- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5500 WP No. 60445 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 60445 OF 2012 (KVOA) BETWEEN: 1. VENKANAGOUDA S/O. HANUMANTHGOUDA REDDY, [SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS] 2. HANUMANTHGOUDA S/O. PARVATHGOUDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 3. VEERANAGOUDA S/O. PARVATHGOUDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 4. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. ESHWARGOUDA REDDY, [SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS] ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KURAHATTI VILLAGE, RON TALUK, DIST: GADAG. PETITIONER NOS. 1 & 4, SINCE DECEASED BY THEIR LRS., ARE PETITIONER NOS 2 & 3 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. AMENDED AS PER ORDER PASSED ON MEMO DATED 29.01.2025. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. YALLAPPA DYAMAPPA ARAMANI AGED ABOUT 66, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KURAHATTI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5500 WP No. 60445 of 2012 NOW AT HALADUR, TQ: HUNGAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. DHARMAPPA DYAMAPPA ARAMANI, AGED ABOUT 50, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KURAHATTI VILLAGE, NOW AT HALADUR, TQ: HUNGAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R3 & R4) ------ THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE: 1. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.07.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG, IN MA 72/2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-H. 2. GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF/S DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 3. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER NO.MISC/AP/SR-01/2007-2008 GADAG DATED 25.07.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-G. 4. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IF THE APPLICATION IS ALLOWED NO HARDSHIP WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE RESPONDENTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE APPLICATION IS NOT ALLOWED THE PETITIONERS WILL BE PUT GREATER HARDSHIP, IRREPARABLE LOSS AND INJURY WHICH CANNOT BE COMPENSATED IN TERMS OF MONEY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5500 WP No. 60445 of 2012 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned dated 07.07.2011, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, in M.A.No.72 of 2008, produced as per Annexure-H, and the order dated 25.07.2008 passed by respondent No.3, produced as per Annexure-G. 2. Heard Sri. H. M. Dharigond, learned counsel for petitioners No.2 to 4, Sri. Girish A. Yadwad, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri. P. N. Hatti, learned HCGP for respondents No.3 and 4. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that, their predecessor in interest, Hanumantha Gowda, was the Inamdar of Survey No.11/3, measuring 6.19 acres of Kurahatti Village in Ron Taluk of Gadag District. Hanumantha Gowda died in the year 1953. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5500 WP No. 60445 of 2012 Thereafter, the names of his legal representatives were recorded as Inamdars as per M.E.No.1657, dated 16.04.1956, produced as per Annexure-C. Subsequently, M.E.No.3131, dated 12.08.1964 came into effect, deleting the name of the Inamdar after the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’, for short). 4. In the meantime, the grandfather of respondent Nos.1 and 2 appears to have filed Form No.7, claiming to be the tenant under the Inamdar. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 28.12.1976, produced as per Annexure-D, rejected the Form No.7. It is thereafter, that M.E.No.3460, produced as per Annexure-E, was certified on 25.03.1978, re- granting the land in favor of the grandfather of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The said re-grant by the Assistant Commissioner, Gadag, was challenged by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5500 WP No. 60445 of 2012 Gadag. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 25.07.2008, produced as per Annexure-G, rejected the claim of the petitioners, solely on the ground that, there is delay of 30 years in challenging the re- grant order. When this order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, in M.A.No.72 of 2008, the said appeal came to be dismissed, confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, on the ground of delay. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. On hearing both the Learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is observed that, initially, the predecessor in title of the petitioners, namely, Hanumantha Gowda, was the Inamdar in respect of Survey No.11/3, measuring 6.19 acres of Kurahatti Village in Ron Taluk of Gadag District. After his death, M.E.No.1657, dated 16.04.1956, was effected - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5500 WP No. 60445 of 2012 and the names of his legal representatives i.e., Parwathagouda, Ishwaragouda, and Venkanagouda, came to be entered in the records. Upon the enactment of the Abolition of Village Officers Act, 1961, M.E.No.3131, dated 12.08.1964, was certified, vesting the land with the Government. 6. Admittedly, Form No.7, filed by the grandfather of respondent Nos.1 and 2, was rejected by the Land Tribunal, vide order dated 28.12.1976. However, the contesting respondents have produced the original order dated 26.12.1977, re-granting the land in favor of the grandfather of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Even though the petitioners have not claimed re-grant of the land in question, they have challenged the re- grant in favor of the grandfather of respondents No.1 and 2, as it was a meritless re-grant. 7. As per Section 4 of the Act of 1961, the village offices together with incidents thereof, stands abolished. Section 5 of the said Act permit re-grant - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5500 WP No. 60445 of 2012 of the land resumed under Section 4, to the holder of the village office. A conjoint reading of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1961, disclose that, after the abolition of village offices, the land in question vests with the Government, and the person, who was the holder of the village office immediately prior to the appointed date, is entitled for re-grant of the land. 8. It is the contention of the petitioners that, the grandfather of respondent Nos.1 and 2 was never the holder of the village office immediately prior to the appointed date and was thus not entitled for re- grant of the land. No documents are forthcoming to substantiate such contention taken by the contesting respondent No.3. They are only relying on the observation of the Assistant Commissioner, made in the re-grant order, that the grand father of respondent No.3 was the tenant in respect of the land. However, in the absence of any supporting - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5500 WP No. 60445 of 2012 documents, such an observation of the Assistant Commissioner cannot be accepted. 9. Even though the petitioners have not claimed re- grant of the land, definitely the land will vest with the Government, but under no circumstances, the grand father of respondent Nos.1 and 2 was entitled for the re-grant, unless it is shown that he was the person, who was the holder of the village office immediately prior to the appointed date, as required under Section 5 of the Act of 1961. 10. It is pertinent to note that, even though the re-grant is dated 26.12.1977, the same was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2007-08. It cannot be said that the said challenge was after an inordinate delay of 30 years, unless it is shown that the petitioners were notified before passing of the order of re-grant, which is under challenge. When the petitioners were not notified about passing the order of re-grant dated 26.12.1977, then their - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5500 WP No. 60445 of 2012 challenge before the Deputy Commissioner and subsequently before the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, cannot be said to be barred by limitation. 11. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order at Annexures - G dated 25.07.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gadag, and the impugned order at Annexure – H, dated 07.07.2011, passed by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, in M.A.No.72 of 2008, are liable to be set aside. Since there is serious dispute about the entitlement of the grandfather of respondent Nos.1 and 2, to re-grant of the land under Section 5 of the Act, I am of the opinion that the order of re-grant produced as per Annexure-R1, is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration of the application for re-grant, after due notice to the petitioners. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5500 WP No. 60445 of 2012 12. It is made clear that, if respondent Nos.1 and 2 substantiate their claim that the original re-grantee was entitled for such re-grant as per Annexure-R1, the Assistant Commissioner can pass appropriate orders. However, if the Assistant Commissioner finds that the grandfather of respondent Nos.1 and 2 was neither a tenant, nor he was entitled for re-grant under Section 5 of the Act of 1961, the land shall vest with the Government. 13. With these observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 25.07.2008 passed by respondent No.3, produced as per Annexure- G and the order dated 07.07.2011, passed by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, in M.A.No.72 of 2008, produced as per Annexure-H, are set aside. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5500 WP No. 60445 of 2012 iii. The re-grant order dated 26.12.1977, produced as per Annexure-R1 is also set aside. iv. The matter is remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner, Gadag, for reconsideration of the re-grant application, if any, filed by the original grantee, in the light of the observations made above. v. The parties shall appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Gadag, on 12.05.2025, without waiting for fresh notice, upon which, the Assistant Commissioner shall decide the matter within a reasonable time, at least within three months. At this stage, the Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeks a direction to Respondent No.4, the Assistant Commissioner, Gadag, not to dispossess them until reconsideration of the matter. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3