1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE , 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 566 OF 2022 BETWEEN NAGARAJAPPA BY LR'S 1 . SMT.NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2 . SRI NAVEEN KUMAR G N S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 3 . RAGHAVENDRA H.N S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 4 . SRI H.N KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.19, GUNJUR HOSAHALLI, GUNJUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-87 5 . SRI NARAYANA SWAMY S/O LATE ANNAIAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 6 . SRI MURALI S/O LATE ANNAIAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2 APPELLANT NO.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT GUNJUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BANGALURU-560 087 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ANIL KUMAR R, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SRI.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH S/O.LATE. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUNJUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 087. 2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REP BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY 3 . THE LAND TRIBUNAL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, NOW BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036. REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY 4 . SRI CHANNARAYASWAMY AND SRI SOMESWARA SWAMY TEMPLES, GUNJUR VILLAGE, REP. BY MUZARAI OFFICER AND TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, NOW BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036. 5 . THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R PURAM, BENGALURU 560 036 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, SRI. C.H. DEVARAJ, HCGP FOR R2 TO R4) 3 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 12/04/2022 MADE IN WP NO.38372/2012 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38372/2012, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in part as under: "ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 24.02.1981 in case No.LRF.INA.1037/75-76 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is set aside insofar as it relates to granting occupancy rights in favour of Sri Annaiayappa, father of respondent nos.5 to 7 herein relating to 1 acre 8 guntas of land in Survey No.54 of Gunjur village which has already been granted in favour of the father of the petitioner in case No.A1.M.92/75-76 by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bengaluru; (ii) Respondent no.4-Tahsildar shall not proceed with the case against the petitioner herein, if the same is initiated at the behest of respondent no.5 on the ground that his father late Annaiayappa has been granted occupancy 4 rights in respect of 1 acre 8 guntas of land in Survey No.54 of Gunjur village; (iii) The parties are directed to appear before respondent no.4-Tahsildar on 24th May 2022 without further notice; (iv) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly." 2. The abridged facts of the case are as follows: The land bearing Sy.No.54 of Gunjur Village was an Inam land attached to Sri Channarayaswamy and Sri Someswaraswamy Temples, indicated as Bhajantri Service Inamathi, along with other survey number properties. The respondent No.1 claims that in case No.A1.M.92/1975-76, before the court of Special Deputy Commissioner for abolition of Inams, Bangalore, an order dated 30.06.1975 came to be passed ordering registration of Late Sri Hanumanthappa i.e. father of respondent No.1 as an occupant of the land measuring 1 acre 08 guntas under Section 6 of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The appellants claim that Late Sri. Annaiayappa (father-in-law of appellant No.1 and grandfather of appellants No.2 to 3 and father of appellants No.5 and 6) and others filed an application before the Land Tribunal in respect of the very same survey number and the Tribunal passed an order on 24.02.1981 in case No.LRF INA 1037/75-76 in favour of Late Sri. Annaiayappa. However, based on the order dated 30.06.1975 by 5 the Special Deputy Commissioner, the revenue entries of the land in question were mutated in the name of Late Sri. Hanumanthappa i.e., the father of respondent No.1. Subsequently, after Late Sri. Hanumanthappa’s demise, his son i.e., respondent No.1, got his name entered in the revenue records with respect to land bearing Sy.No.54 measuring 1 acre 8 guntas of Gunjur Village. Later, in the year 2006, the son of Late Sri. Annaiayappa, Late Sri. Nagarajappa (i.e., the husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 to 3) filed an application before the Tahsildar to change the Khatha in his name. Hence, the Tahsildar issued a notice dated 13.03.2012 in Case No.RRT/1498/2011-12 to respondent No.1 to produce necessary documents. The said notice was challenged by respondent No.1 in WP No.38372/2012 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, on assessing the documents allowed the writ petition in part and passed an order as stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned senior counsel, Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, as instructed by learned senior counsel for the appellant Sri Jayakumar S. Patil as instructed for respondent No.1 and the learned HCGP Sri C.H. Devaraj for respondents No.2 to 4 and also perused the documents placed before us. 6 4. The primary contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants is that, the learned Single Judge has not considered the objections of the appellants upon the authenticity of the order relied upon by respondent No.1 through which he claims his right over the property in question, i.e., vide order No.A1.M.92/75-76 dated 30.06.1975. The said order was in writing and though a typed copy of the same was submitted; there was no original order available in the records before the concerned offices. According to the learned senior counsel, the said aspect was brought to the knowledge of the learned Single Judge in the writ proceedings and an application was filed by the appellants i.e., the respondents in the writ proceedings seeking dismissal of the writ petition on the very same ground. Though the said application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, the Government Advocate was directed to secure the records. However, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order without securing or perusing the original records. He further contended that, before this Court also the said aspect was pleaded by the appellants and as per the direction of this Court, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, personally appeared with original records and submitted that on due verification of records in his office, the records pertaining to the grant made on 30.06.1974 in favour of the father of the respondent No.1 i.e., Late Sri. Hanumanthappa was unavailable. According to the learned senior counsel, the Land Tribunal vide its order dated 24.02.1981 in 7 No.LRF INA 1037/75-76 granted occupancy rights in the name of the father of the appellants No.5 and 6, Late Sri. Annaiayappa in respect of land bearing Sy.No.54 measuring 1 acre 8 guntas of the Gunjur Village. As such, the father of the appellants No.2 to 4 Sri. Nagarajappa (i.e., the son of Late Sri. Annaiayappa), rightly approached the Tahsildar-respondent No.5 to mutate the khatha in his name and on considering his request, respondent No.5-Tahsildar issued notice to respondent No.1. The learned Single Judge without perusing the records allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 by setting-aside the order dated 24.02.1981 in case No.LRF INA 1037/75-76. In such circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set-aside. He additionally contended that, the matter requires detailed consideration at the hands of either Land Tribunal or the District Commissioner by examining the available documents and the evidence of both parties. Accordingly, he prays to remit the matter back either to Land Tribunal or to the District Commissioner. 5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the portion of the impugned order dated 24.02.1981, in case No.LRF INA 1037/75-76 so far as Sy.No.54, measuring 1 acre 8 guntas, of Gunjur Village, reflecting the name of Late Sri. Annaiayappa as an occupant is illegal, arbitrary and is an error committed while passing the operative 8 portion of the order, in view of the withdrawal of the claim by the claimant Late Sri. Annaiayappa i.e., the father of the appellants No.5 and 6. He further contended that, the portion of the impugned order is not sustainable as there already exists an order passed by the competent Court to register the name of the father of the respondent No.1, namely Late Sri. Hanumanthappa as an occupant as per Section 6 of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act 1955, and the same was admitted by the applicant namely Late Sri. Annaiayappa i.e., the father of the appellants No.5 and 6 before the Land Tribunal. He additionally contended that, neither Late Sri. Hanumanthappa nor respondent No.1 are parties in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and thereby the grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land already registered in the name of Late Sri. Hanumanthappa cannot now be ordered to registered in the name of Late Sri. Annaiayappa by the Land Tribunal. By emphasising on paragraph No.4 of the order dated 30.06.1975, in case No.A1.M.92/75-76, he contended that, Late Sri. Annaiayappa in the proceedings categorically admitted that Late Sri. Hanumanthappa was cultivating the land in Sy.No.54 measuring 01 acre 08 guntas of Gunjur Village and he has no objection to register the occupancy rights in his name for the said land. He also contended that, after the demise of Late Sri. Hanumanthappa, in the year 2011 appellant No.2 (i.e., the grandson of Late Sri. Annaiayappa) approached respondent No.5-Tahsildar by filing an 9 application under the Right to Information Act 2005, to elicit information with respect to land granted in favour of Late Sri. Hanumanthappa and began claiming rights over the same. There is no such explanation forthcoming for the delay and latches in the claim made by the appellants. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the sole point that arises for our consideration is: “Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the writ petition by setting-aside the order dated 24.02.1981 in case No. LRF INA 1037/75-76 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk involving 01 acre 08 guntas of land in Sy. No.54 of Gunjur Village and also directing the Tahsildar to not proceed with the case against respondent No.1, if the same is initiated at the behest of appellants?” 7. As could be gathered from the records, admittedly, the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bengaluru dated 30.06.1975 in Case No.A1.M.92/75-76, respondent No.1 claimed rights with respect to 1 Acre 8 guntas of land bearing Sy.No.54 of Gunjur Village was not produced before this Court Despite repeated directions issued by this Court, respondent No.5-Tahsildar submitted by personally appearing that even after due efforts, they failed to trace the said order in his office. To that effect, he issued an endorsement to the concerned 10 parties. A plea of non-availability of the said order was raised before the learned Single Judge by the appellants herein. The contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the contesting respondents are that, based on the admission and consent of Late Sri. Annaiayappa in the said proceedings, the Special Deputy Commissioner granted the subject land in favour of the father of respondent No.1 i.e. Late Sri. Hanumanthappa and that he is in continuous possession of the said property. Although this appears to be primarily appreciable, however, on profound consideration, the very same order itself being unavailable on record, as such the grant in favour of father of the respondent No.1 has to be determined/proved before the Deputy Commissioner independently. Against this backdrop, the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of Deputy Commissioner in a comprehensive proceeding by extending an opportunity to enable both the parties to lead their evidence and produce relevant documents. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we answer the point raised above in negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Appeal is allowed. ii. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38372/2012 dated 12.04.2022 is set-aside. 11 iii. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District is directed to conduct a comprehensive proceeding and decide the rights of the parties as per law as expeditiously as possible. iv. All the contentions are left open. v. The Registry is directed to forward the available records to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District along with certified copy of this order forthwith. vi. The parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District on 02.07.2025 without any further notice. Pending interlocutory application[s], if any, stands disposed of. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV