- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 42692 OF 2019 (KVOA) BETWEEN: 1. LAKSHMAMMA W/O DODDAVENKATAPPA, DEAD R/B LRS. GANGAMMA, W/O VENKATARAMAIAH, AGE 80 YEARS 2. B V HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAIAH, AGE 63 YEARS 3. B V VENKATACHALAIAH S/O VENKATARAMANAIAH AGE 57 YEARS 4. DASAPPA S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAIAH AGE 83 YEARS ALL ARE R/O BADDIHALLI VILLAGE, GOKULA EXTENSION, TUMAKURU DIST-572104. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.CHOKKAREDDY., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 AND: 1. THE TAHSILDAR TUMAKURU TALUK 572101, TUMAKURU DIST 2. 2(a) 2(b) BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE MUDALAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. THIMMAJAMMA D/O LATE MOODALAIAH & LATE BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A 2ND CROSS, JANATHA COLONY BADDIHALLI VILLAGE, KYATHASANDRA POST, TUMKUR-572104. SMT. KAVERAMMA D/O LATE MOODALAIAH & LATE BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A SIDDAPPA STORE BADDIHALLI VILLAGE, KYATHASANDRA POST, TUMKUR-572104. 3. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O LATE MUDALAIAH AGE 63 YEARS, R/O BADDIHALLI VILLAGE, GOKULA EXTENSION, 10TH CROSS, TUMAKURU-572104. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 4. 4(a) SRINIVAS S/O LATE MUDALAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS. K NAGARTHNAMMA, W/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGE 53 YEARS, 4(b) HARSHA S/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGE 35 YEARS, 4(c) POOJA D/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGE 33 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.4(a) TO 4(c)ARE R/O KUPPUR VILLAGE 572101, BUGUDANAHALLI POST, TUMAKURU TALUK & DIST 5. 5(a) GANGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS. B.G.VENKATESH, S/O LATE GANGIAHA @ GANGANNA, AGE 68 YEARS. 5(b) B.G.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE GANGIAHA @ GANGANNA, AGE 78 YEARS. 5(c) GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE GANGIAHA @ GANGANNA, AGE 67 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 RESPONDENT 5(a) TO 5(c) R/O SUKANTHI NIVASA, 3RD CROSS, GOKULA EXTENSION, TUMAKURU TOWN 572101 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O LATE GANGIAHA @ GANGANNA, AGE 67 YEARS SUMANGALAMMA W/O RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O HUCHVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS SMT. NAGARATHNA B.G. W/O SHIVARAMU T.H. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS ALL ARE R/O VENKATESHWARA NILAYA 7TH CROSS, TULASI RAOD GOKULA EXTENSION TUMKUR TOWN-572101. SRI. HALANOOR S.LEPAKSHA S/O SIDDAMALAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A SRS SRIGANDHA NILAYA BADDIHALLI MAIN ROAD, GOKUL 2ND STAGE, KYATHASANDRA, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 TUMKUR-572104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR LRS OF R2, R3, R4(a to c) & R10 SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER EAT, TUMAKURU DATED 3.8.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND TO ALLOW THE I.A.NO.XII FILED U/S 151 OF THE CPC FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 29.5.2000 VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are the legal representatives of appellant No.2 in M.A.(VOA)No.13/1991 are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2019 passed in the said appeal, in terms of which, an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in I.A.No.XII has been rejected. 2. One Lakshmamma, W/o Doddavenkatappa had sought for re-grant of land in respect of Sy.No.33 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas, Sy.No.47 measuring 6 acres 33 guntas, situated Baddiahalli Village, Urdigere Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. By order dated 09.01.1991 passed in INA (U) No.26/1987-88 under Section 3(2) of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, the jurisdictional Tahsildar re- granted the said lands in favour of Smt.Lakshmamma, Mudalaiah and Gangaiah, to an extent of 1/3rd each. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, Smt.Lakshmamma and her two sons namely Venkataramanaiah and Dasappa, as appellants 1 to 3 had filed an appeal in M.A.(VOA) No.13/1991 before the Appellate Tribunal and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 referred to as 'Appellate Tribunal' for short) in which said Mudalaiah and Gangaiah are the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4. During the pendency of the said appeal, Sri.Venkataramanaiah, appellant No.2 passed away on 08.11.1993. Subsequently, a memo came to be filed on behalf of appellant Nos.1 to 3 seeking dismissal of the said appeal. Accordingly, by order dated 29.05.2000 the said appeal was dismissed as not pressed. 5. The legal representatives of deceased appellant No.2 had preferred another appeal in M.A.(VOA) No.15/2003 which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2008, on the premise of same being not maintainable in view of dismissal of earlier appeal as not pressed. As against this order, writ petitions in W.P.Nos.21398-21400/2010 (KVOA) were filed before this Court. This Court by order dated 18.07.2018 dismissed the said writ petitions, however, reserved liberty to the legal representatives of appellant No.2 to seek recall of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 order of dismissal dated 29.05.2000 passed in the said matter within six weeks. Accordingly, the application came to be filed. The Appellate Tribunal, on going through the records and the averments made in the application has come to the conclusion that no justifiable grounds were raised by the appellants warranting recall of the order dated 29.05.2000 and accordingly dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners taking this Court through the contents of the impugned order submits: (a) that the appellants were illiterate villagers were not aware of the law of procedure and not even aware about memo being filed for withdrawing the appeal. (b) that the Appellate Tribunal rejected the application on technical ground of application not providing sufficient reason for the then advocate on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 record to withdraw the appeal by filing a memo and the appellants engaging the very same counsel who had filed memo of withdrawal. (c) that except legal representatives of appellant No.2, appellant Nos.1 and 3 had not challenged the said order. (d) that the Appellate Tribunal ought not to have accepted memo for withdrawal since the same was not signed by legal representatives of appellant No.2 as well as appellant Nos.1 and 3. (e) that upon the death of appellant No.2 on 08.11.1993 I.A.Nos.7, 8 and 9 were filed to bring legal representatives of appellant No.2 on record which were pending consideration. Without even passing orders on the said applications, the trial Court had advanced the matter and had accepted the memo filed by the counsel for appellants and dismissed the appeal as not pressed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 7. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits: (a) that the plea of appellants being rustic villagers and not aware of the legal procedures cannot be countenanced, in the light of the very observation made at paragraph No.12 of the impugned order. (b) He specifically refers to the sale transactions which have taken place after dismissal of the appeal at the instance of the petitioners-appellants herein. He submits that portion of 1/3rd share which was granted in favour of Smt.Lakshmamma was sold by the appellants in favour of prospective purchasers including respondent No.10 herein soon after the dismissal of the appeal. It is only thereafter, they have sought to file subsequent appeal and recall of the impugned order. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 (c) That the application filed by the petitioners herein seeking recall of the dismissal order was not accompanied by an affidavit. No reasons were assigned seeking recall of the said order. (d) Therefore, he submits no error or irregularity can be found in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. The appeal which was initially filed by Smt.Lakshmamma, one of the grantees and her two sons in M.A(VOA) No.13/1991 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.05.2000. Thereafter, the petitioners herein had filed an appeal in M.A. No.15/2003 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2008. A challenge to the said order of dismissal by filing a petition in W.P.Nos.21398-21400/2010 was declined, however, reserving liberty for them to seek recall of the order dated - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 29.05.2000. Learned Counsel for the petitioners as noted above vehemently submits that the petitioners were completely unaware of what transpired on earlier occasions as they were neither the signatories to the memo nor were they duly informed and represented. As rightly pointed by learned counsel for the respondents, this plea of ignorance cannot be countenanced for the reasons recorded by the Appellate Tribunal at paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the impugned order has taken into consideration the merits of the submission and has declined to accept the same. Said paragraphs read as under: 12. Further, the applicants/LRs., of appellant No.2, who are also LRs., of appellant No.1 are now seeking recall of order of dismissal dated 29-05-2000. But they have not given any explanation as to why it should be recalled and there is no explanation regarding delay. Even in 2003 when they have challenged this order of the Tahsildar, they have got knowledge regarding earlier dismissal of this appeal, but they have not taken any steps. Further, xerox copies of concerned sale-deeds of 2000 and 2006 produced by the LRs., of respondent No.2 disclose that, the LRs., of appellants 1 and 2 have participated in various transactions with respondents and revenue officials and hence, now they cannot plead their ignorance of law. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 13. Further, it is also important to note here that, appellant No.1 was the mother of appellant No.2 and grand-mother of present applicants. Further, the appellant No.3 is the brother of the deceased appellant No.2. I.A. No.XI was filed for advancement of the case on 27-05-2000 and the case was advanced to 29-05-2000. Further, this I.A.No.XI was sworn to by appellant No.3 Dasappa. In the affidavit, he has specifically asserted that, he is swearing the affidavit for himself and also on behalf of other appellants and they are not interested in prosecuting the proceedings and hence, they are filing a memo to this effect. That clearly discloses that, the appellants have authorized the counsel while advancing the case that, they are interested in getting the appeal dismissed. Hence, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that, the appellants 1 and 3 were not signatories to the order-sheet holds no water at all, as in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.XI for advancing the case, there is clear reference that, they are not interested in prosecuting the appeal". 10. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs indicate firstly, in the application filed by them seeking recall of the dismissal order dated 29.05.2000, no explanation or reason of any nature whatsoever was provided. Secondly, the petitioners herein, by their own conduct had executed deeds of sale between the years 2000 and 2006 conveying and alienating portion of 1/3rd of land granted in favour of Smt.Lakshmamma, appellant No.1, which they were not happy with. These two incidents would indicate that the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 petitioners herein were not only in complete knowhow of their respective rights, but were also closely following and watching the proceedings. This conduct of the petitioners had been taken note of by the Appellate Tribunal in declining to accept their plea to recall the order dated 29.05.2000. 11. Thirdly though an allegation against the Advocate who had filed a memo for withdrawal of the appeal is made regarding petitioners not being informed about the status of the appeal, interestingly, petitioners had engaged the very same Advocate to seek recall of the order, pursuant to the liberty reserved by this Court. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had engaged the very same counsel before this Court. They had the benefit of advice/counsel of the other advocates. Therefore, plea of the said advocate misleading them also cannot be countenanced which is rightly taken note of by the Tribunal, as seen at paragraph No.13 of the impugned order. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28293 WP No. 42692 of 2019 12. On all these counts, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal declining to recall the order dated 29.05.2000. No irregularity or illegality can be found and no grounds are made out in the petition warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE JT/- CT:JL