- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6345 WP No. 65155 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 65155 OF 2011 (KVOA-) BETWEEN: SHRI. ABDULLATIF USMANSAHEB PATEL, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HINDALAGA, BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S a. USUF S/O. ABDULLATIF PATEL b. MUSTAK S/O. ABDULLATIF PATEL c. RAFIQ S/O. ABDULLATIF PATEL d. AARIF S/O. ABDULLATIF PATEL e. AYUB S/O. ABDULLATIF PATEL f. ASHRAF S/O. ABDULLATIF PATEL g. NANJANIN W/O. ABDULLATIF PATEL h. FARUK S/O. ABDULLATIF PATEL ALL ARE MAJORE AND RESIDENTS OF HINDALAGA BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6345 WP No. 65155 of 2011 AND: 1. SMT. VANITA PAVANKUMAR GEJJI, AGED: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, RESIDING AT CHIDAMBARA NAGAR, ANAGOL, BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. SHRI. PUSHKARAKHAK P. GEJJI, AGED: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, RESIDING AT CHIDAMBARA NAGAR, ANAGOL, BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. BELAGAVI. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BELAGAVI BELAGAVI DISTRICT. 5. MUSLIM KABRASTHAN JAMMATH, HINDALAGA REGISTERED UNDER STATE BOARD OF WAQF R/BY AUTHORIZED PERSON MAINODDIN S/O. DASTGIR MULLA AGED MAJOR, OCC: REPORTER R/O. H.NO.2930, VIJAY NAGAR, HINDALAGA, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. 6. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAQF REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER “DARUL AWAQAF”, #6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R3 & R4;) SMT.PALLAVI PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. AMEERKHAN A. PATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. B. MUHAMMED ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. PUSHKARAKSHAK P. GEJJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6345 WP No. 65155 of 2011 THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: a. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2005 BEARING NO.WATAN/CR/150/2004-05 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2011 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM IN M.A. NO.6 OF 2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. b. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO REGRANT THE LAND BEARING S.NO.88/A MEASURING 04 ACRES 36 GUNTAS SITUATED IN HINDALAGA VILLAGE, BELGAUM UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KVOA ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The original petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 13.04.2005 passed by respondent No.4-the Tahsildar, Belgaum, produced as per Annexure-B, the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Belgaum in M.A.No.06 of 2005, produced as per Annexure-C and to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6345 WP No. 65155 of 2011 directing respondent No.1 to re-grant the land bearing Sy.No.88/A measuring 4.36 acres, situated at Hindalga village, Belgaum, under the provisions of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act (for short, ‘KVOA Act’). 2. Heard Sri. Mallikarjunaswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Pallavi Pachchapure, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri. Pushkarakshak P. Gejji, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri. P.N. Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.3 and 4, Sri. Ameerkhan A. Pathan, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri.B.Muhammed Ali, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the original petitioner that, he was appointed as village Police Patel (Patil) of Hindalga village, by the District Magistrate, Belgaum District, as per order dated 07.01.1921, produced as per Annexure-A. Since then, he was holding the office till coming into force of the KVOA Act. 4. Learned counsel places reliance on Annexure-D produced as additional documents to contend that, it is the extract from the Inam Register, in respect of the village office - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6345 WP No. 65155 of 2011 of Patel, Hindalga where there is reference to 4 items of properties i.e. Sy.No.68 measuring 8.0 acres, Sy.No.67 measuring 4.9 acres, Sy.No.71 measuring 9.22 acres, and Sy.No.88 measuring 4.36 acres were granted. Learned counsel also refers to the original records secured by the learned High Court Government Pleader from the office of the Tahsildar, Belgaum, to draw the attention of the Court that, emoluments attached to the village office was being paid to the original petitioner since from the date of his appointment till the year 1973. Therefore, it is contended that, there are enough and more documents to prove that the petitioner was the holder of the land in question as defined under KVOA Act. Therefore, it is his contention that, under Section 4 of the Act, such village office was abolished, and as per Section 5 of the Act, the petitioner being the holder of the land, is entitled for re-grant of the land resumed under Section 4. 5. Per contra, it is the contention of respondent No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.3 and 4 that, Annexure-D referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not refer to the name of the original petitioner as the holder of the land. Simply because - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6345 WP No. 65155 of 2011 there is reference to Patel of Hindalga village, the same cannot be referred to the petitioners to presume that the land in question was attached to the village office, referred to in Annexure-A. 6. Learned counsel also submitted that Annexure-D consists of only one page, and it is not a complete document. Hence, the same cannot be considered. She also contended that, as per M.E.No.258 dated 01.12.1929, the name of Narayana Gejji came to be mutated in the record of rights, and his name continued in the record of rights continuously till his death. After his death, the names of his legal representatives appeared in the record of rights in respect of Sy.No.88, which is the subject matter of the present petition. Learned counsel contends that, at no point of time, the name of the original petitioner appeared in any of the revenue records including the record of rights, and the original petitioner has never challenged M.E.No.258 dated 01.12.1929 till his death. Under such circumstances, the petitioners cannot contend that M.E.No.258 is not binding on them. There is no reasonable explanation as to why the said mutation entry, which was certified at an undisputed point of time, is to be ignored. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6345 WP No. 65155 of 2011 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 also contended that, at an undisputed point of time, one of the tenants filed Form No.7 seeking to confer occupancy right before the land Tribunal, Belgaum showing Narayana Gejji as the landlord. The said claim was rejected by the Land Tribunal. But the fact remains that even as per Form No.7, the name of Narayana Gejji was shown as the landlord, which assumes importance. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the materials on record disclose that, on 25.10.1999, an application was submitted by Narayana Gejji for re-grant of the land. There is absolutely no explanation by the petitioners with regard to the same. The petitioner has even paid the amount under the challan on behalf of Narayana Gejji. Under such circumstances, the original petitioner cannot claim any independent right over the property. Therefore, she contends that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar, as well as by the learned District Judge, who have considered the contentions of both the parties and assigned reasons for passing the impugned orders. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6345 WP No. 65155 of 2011 9. Similar contention was raised by the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.3 and 4, to contend that, a detailed enquiry was held by the Tahsildar on the basis of the materials that are available on record while passing the impugned order. Learned District Judge has also considered all those contentions in the light of the documents that were produced. Hence, there are no reasons to interfere with the same. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 10. On perusal of the materials on record, and in light of the rival contentions, it is found that, the petitioners are placing reliance on Annexures-A and D i.e. the order appointing the original petitioner as village Office Patel, and an extract from the Inam Register to show that Sy.No.88 which is in dispute was attached to the village office of Police Patel of Hindalga village. Of course, the original petitioner had not challenged M.E.No.258 which was certified at an undisputed point of time i.e. on 01.12.1929. There is absolutely no reason assigned as to why the said order was not challenged by the original petitioner. Moreover since 01.12.1929 till 1973, the name of Narayan Gejji was found in the record of rights either as “Vathandar” or “holder of the land”. Interestingly, the name - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6345 WP No. 65155 of 2011 of the petitioner is not found in any of the revenue records for this period. 11. Even though the Tahsildar has given his opinion in the impugned order with regard to the revenue entries for re- grant of the land in favour of respondent No.1, he has never referred to the extract from the Register i.e. “Petakhatawahi” found in the original records where some emoluments were paid to the original petitioner from 1958 till 1972-73. Neither the Tahsildar nor the learned District Judge referred to this clinching document which prima-facie supports the contention of the petitioners. 12. It is pertinent to note that Annexure-D and some other additional documents were produced by the petitioners before this Court to claim re-grant of the land in their favour. However, no opportunity was given to respondent No.1 to counter those documents relied on by the petitioners. 13. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders, produced as per Annexures-B and C passed by the Tahsildar as well as by the learned District Judge are liable to be quashed to remit the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6345 WP No. 65155 of 2011 matter back to the Tahsildar, Belgaum, with a direction to hold fresh enquiry to find out as to who was the holder of the village office, and under what circumstances, M.E.No.258 dated 01.12.1929 came to be effected. He is required to consider as to whether the emoluments attached to the village office was being paid to the original petitioner or not, and whether the original petitioner has submitted application for re-grant of the land or paid the challan on behalf of Narayana Gejji. 14. The Tahsildar is also required to find out the basis on which the name of Narayana Gejji was referred to as “Vathandar” in the record of rights starting from the year 1931- 32 till 1941-42, and subsequently similar entry was carried forward for decades. 15. Unless a detailed enquiry is held by the Tahsidlar by giving opportunity to the petitioners and respondent No.1, no finding could be recorded by this Court. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned orders produced as per Annexures-B and C, by remitting the matter back to the Tahsildar. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6345 WP No. 65155 of 2011 ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 13.04.2005 passed by respondent No.4-the Tahsildar, Belgaum, bearing No.Watan/CR/150/2004-05, produced as per Annexure-B, and the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Belgaum, in M.A.No.06 of 2005, produced as per Annexure-C, are hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remanded back to the Tahsildar to hold fresh enquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner and respondent No.1 to place on record their contentions with supporting documents and to pass an order, in accordance with law, in the light of the discussions held above. (iv) The petitioner and respondent No.1 are directed to appear before the Tahsildar, Belgaum on 20.05.2025 without waiting for issuance of fresh notice. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6345 WP No. 65155 of 2011 In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.A.No.1 of 2015 and I.A.No.2 of 2012 are also stand disposed off. Registry to communicate this order to respondent No.4-the Tahsildar, Belgaum by furnishing the copy of the same, forthwith. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM : CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1