- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49255 WP No. 15850 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.15850 OF 2023 (KVOA) BETWEEN: SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O LATE M. NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT GOVINAHALU VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE-577001. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE-577601. 4. SRI MAHESHWARAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA @ KAPALI GOWDRA SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GOVINAHALU VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 (V/C)) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49255 WP No. 15850 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 30.01.1999 MADE IN HACR/8/91-92 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TAHASILDAR, HARIHARA AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order dated 30.01.1999 passed by respondent No.3-Tahsildar Harihar, whereby the land bearing Sy.No.3/2 of Govinahalu Village, Harihar Taluk, originally a Begar Service Jodi Inam land, was re-granted in favour of late Siddappa, father of respondent No.4. Brief facts: 2. The land in Sy.No.3/2 Govinahalu Village, Harihar Taluk, measuring 2 acres 14 guntas (‘schedule property’ for short), was originally a Begar Service Jodi Inam land was resumed by the Government under Section 4 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (‘KVOA Act, 1961’ for short). The father-in-law of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49255 WP No. 15850 of 2023 petitioner Sri A.K. Mariyappa was the village office holder and was cultivating the land. 3. The Tahsildar passed an order on 15.03.1987, re-granting 2 acres of land to Siddappa @ Kapaligowdra Siddappa (father of respondent No.4). The petitioner’s husband-Nagaraja challenged the said order in W.P.No.16766/1989. This Court set aside the Tahsildar’s order, holding that Siddappa was not the original owner and ineligible for re-grant, as he was only a purchaser and the said finding was affirmed in W.A.No.500/1990. Thereafter, Nagaraja filed an application for re-grant, by order dated 12.07.1991, the Tahsildar re-granted the land in favour of Nagaraja-petitioner’s husband. The petitioner, being the wife of Nagaraj, succeeded to the property of Nagaraja. 4. Thereafter, the said Siddappa filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner seeking to set aside the re-grant made in favour of Nagaraja and sought remand of the matter. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49255 WP No. 15850 of 2023 set aside the re-grant order, and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tahsildar, it appears that the petitioner’s husband filed O.S. No.45/1997 seeking declaration and injunction against the father of respondent No.4. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.4 sought a stay before the Tahsildar, but the Tahasildar declined to grant any stay. During the pendency of the original suit in O.S. No.45/1997, counsel appearing for Nagaraja-plaintiff filed a memo stating that the matter had been settled, and suit came to be dismissed on 21.11.1998 on the basis of that memo.. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 created the compromise petition, claiming that Nagaraja had agreed to withdraw the suit. Relying on the order sheet in O.S. No.45/1997, the Tahsildar recorded that the matter had been ‘settled’ and by order dated 30.01.1999, re-granted the schedule property in favour of Siddappa. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49255 WP No. 15850 of 2023 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahsildar exceeded his jurisdiction by re-granting the land in favour of Siddappa despite this Court having already held him ineligible in W.P. No.16766/1989 and W.A.No.500/1990, which have attained finality. It is contended that under Section 5 of the KVOA Act, re-grant can be made only to the original Village Office Holder and not to a purchaser like Siddappa. It is further contended that this Court, in W.P.No.16766/1989, has categorically held that Siddappa is a purchaser and that re-grant in his favour is impermissible. Therefore, the Tahsildar had no authority to hold Siddappa was entitled to re-grant. Moreover, no compromise produced, and the impugned order has been passed by the Tahsildar only on the basis of the order sheet in O.S. No.45/1997. 7. It is submitted that, when this was the fact, the alleged compromise between Nagaraja and Siddappa is a fraud committed by respondent No.4, and the petitioner was unaware of the 1999 proceedings, as she was not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49255 WP No. 15850 of 2023 present before the Tahsildar when the impugned order was passed. It is stated that once this Court had set aside the claim of Siddappa, which was affirmed in appeal, the Tahsildar had no power to revive or reconsider the same based on an order sheet, which did not indicate the terms of the compromise. It is submitted that fraud vitiates everything and delay cannot validate a void or fraudulent act. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4, in support of his statement of objections, submits that the writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the order was passed in the year 1999 and the writ petition is filed in the year 2023. That the father-in-law of the petitioner and husband of the petitioner had no subsisting right after the sale in the year 1969 and the same extinguished all the rights of Mariyappa, including the petitioner’s husband-Nagaraja, and the petitioner. It is stated that O.S. No.45/1997 was dismissed based on the compromise and thus, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49255 WP No. 15850 of 2023 Tahsildar has rightly acted and the same does not warrant any interference. It is further submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, as there is an alternative efficacious remedy provided against the order of the Tahsildar and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are: “i. Whether the impugned order dated 30.01.1999 passed by respondent No.3- Tahsildar, is a valid exercise of jurisdiction under Section 5 of the KVOA Act? ii. Whether the Tahsildar was justified in re- granting the land to the father of respondent No.4 solely on the basis of the order sheet in O.S. No.45/1997, when no compromise petition or terms of compromise were ever produced before the Tahsildar?” 10. This Court has considered the contentions urged and perused the original record produced by the learned AGA. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49255 WP No. 15850 of 2023 11. The impugned order dated 30.01.1999 does not indicate that any enquiry conducted or that any notice was issued when the Tahsildar proceeded to re-grant the land in favour of Siddappa. This is particularly significant in light of the statutory mandate that no re-grant can be made in favour of a purchaser, which position was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.500/1990. In these circumstances, the Tahsildar could not have acted merely based on the production of an order sheet in O.S.No.45/1997, which only indicated that the matter had been settled and the suit has been withdrawn. The terms of the alleged compromise were not produced, no recording of terms under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC or any supporting materials was produced for the Tahsildar to pass an order in favour of Siddappa. 12. The Division Bench of this Court, in the writ appeal, has already held that Siddappa was not the original owner and is therefore ineligible for re-grant, and this finding has been affirmed and has attained finality. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49255 WP No. 15850 of 2023 The Tahsildar has acted beyond his jurisdiction. Though this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the present writ petition has been filed after a delay of 24 years, such delay is not a bar when the order under challenge is void, as fraud vitiates everything. 13. It is also a well settled proposition of law that existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of the writ jurisdiction in cases involving lack of jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice or allegations of fraud. The impugned order passed by the Tahsildar falls within these exceptions and hence, the writ petition is maintainable. 14. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar, being one without jurisdiction, is required to be set aside, and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 30.01.1999 passed by respondent No.3-Tahsildar is hereby set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49255 WP No. 15850 of 2023 iii. The Tahsildar-respondent No.3 has acted without jurisdiction. Consequently, the mutation entries made on the strength of the impugned order stand annulled. iv. It is needless to state that, if the petitioner intends to challenge or seek revival of the said suit, she is at liberty to do so in accordance with law. v. The original records which was placed during the course of the argument is returned back to the learned AGA. SD/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89