- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6780 WP No. 67019 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 67019 OF 2011 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. VENKATARAO S/O. DATTOBRAO JAHAGIRDAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, SHRI. KRISHNARAO VENKATRAO JAHAGIRDAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HEBBALLI, TQ. DHARWAD. 2. SHRI. GURURAJ S/O. VENKATRAO JAHAGIRDAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HEBBALLI, TQ. DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ROHIT S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD. 3. BASAPPA MALLAPPA MATTI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6780 WP No. 67019 of 2011 3. SRI. MUGAPPA BASAPPA MATTI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HEBBALLI, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. 4. SMT. BHEEMAVVA W/O. NINGAPPA CHANDARAGI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HEBBALLI, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. 5. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. BASAPPA MATTI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HEBBALLI, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. 6. SRI. CHANABASAPPA S/O. BASAPPA MATTI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HEBBALLI, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. 7. SRI. HANUMATHAPPA S/O. BASAPPA MATTI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HEBBALLI, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD. 8. SMT. AKKAVVA D/O. BASAPPA MATTI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HEBBALLI, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. 9. SMT. SAVAMMA W/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA DASANKOPPA, AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HEBBALLI, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6780 WP No. 67019 of 2011 10. SHRI. SHIVANAND S/O. BASAPPA MATTI, AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HEBBALLI, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD. 11. SMT. PREMA W/O. GANGADHAR CHANOJI, AGED ABOUT: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HEBBALLI, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. A.P. MURARI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R11) ------ THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07/06/2011 PASSED IN WATAN/VAHI/02-2008-09 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE. (ANNEXURE-N). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6780 WP No. 67019 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the order dated 07.06.2011, passed by respondent No.2- the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, produced as per Annexure-N. 2. Heard Sri.Rohit S Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.A.P.Murari, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 11. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are the legal representatives of the original owner i.e., Saranjam and Jahagirdar in respect of Sy.No.350 of Hebballi village, Dharwad taluk. The predecessor in title of the contesting respondent Nos.3 to 11 by name Basappa Mallappa Matti are claiming to be the tenant in respect of 6 acres 22 guntas of land. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6780 WP No. 67019 of 2011 4. The said Basappa Mallappa Matti had surrendered the land in favour of the landlord, which is certified in ME No.1100, dated 8.08.1968. The Tashildar had handed over the possession of the land in favour of the original landlord. Thus, the original landlord was in possession and enjoyment of the property without any disturbance. Therefore, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the land from an undisputed point of time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that during 1962, the suit for permanent injunction in OS No.208 of 1962 was filed by a relative of Basappa Mallappa Matti claiming permanent injunction against the petitioners. The said suit came to be decreed. Aggrieved by this, the grand father of the petitioner preferred R.A.No.68 of 1964. The said Regular Appeal was allowed and the suit in O.S.No.208/1962 was dismissed. The contesting respondents filed R.S.A.No.252/1969, challenging the dismissal of the suit. The said appeal also came to be dismissed. Under such circumstances, it is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6780 WP No. 67019 of 2011 clear that the possession of the land was with the owner as on the appointed date that is on 23.10.1952, when the Bombay Saranjams, Jahagirs and Other Inams of Political Nature Resumption Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 1952 Rules) came into effect. Therefore, it is contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-N is without any basis and it is against the clinching materials that are placed before the Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 11 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supporting the impugned order, produced as per Annexure-N contended that, Basappa Mallppa Matti was the tenant in respect of the land in question. After coming into force of the Rules 1952, with effect from 23.10.1952, the land vested with the Government. Therefore, the predecessor in title of the petitioners cannot claim possession of the land. 7. It is the contention of the contesting respondents that since the land, which was admittedly a - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6780 WP No. 67019 of 2011 tenanted land, covered under the Rules 1952 was vested in the Government with effect from 23.10.1952, pursuant to the notification produced as per Annexure-R1. The tenants were permitted to pay the occupancy price. On payment of occupancy price, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order. The petitioners cannot claim the land, which was admittedly covered under the Rules 1952. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 8. On perusal of the materials on record, it is admitted that, Basappa Mallappa Matti was cultivating the land in question prior to coming into force of the Rules 1952. However, ME No.1100 certified on 08/08/1968 discloses that Basappa Matti had surrendered the land in favour of the owner prior to the appointed dated and the Tashildar had handed over the possession of the land to the owner on 28.04.1962 i.e., much prior to coming into force of the Rules 1952. The materials on record also disclose that one of the relatives of the original tenant Basappa Mallappa Matti had filed the suit in O.S.No.208 of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6780 WP No. 67019 of 2011 1962 seeking permanent injunction against the owner, and the suit came to be decreed. Aggrieved by this, the grand father of the petitioner preferred R.A.No.68 of 1964. The said regular appeal was allowed and decree in the original suit was set aside. Therefore, O.S.No.208/1962 was dismissed. The contesting respondents filed R.S.A.No.252/1969 challenging the judgment in regular appeal before this Court. The said appeal also came to be dismissed. Thus, the decree of the Civil Court against the plaintiff in O.S.No.208/1962 has reached finality. 9. It is also the matter of fact that, the original owner had filed the suit in O.S.No.232 of 2005, seeking permanent injunction against the contesting respondents. The said suit came be decreed by the Trial Court, holding that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. The contesting respondents have filed Regular Appeal, which also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the contesting respondents have preferred RSA No.6126 of 2012, which is pending consideration before this Court. However, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6780 WP No. 67019 of 2011 consistently, the Civil Court held that, it is the petitioners, who are in possession and enjoyment of the property. In the meantime, the Government appears to have issued a notification dated 26.06.2007 as per Annexure-R1, permitting the tenants to pay occupancy price in respect of the lands covered under the Rules 1952. It is stated that the contesting respondents have paid the said occupancy price. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order on 07/06/2011. 10. Now the question arises as to whether the land was in possession of the tenant or with the owner as on the appointed date i.e. on 23.10.1952, on which date, the Rules 1952 came into effect. If the land was in possession of the landlord as on the date, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside. If on the other hand, the land was in possession of the tenant as on that date, they are entitled for re-grant of the land and the impugned order is liable to be upheld. In view of ME No.1100, dated 08.08.1968, the land in question was surrendered by the tenant in favour of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6780 WP No. 67019 of 2011 landlord and possession was handed over by the Tahsildar to the landlord on 28/04/1962. Under such circumstances, it is to be held that, as on the date, when the Rules 1952 came into effect, the tenant was not in possession of the property. However, it is stated that, several documents were produced before the Court in RSA No.6126 of 2012, which is pending consideration. Therefore, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court after considering the materials on record can record a finding about the possession of the land not only as on the date of filing the suit, but also as on the date when the Rules 1952 came into effect i.e., on 23/10/1952. Thus, the impugned order, produced as per Annexure-N is subject to the result of RSA No.6126 of 2012 pending before this Court. 11. With these observations, I am of the opinion that, the petition could be disposed of. Accordingly. It stands disposed of. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners expressed apprehension that taking advantage of the disposal of the writ petition, in the light of the impugned - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6780 WP No. 67019 of 2011 order, produced as per Annexure-L, the contesting respondents may act upon the same and disturb the possession of the petitioners. Thus, it is made clear that, till disposal of RSA No.6126 of 2012, pending before this Court, both the parties shall maintain status - quo with regard to the possession of the property. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2