 14.11.2017 re-granting the subject land to Mr. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 Nanjaiah and Mrs.Puttananjamma, but observing that such re-grant shall inure to the advantage of Mr. Masanashetty. Mrs. Puttananjamma and Mr. Nanjaiah have filed the present petitions. Mrs. Puttananjamma is the petitioner in W.P. No.5151/2019, and Mr. Nanjaiah is the petitioner in W.P. No.2224/2019. Mr. Rachaiah, Mrs. Madamma and Mrs. Sarojamma [who claim under Mr. Channabasavaiah] are also respondents in these petitions, so is Mr.Masanashetty with both Mrs. Puttananjamma and Mr. Nanjaiah being the other respondents in the corresponding writ petitions. 4. This Court has referred to parties in the course of this order, for reasons of convenience, as they are arrayed in W.P. No.5151/2019 and in that event, Mr. Nanjaiah must be referred to as the second respondent, Mr. Rachaiah, Mrs. Madamma and Mrs. Sarojamma as the third to fifth respondents [who claim under Mr. Channabasavaiah] and Mr. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 Masanashetty as the sixth respondent. This Court before examining the merits of the respective grievance against the impugned formal Order dated 06.10.2018 must refer to certain facts and the details of the earlier proceedings A brief statement of facts: 5. The subject property is part of the larger extent of land measuring 5 acres 19 guntas in Sy. No.1325 of Nanjangud Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, and the subject property was previously attached to the Village Office of Chakra. Mrs. Deveeradevi, wife of Mr. Kuribhogaiah was the Baravardar in possession and enjoyment of the subject property during her lifetime. Mrs. Deveeradevi has died leaving behind two sons,Mr. Nanjaiah and Mr. Bhogaiah and a daughter Mrs. Deveeramma. Mr. Nanjaiah S/o Mrs. Deveeradevi and Mr. Kuribhogaiah has died a bachelor, and the petitioner is the daughter of Mr. Bhogaiah. Mrs. Deveeramma has - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 died leaving behind a son, Mr. Nanjaiah [the second respondent]. 6. Mr. Bhogaiah and Mrs.Deveeramma have executed sale deed dated 13.09.1971 in favour of Mr. Channabasavaiah under whom the third to fifth respondents have asserted interest in the subject property, and they transferred the subject property in favour of the sixth respondent under the Sale Deed dated 24.02.1998.This Court must mention that if the second respondent has asserted that he was the Baravardar after the demise of Mrs. Deveeradevi, the petitioner has asserted that she was the Baravardar after the demise of Mrs. Deveeradevi, and the third to fifth respondents [the legal heirs of Mr. Channabasavaiah] have asserted interest in the subject property claiming rights under the Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971 with the sixth respondent consequentially asserting interest in the subject property under the Sale Deed dated 24.02.1998. This - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 Court must now refer to the earlier proceedings that have led to these petitions. The proceedings in No.HOA 29/1993-941 7. The third to fifth respondents have filed application under the KVOA Act for grant of occupancy rights, and the jurisdictional Tahsildar by the Order dated 01.12.1997 has favoured such application by re-granting the subject property in their favour. However, the second respondent has called in question the Tahsildar’s order dated 01.12.1997 in an appeal with the Assistant Commissioner, who by his Order dated 30.04.1999 has set aside the Order dated 01.12.1997 directing forfeiture of the subject property to the State Government. The sixth respondent has filed writ petition in W.P. No.16477/1999 calling in question both the Tahsildar's Order dated 01.12.1997 and the 1 The District Judge has referred to the proceedings as bearing No.23/1994-95 in the impugned common Order dated 06.10.2018 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 Assistant Commissioner's Order dated 30.04.1999. This Court has intervened by the Order dated 13.06.2000 setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's Order dated 30.04.1999 directing the parties to avail the appellate remedy under Section 3[2] of the KVOA Act. HOA No.03/2015-16: 8. The second respondent has filed appeal in No.16/2012 with the District Court calling in question the Tahsildar's Order dated 01.12.1997, and the sixth respondent has filed his appeal in No.21/2012. The District Judge has allowed these appeals in part by the Order dated 09.04.2009 restoring the proceedings to the Tahsildar for reconsideration. The Tahsildar has registered the restored proceedings in HOA No.3/2015-16, and the officer has issued notice to the petitioner and the third to sixth respondents with the second respondent pursuing the proceedings as the applicant. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 9. The second respondent has contended that his mother, Mrs. Deveeramma, was the Baravardar and that on her demise, and that he would become entitled to the re-grant of occupancy rights to the subject land, and the petitioner has resisted such claim asserting that the second respondent is grandson of Mrs. Deveeradevi [the undisputed Baravardar being her daughter’s son] and as of the relevant date, her father Mr. Bhogaiah was the Baravardar and therefore, she is entitled to the re- grant of occupancy rights. The second respondent, in the earlier proceedings, had described himself as son of Mrs. Deveeradevi. 10. The third to sixth respondents, to bolster their claim to the subject property, have asserted that the petitioner's father [Mr. Bhogaiah] and the second respondent's mother [Mrs. Deveeramma] have executed the Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971 transferring the subject property in their favour, and that they - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 have subsequently transferred all their right, title and interest in the subject property in favour of the sixth respondent under the Sale Deed dated 24.02.1998 after the Tahsildar’s first order dated 01.12.1997 and with prior permission. 11. The Tahsildar, in the light of these tripartite claims to the subject property, has re- granted occupancy rights to the petitioner by the Order dated 04.11.2017 concluding that the petitioner is the legal heir of the Baravardar at the relevant time and that the second respondent had falsely represented that he was the son of the original Baravardar [Mrs. Deveeradevi] though he was her daughter's son. The Tahsildar has also referred to the terms of the Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971 and the details as mentioned by the second respondent in his school records to opine that the second respondent has staked a false claim misrepresenting that he was the son of Mrs. Deveeradevi though he is her - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 grandson through the daughter. The Tahsildar has not otherwise referred to the Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971 or the Sale Deed dated 24.02.1998. The District Court’s reasoning in the impugned Common Order dated 06.10.2018 in MA No. 50/2017 & 51/2017 12. The District Court, while considering the merits of the second respondent's grievance with the Tahsildar's Order dated 14.11.2017 as also the sixth respondent's grievance against this Order in the aforesaid appeals, has intervened to hold that the re- grant must be in favour of the second respondent and the petitioner but inure to the advantage of the sixth respondent because of these reasons. [a] The petitioner's father [Mr. Bhogaiah] and the second respondent's mother [Mrs. Deveeramma] have together executed Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971 for the subject - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 property in favour of the third to fifth respondents. [b] This Sale Deed is not hit by the bar introduced with the amendment of Section 5[4] of the KVOA Act by the Act 13 of 1978 referring to the decision of this Court in Syed Basheer Ahmed v. State of Karnataka'2. [c] The third to fifth respondents, who have derived a defective title under the Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971, have transferred such title to the sixth respondent under the Sale Deed dated 24.02.1998 and the imperfect title thus transferred should ultimately inure to the sixth respondent with the re- grant in favour of both the petitioner and the second respondent as there should be feeding of grant by estoppel. 2ILR 1994 KAR 159 - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 The rival submissions: 13. Ms. Aishwarya Hegde, the learned counsel for the second respondent, argues for intervention with the District Court's impugned common Order dated 06.10.2018 contending that both the jurisdictional Tahsildar and the District Court have erroneously inferred against the second respondent only because he had mis-described himself Mrs. Deveeradevi’s son while seeking re-grant of occupancy rights and that the Tahsildar and the District Court should have seen that both the petitioner's father [Mr. Bhogaiah] and his mother [Mrs. Deveeramma] have executed Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971 because, indisputably, they had common interest and title in the subject property. 13.1 Mr. Dharmesh R, the learned counsel for the third to fifth respondents, and Mr. Gopala Krishnamurthy C, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent, adopting the line of argument by - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 Ms. Aishwarya Hegde, contend that the District Court has rightly observed that the sixth respondent would be entitled to the benefit of re-grant because of the Sale Deeds dated 13.09.1971 and 24.02.1998. 14. Mr. Mohan Kumar H, the learned counsel for the petitioner, refuting these submissions and emphasizing the undisputed facts as previously mentioned, argues that the petitioner's father was the Baravardar [holder of the Village Office - Chakra] immediately prior to the appointed date and not the second respondent's mother or Mrs. Deveeradevi. The learned counsel canvasses that because the petitioner's father was the Baravardar as of the effective date and on his demise, the petitioner [his only daughter] would be entitled to the re-grant. The Tahsildar has rightly appreciated these circumstances, but the District Court has overlooked the same in intervening with the Tahsildar's Order. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 14.1 Mr. Mohan Kumar H, on the reliance upon the Sale Deeds dated 13.09.1971 and 24.02.1998, submits that it is beyond dispute that the Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971, which is executed by the petitioner's father and the second respondent's mother as siblings, is not for the subject property but for another land in the same village in Sy. No.1328 which measures 1 acre and 30 guntas, and that the third to fifth respondents have executed the Sale Deed dated 24.02.1998 in favour of the sixth respondent deliberately referring to the re-grant of occupancy rights at the first instance in HOA No.29/1993-94 vide Order dated 01.12.1997. 14.2 The learned counsel invites this Court's attention to the description of the land conveyed under the Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971 stating that the Executants [Mr. Bhogaiah and Mrs. Deveeramma] have mentioned the Survey number as 1328, the extent as 1 acre 30 guntas and describing - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 the boundaries of such land and not the subject property. The Question for Consideration. 15. The question for consideration in the peculiar set of facts and circumstances and the rival submissions is: Whether this Court must interfere with the District Judge's common Order dated 06.10.2018 re-granting in favour of the petitioner and in favour of the second respondent, and if there is such interference, the conclusion on the sixth respondent’s interest in the Subject Property. 16. The petitioner and the second respondent have sought for re-grant of occupancy rights to the subject property under Section 5 of the KVOA Act. The relevant provision for the present purposes will be Section 5[1] of the KVOA Act which reads as under: - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 "5. Re-grant of land resumed under section 4 to the holder of the village office-(1) A land resumed under clause (3) of section 4 shall, in cases not falling under section 6 and section 7, be granted to the person who was the holder of the village office immediately prior to the appointed date (hereinafter referred to as the holder) on payment, by or on behalf of such holder to the State Government, of the occupancy 7 price equal to three times in the case of holders of inferior village office and six times in the case of holders of other village offices, the amount of the full assessment of such land within the prescribed period and in the prescribed manner and the holder shall be deemed to be an occupant or holder of a ryotwari patta within the meaning of the Code in respect of such land and shall primarily be liable to pay land revenue to the State Government from the appointed date in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the rules and orders made thereunder; and all the provisions of the - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 Code and the rules and orders relating to unalienated land or ryotwari land shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, apply to the said land." 17. It is obvious from a plain reading of these provisions that a land resumed under Section 4[3] of the KVOA Act [and not falling under Sections 6 and 7] must be granted to the person who was the holder of the village office immediately prior to the appointed date subject to payment of occupancy price by the holder or on behalf of such holder to the State Government. This decides the scope of jurisdiction for considering the merits of a claim under Section 5 of the KVOA Act unlike when an application is by an unauthorized holder [whose request would be considered under Section 6 of the KVOA Act], The crucial factors to be examined is whether the land stood resumed under Section 4[3] of the KVOA Act and whether the claimant was the holder of the Village Office as of the effective date. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 18. In the present case, the outcome must turn on whether Mr. Bhogaiah was the Baravardar of the subject property as of the effective date or whether the second respondent's mother, Mrs. Deveeramma was the Baravardar as of such date. The petitioner and the second respondent are at ad-idem in contending that Mrs. Deveeradevi [their grandmother] was the original Baravardar. If the petitioner is consistent in asserting that her father Mr. Bhogaiah was the Baravardar as of the effective date as he had continued in such capacity after the demise of his mother, Mrs. Deveeradevi, the second respondent is not at all consistent and his inconsistent stand undermines sharply his claim. 19. The second respondent, admittedly, has asserted that he is the son of Mrs. Deveeradevi [the original Baravardar] only to resile and assert that he is the son of Mrs. Deveeramma, daughter of Mrs. Deveeradevi. The jurisdictional Tahsildar, in the - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 Order dated 14.11.2017, on examining the contents of the Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971 and the second respondent’s school records, has categorically opined that the second respondent is the son of Mrs. Deveeramma. There is nothing on record to unsettle the Tahsildar’s appreciation, and this Court must opine that the District Judge has erred in overlooking these circumstances and proceeding to examine the right to the subject property under Section 5[1] of the KVOA Act based on the Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971. 20. This Court has also examined the contents of the Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971 to find out whether the District Court's conclusions based on such sale deed could be justified. The Sale Deed, which is executed by the petitioner's father [Sri. Bhogaiah] and the second respondent's mother [Smt. Deveeramma] refers to these executants of the Deeds as siblings and the subject land which is conveyed under this Sale Deed is mentioned as an area - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy. No.1328 with a certain description of the boundaries. The sale deed does not refer to any antecedent circumstances to justify one way or the other title to the subject property. 21. This Court, limited to the present purposes, must observe that the afore circumstances support the petitioner's claim that her father was the Baravardar and that he along with his sister, Mrs. Deveeramma, have executed such sale deed not for the subject property but for a distinct and separate land. These circumstances must clinch in favour of the petitioner as against the second respondent, and therefore, this Court must interfere to restore the re- grant of the occupancy rights of the subject property to the petitioner. However, if the sixth respondent can claim that he must have the right to the property that could be conveyed with the Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971 and the subsequent Sale Deed dated - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 24.02.1998 must establish essential factual matrix, and this Court cannot go into such questions in the present proceedings. The question for consideration is answered accordingly, and in the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The writ petition in W.P. No.2224/2019 and the writ petition in W.P. No.5151/2019 are allowed in part setting aside the District Judge's common Order dated 06.10.2018 in M.A. Nos.50/2017 and 51/2017 restoring the jurisdictional Tahsildar's Order dated 14.11.2017 in the proceedings in HOA No.3/2015-16 as also the re-grant Certificate issued. [B] The sixth respondent is reserved with liberty to initiate appropriate civil - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:13208 WP No. 5151 of 2019 C/W WP No. 2224 of 2019 proceedings for vindication of his right under the Sale Deed dated 24.02.1998 subject to all just exceptions and the specific conclusions of this Court in this order. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-