- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35547-DB WA No. 1179 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1179 OF 2024 (KVOA) BETWEEN: 1. SOMBAMMA D/O LATE MUNITHIAMMAIAH W/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. JAYALAKSHAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. RAJAPPA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 4. MANJULAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 5. PAPANNA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 6. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35547-DB WA No. 1179 of 2024 APPELLANT NOS. 1 TO 6 ALL ARE RESIDING AT: KUDLU VILLAGE SARJAPURE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 560 068 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SWAMY N.B.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHSILDHAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL - 562 106. 2. MRS. ASHA PARVEEN W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER MAJOR IS AGE R/AT NO. 20, 7TH CROSS JC NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 096. 3. SRI B. GOPAL S/O LATE THIMMARAYA @ BIYA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT CHANNAKAL VILLAGE MALUR TALUK - 563 130 KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. APATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SOURABH R. KURUBARAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON 21ST JUNE 2024 IN W.P. No. 23823/2018 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35547-DB WA No. 1179 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellants who claim to be the legal heirs of late Sri Ramaiah have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.23823/2018(KVOA). Respondent No.3 who claims to be the son of late Thimmaraya @ Biya had filed the said writ petition impugning an order dated 08.03.2018 passed by respondent No.1 (Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk) re-granting the subject lands in favour of the appellants. The learned Single Judge allowed the said petition and set aside the order dated 08.03.2018 passed by respondent No.1 principally on the ground that it was in flagrant violation of the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [District Judge] in M.A.No.26/2010, an appeal preferred under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961 [the Act]. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35547-DB WA No. 1179 of 2024 2. It is material to note that the said appeal was preferred by the appellants. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under: "The appeal stands allowed by setting aside the impugned order date 5.2.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 learned Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk in case No. VOA, CR. EVR.199/69-70. The appellants shall approach the civil Court within three months from this date and get determined that they are the legal representatives of the Barawardars of the schedule lands, seeking required relief/reliefs under required mode as provided under law. After getting determined the dispute of legal heirship. As noted above, the successful party will have to move the learned Tahsildar as required under law seeking suitable relief/reliefs as required under law and in that event the learned Tahsildar shall dispose of the same as prescribed under law. In the event of failure of the appellants to approach the competent civil Court as stipulated above, they lose all their alleged legal rights in respect of the schedule lands. In the event of non approaching of the present appellants to the civil Court, as stipulated above, the present Respondents are at liberty to move the learned Tahsildar seeking the required relief or they are at liberty to press into service of law seeking suitable relief under the competent forum. No order as to costs Office is directed to send the entire LCR of the office of Tahsildar, forthwith." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35547-DB WA No. 1179 of 2024 3. The dispute essentially relates to regrant of the subject lands measuring 8 acres and 29 guntas located in Kudlu Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. Survey numbers in the extent of the land as set out in the writ petition is reproduced below: Survey Number Extent 28 5 acres 12 guntas 185 2 acres 1 gunta 198 1 gunta 113 26 guntas 158 12 guntas 161 17 guntas Total 8 acres 29 guntas 4. It is the case of respondent No.3 [writ petitioner] that the subject lands were Talvar Service Inamathi Lands. At the material time, the Talvar service connected with the subject lands was rendered by four Hissedars namely, Kaveriga, Kulla, Byra and Thimmaraya alias Biya. The writ petitioner states that the grandfather of the aforesaid Hissedars, namely one Kulla was the first person, who was conferred with the Talvar's service in connection with the subject lands. On his demise, the Village Office devolved on his seven sons, including one Munikulla, who was the father of Biya ( the father the writ petitioner). - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35547-DB WA No. 1179 of 2024 5. On 01.02.1963, the Act, came into force and all hereditary village offices were abolished and Talvar Service Inamathi Lands including the subject lands were resumed by the State. The writ petitioner claims that Thimmaraya alias Biya had filed an application under Section 5 of the Act for regrant of the subject lands. It is stated that in addition, other persons (Chikkamuniyamma and Doddamunivenkatappa) also filed applications for regrant of the lands. By an order dated 30.05.1971, the subject lands were regranted in favour of Thimmaraya alias Biya and Chikkamuniyamma. It is claimed that Thimmaraya alias Biya was in peaceful possession of the subject lands since the said regrant. 6. It is stated that after a lapse of 17 years, Doddamunivenkatappa, who was also one of the applicants for regrant as well as two other persons filed an appeal before the District Judge being M.A.No.32/1998, impugning an order dated 30.05.1971, whereby the subject lands were regranted in favour of Thimmaraya alias Biya. The said appeal was allowed by an order dated 01.07.1996. The regrant order dated 30.05.1971 was set aside and the matter was remanded for consideration afresh. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35547-DB WA No. 1179 of 2024 7. It is stated that Thimmaraya alias Biya expired on 24.02.1993 while the appeal was pending before the District Judge, but his legal heirs were not brought on record. 8. It is stated that the writ petitioner and the other heirs of late Thimmaraya alias Biya received notices from the Tahsildar in respect of the proceedings for regrant of the subject land to the appellants. It is stated that it was the first time, any claim was made by the appellants in respect of the subject lands. The said regrant proceedings culminated in an order dated 02.05.2006 regranting the subject lands in favour of the appellants. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner appealed the order dated 02.05.2006 passed by the Tahsildar before the District Judge (being M.A.No.11/2007). However, the said appeal was rejected by an order dated 22.10.2007. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.No.19983/2007 before this Court. The aforementioned writ petition was allowed by an order dated 22.06.2009 and the order dated 02.05.2006 passed by the Tahsildar, regranting the subject lands in favour of the appellants - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35547-DB WA No. 1179 of 2024 was set aside. The matter was once again placed before the Tahsildar for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The said order dated 22.06.2009 was subject matter of an appeal before the Division Bench (being W.A.No.2316/2009) which was also dismissed by an order dated 19.11.2009. 10. It is stated that the Tahsildar conducted an enquiry and thereafter passed an order dated 05.02.2010 regranting the subject lands in favour of the writ petitioner and other heirs of Thimmaraya alias Biya. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred an appeal (being M.A.No.26/2010) before the District Judge which came to be allowed by an order dated 13.12.2010. In terms of the aforesaid order dated 13.12.2010, the learned District Judge set aside the order dated 05.02.2010 passed by the Tahsildar and also issued other directions. 11. Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner as well as other heirs of late Thimmaraya alias Biya, filed a writ petition (W.P.Nos.6252-60/2011) impugning the same. The appellants also challenged the order dated 13.12.2010 by filing a separate petition being W.P.No.41119/2010. Both the said petitions were dismissed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35547-DB WA No. 1179 of 2024 by a common order dated 22.02.2013. The order dated 13.12.2010 passed in M.A.No.26/2010 was upheld. 12. The appellants challenged the common order dated 22.02.2013 passed the aforementioned writ petitions by filing an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court being W.A.No.2475/ 2013. However, the said appeal was also dismissed by an order dated 10.07.2014. Although the appellants were unsuccessful, they were granted further three months time from the date of the order dated 10.07.2014 to approach the Civil Court. 13. Thereafter, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition (being SLP No.3756/2015) challenging the order dated 10.07.2014. The Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP by an order dated 27.02.2015. However, extended the time granted to the appellants to approach the civil court by a period of one month from the date of the order, that is, one month from 27.02.2015. 14. In the meantime, the writ petitioner made a representation to the Tahsildar seeking regrant of the subject lands in terms of the order dated 13.12.2010 passed in M.A.No.26/2010 on the assumption that the time granted to the appellants to approach the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35547-DB WA No. 1179 of 2024 Civil Court had expired. The appellants filed a suit being O.S.No.161/2015 before the Court of Civil Judge at Anekal with the time as extended by the Supreme Court. The writ petitioner as well as other heirs of Thimmaraya alias Biya are defendants in the said suit. Notwithstanding the directions passed by the District Judge in terms of the order dated 13.12.2010 passed in M.A.No.26/2010, respondent No.1 continued to conduct proceedings regarding regrant of the subject lands and passed an order dated 08.03.2018 for regrant of the subject lands in favour of the appellants. 15. In the aforesaid context, the writ petitioner challenged the order dated 08.03.2018 on the ground that it was passed in violation of the directions issued by the learned District Judge. The writ petitioner also made several other allegations against respondent No.1. The order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned District Judge in M.A.No.26/2010 had become final. As noted above, the same was subject matter of challenge in this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the said challenge was repelled. Notwithstanding the said order had attained finality, the Tahsildar clearly acted in breach of the said order and passed the regrant order while the issue whether the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35547-DB WA No. 1179 of 2024 appellants were legal representatives of Barawardars of the subject lands was still pending consideration in O.S No.161/2015. 16. In the aforesaid view, we find no infirmity with the impugned order. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. 17. We note that the Tahsildar has not challenged the order imposing costs of `2,50,000/-. However, we clarify that we have not examined the question as to imposition of costs of `2,50,000/- on respondent No.1 and nothing stated in this order should be construed as such. 18. Pending application stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34