- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 13194 OF 2023 (KVOA) BETWEEN: 1. B. G. SHIVAKUMARA S/O B G REVANASIDDAPPA DODDAGOWDRU, 55 YEARS, PRIVATE OCCUPATION, R/O HOUSE NO.338 B/BLOCK, S O G COLONY DAVANAGERE 2. B G MANJUNATHA S/O B G REVANASIDDAPPA, DODDAGOWDRU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.1, DODDABATHI VILLAGE - 577 566 DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT 3. B G SIDDESHI S/O B G REVANASIDDAPPA, DODDAGOWDRU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.1, DODDABATHI VILLAGE - 577 566 DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR P1 AND P2 SRI. B.G. SIDDESHI, PETITIONER NO.3, PARTY-IN- PERSON) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISISONER DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION, DAVANAGERE - 577 003 3. 3A. 3B. B G THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE B G GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS SMT. B.G. SUJATHAA D/O. LATE B.G. TIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS MR. B.G. RAMESH REDDY S/O. B.G. TIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS BOTH R3A AND R3B ARE R/AT DODDABASTHI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 566 4. B G RATHNAMMA W/O LATE B G MAHESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 5. B G KUMARA REDDY S/O LATE B G MAHESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 6. B G DINAKARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 7. K R NAGARAJ S/O K G REVANASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 8. K R CHANDRAKANTH S/O K G REVANASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 8 ALL ARE R/AT DODDABATHI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 566 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. SANTHOSH R. NELKUDRI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (A & B) AND R4 TO R8 VIDE ORDER DATED 09.03.2026, NOTICE TO R3(C) IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE JUDGEMENT, ORDER AND DECREE DTD 18.04.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANAGERE IN M.A.62/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND QUASH THE ORDER - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 DTD 15.6.2016 PASSED BY THE R2 IN NO.HOA CR/133/2013-14 VIDE ANNEXURE-M. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioners claiming to be the descendants of one Patel Gurusiddappa, son of Thimmappa, are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2023 passed in MA No.62/2016 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, by which appeal filed by the petitioners herein under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 15.06.2016 passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere in H.O.A.C.R.No.133/2013-14 has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that: (a) One Thimmappa Hendegowda was the holder of a Patelki village office of Doddabathi Village, Davangere Taluk. The said family was also called as Doddagowdu family. The then Commissioner of Government of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 Territories of Raja of Mysore had issued a sannad in the year 1836. In terms of which said Thimmappa Hendegowda was appointed as a Village Officer. Upon his demise his son Patel Gurusiddappa was rendering his service as a Patel of said Village. The then Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District had issued sannad in favour of Patel Gurusiddappa in the year 1877. A list of baravadars was prepared in the year 1922 in terms of which, Sri Siddabasappa was shown as one of the Baravadars. Said Patel Gurusiddappa was the grandson of Thimmappa Hendegowda. Thus the aforesaid Thimmappa Hendegowda, Patel Gurusiddappa and Siddabasappa are the ancestors of the petitioners. (b) Land in Sy.No.28 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas was attached to Patelki service Inam. Katha of the said land was standing in the name of Gurusiddappa as Jodi Inam right from the year 1890. The said land was granted by the then Government Maharaja of Mysore in favour of the aforesaid ancestors of the petitioners. After the enactment of Karnataka Village Offices abolition Act, 1961, the hereditary office of Patelki of Doddabathi village was abolished and the aforesaid land attached to the said office was resumed by the State. An order of resumption was passed vide M.R.No.9/1974-1975. RTC extract from years 1970 to 1975 and 1975 to 2018 indicate and establish the said fact. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 (c) Subsequent to the assumption, without there being any grant or any order by the Government, names of certain Smt. B.G.Sharadamma, w/o B.G.Maheshwarappa and one B.G.Thippeswami was entered into in the revenue records for the years 1985-1990 and 1990-1995. Said Smt. B.G.Sharadamma and B.G.Thippeswami had alienated the said land in favour of one K.R.Nagaraja by executing a deed of sale and a mutual exchange deed. There was a partition between K.R. Nagaraj and his brother, in which, the aforesaid land had fallen to the share of K.R.Chandrakanta, the brother of K.R.Nagaraj. (d) The said transactions, in any case, are invalid and illegal as the said land being the Patelki Inam land, no grant was made in the name of the said persons. (e) Petitioners being the descendants of the holder of the Patelki office had made an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Davangere District seeking re-grant of the said land in Sy.No.28 of Doddabathi Village. Deputy Commissioner had forwarded the said application to Assistant Commissioner, Davangere Sub-Division with a direction to conduct inquiry and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Assistant commissioner without verifying the records, without even appreciating the averments and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, passed the order dated 15.06.2016 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. As against which petitioners filed an appeal before the District Court under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 Section 3(2). The First Additional District and Sessions Judge by order dated 18.04.2023 dismissed the said appeal without even appreciating the facts and the grounds urged therein. (f). That in respect of another land bearing re- Sy.No.169/01 of Doddabathi Village, petitioners had filed an application before respondent No.2 for re-grant which was registered in Case No. HO ACR No. 133(1)2013-14, and the same was also rejected on 15.06.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred a miscellaneous appeal in MA No. 66/2016 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere. By order dated 24.03.2023 said, appeal was allowed, setting aside the order dated 15.06.2016 passed by respondent No.2 and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh inquiry and to conclude the matter within time bound manner. 3. Sri. Ajay Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. B.H.Siddeshi, petitioner No.3- party in person, taking this Court through the records submitted that; (a) Entries in document at Annexure-C which is a register maintained by respondent No.2 with regard to succession to the office of Patelki indicate names of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 persons who succeeded to the office of the Patelki right from the year 1922. (b) That genealogy produced at Annexure-D establish Patel Gurusiddappa, the propositus of the petitioners was the holder of office whose name reflected at column No.13 of Annexure-C. (c) There is a direct link and evidence prima facie establishing the claim of the petitioners to be the descendants of said Gurusiddappa. (d) Copy of the register produced at Annexure-E with reference to the land in Sy.No.28 also reflect the name of said Gurusiddappa being the occupant of the said land. They further refer to Annexure-F assessment register indicating several lands including land in Sy.No.28 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas being shown as service Inam land attached to the said office. (e) Referring to RTC extracts produced at Annexure-G, it is submitted that mischief was allegedly played by an interim holder of the office namely Basappa, who despite knowing about the land being attached to the Inamathi village, had got entries made in the revenue record showing it as a `Sarkari pada land'. However that the said RTC extract indicate the land to be service Patelki Inam land and the entry showing it as a `sarkari pada land' was erroneous. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 (f) That before the petitioners herein making an application seeking re-grant of the land, their elder brother B.G.Rajappa had made an application seeking re-grant of the said land along with other lands in Sy.1/1, 1/2, 163, 180, which resulted in issuance of an endorsement declining his claim and a challenge to the said endorsement was made subsequently in M.A.No.18/2000 which was also allowed and the matter was remanded. Subsequent to remand, the Deputy Commissioner passed the order on 01.07.2013 dismissing the said application of B.G.Rajappa. (g) That the I Additional District and Sessions Judge has dismissed the present appeal on the premise of the aforesaid order of rejection of application filed by their brother B.G.Rajappa would also bind the petitioners herein and they cannot once again seek re-grant of the subject land. Thus, contending as above the petitioners seek allowing of the petition. 4. Sri. Santosh R Nelkudri, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 8 referring to the endorsement dated 24.12.1999 produced at Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections vehemently contended that; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 (a) Upon the application filed by Sri.B.G.Rajappa, brother of the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner has already held that the lands including the subject land in Sy.No.28 had already been granted to the descendants of one Revannasiddhappa and K.G.Chandrappa. Therefore, unless and until such grant was challenged, petitioners cannot reopen the case by filing a subsequent application. (b) Referring to order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner upon the remand made by the District Court, it is contended that the brother of the petitioners had not furnished any evidence with regard to he being descendant of the original holder of office. Since the said question was not determined, his request for re- grant was not considered. Thus on both counts, it is contended that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered and they cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter afresh. 5. Learned HCGP justifying the order passed by Assistant Commissioner and the rejection of the appeal vide impugned order, submit that the petitioners have failed to prove and establish they being the descendants of the original office holder and until and unless such question is determined by a competent Court of law, their - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 application cannot be considered. Hence seeks for rejection of the petition. 6. Heard and perused the records. 7. The Assistant Commissioner-respondent No.2 in his order dated 15.06.2016 at unnumbered paragraph No.3 of page 6 has noted as under: "ಾವಣೆೆ ಾ ಾಗಳ ಾಾಲಯದ ೕಾನಾರುವ !ೆ".ಓ.ಎ.%.ಆ'.ನಂ.21/1997-98 ಎಂಬ ಪ+ಕರಣದ ಾಜ ಾರಣ ಕಾಟಕ ಸ ಾರದ ಸು0ೊ2ೕ ೆ ಸಂ3ೆ ಕಂ.ಇ.56 ಐ.ಎ6.ಎ7 97-98 ರ 8ೕೆೆ 9. .ಾಜಪ: ಎಂಬ ವ;2ಯು ಹಲಾರು ಜ=ೕನುಗಳ ಮರು ಮಂಜೂಾ ೋ ಸ%ದ ಅ ಯ @AಾರBೆಾರುತ2ೆ. ಆದೆ ಈ ಾಾಲಯದರುವ ಪ+ಸು2ತ ಪ+ಕರಣ !ೆ".ಓ.ಎ.%.ಆ'. ನಂ133/13-14 ಎಂಬ ಪ+ಕರಣದ ಾಜದ ಾರಣ ಈ ಪ+ಕರಣದರುವ ಜ=ೕನು ಸ ಾ ಪEಾ ೆF GೇಾHಂದ ಅಂದೆ ಸ6 1975ೇ GಾHಂದ 2013-14 ರವೆೆ ಾನೂನು IಾJರಾ ಹುKL ೊಂMರುವ ಪಹN ಮುOೇಷ6 ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ರದುRಪMಸು@ ೆ, ಎದುರುಾರರ ಅನಕೃತ GಾTೕನ 0ೆರವUೊVಸುವUದು ಮತು2 ಮರುಮಂಜೂಾ ಪ+;+W ಮುಂ0ಾದ @ಷಯಗಳನುX ೕಾನ ಾಡIೇ ಾರುತ2ೆ ಎಂದು V%ರು0ಾ2ೆ." 8. Thus, the Assistant Commissioner having noted the contention raised before him with regard to entries in the revenue records between the years 1975 to 2013-14 showing the land as Government pada land, being illegal and required adjudication has proceeded to reject the claim - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 of the petitioners by observing at the last paragraph of the order as under; " ಪ+ಯುಕ2 8ೕನ ಎ ಾ ಾದ @ಾದಗಳನುX ಪ[ೕಸ ಾದುR, ಾವಣೆೆ 0ಾಲೂಕು ೊಡ]Iಾ ಾ+ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.28 ರನ 1-38 ಎಕೆ ವಂಶಸeರ ಾರಸುಾ ೆ ಮತು2 ಜ=ೕನುಗಳ GಾTೕನ0ೆಯ @Aಾರಾ ಾನ ಪ+fಾನ ಾ ಮತು2 Gೆಷ6g ಜ=ೕHನ @Aಾರದ ಪOೇh ಇಾಂ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳ ಮೂಲ ಾಾಲಯ, ಾವಣೆೆ. ಇವರ ಾಾಲಯದ ಪ+ಕರಣ ಸಂ:ಎಂ.ಎ.18/2000 l:17.4.2010 ರಂ0ೆ @AಾರBೆ ನEೆದು ಅಂಮ ಆೇಶದ ಾನ ಾ ಾಗಳo ಾವಣೆೆ ೆ ಇವೆ ಸದ ಪ+ಕರಣದ ಕುತಂ0ೆ !ೊಸಾ @AಾರBೆ ನEೆಸುವಂ0ೆ ಆೇ[%ರು0ಾ2ೆ. ಅದರಂ0ೆ ಾನ ಾ ಾಗಳ ಾಾಲಯದ ಪ+ಕರಣ ಸಂ:!ೆ".ಓ.ಎ.%.ಆ'.21/1997-98 ರಂ0ೆ @AಾರBೆ ೈೆ2 ೊಂಡು ಅಂಮಾ l:1.7.2013 ರಂದು ಆೇಶ !ೊರM%ದುR, ಆೇಶದ ಾlಗಳo ಮೂಲತಃ ಪKೕh ವಂಶಸeರು ಎಂಬ ಬೆs ಾವUೇ ಾಖ ೆ, HlಷL ಆೇಶ, !ಾಜರುಪM%ರುವUlಲ. !ಾಗೂ ಾlಯು ಪOೇh ವಂಶಸeೇ ಎಂಬ ಪ+tೆX ಇತಥಾಗIೇ;ರುತ2ೆ. ಾರಸುಾ ೆ ೕಾನ ಈ vಾ+ ಾರದ ಾw2ೆ ಬರುವUlಲ. ಪ+Gಾ2wತ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳo ಈಾಗ ೇ ಮರು ಮಂಜೂರು ಆರುವUದಂದ ಾlೆ ಸದ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳನುX ೕಾಂx ಾಡುವ ಪ+tೆX ಉದz@ಸುವUlಲ. ಎಂದು ಆೇ[%ರು0ಾ2ೆ. ಪ+ಸು2ತ ಮನ@ಾರರ @Aಾರದ ಪ[ೕಸ ಾದುR, ಪ+Gಾ2wತ ಜ=ೕನುಗಳo ಈಾಗ ೇ ಮರು ಮಂಜೂರು ಆರುವUದಂದ !ಾಗೂ ಾರಸುಾ ೆ ೕಾನ ಈ vಾ+ ಾರದ ಾw2ೆ ಬರುವUlಲಾದುದಂದ 8ೕಲFಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳ JೆX ೆಯ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂ0ೆ ಆೇಶ ಾಡುವUದು ಸೂಕ2ೆಂದು ಪಗN% ಆೇ[%ೆ." 9. What emanates from the above is that questions as to (i)whether the subject land namely Sy.No.28 was attached to the office of Patelki as claimed by the petitioners? (ii)whether the revenue entries classifying the said land as a `Government pada' between - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 the year 1975 and 2013-14 are granted? and (iii) whether the land has been re-granted or not, if so in whose name the said land has been re-granted? have remained inconclusive. If it was land attached to Patelki, as reasoned in the subsequent paragraph extracted above, there ought to have been a grant made in respect of said land in favour of persons claiming to be the descendants of original office holder. The last paragraph extracted above does not even reveal consideration and determination of this aspect of the matter. 10. In the statement of objections filed by respondent Nos.3 to 8 at paragraph No.7 it is averred as under: "7. It is respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the disputed property i.e land bearing Sy.No.28 of Doddabathi village measuring 1A 38 belonged to one Maheshwarappa S/o Siddappa Gowdru. Said Maheshwarappa had two wives namely B.G. Sharadamma and B.G. Rathnamma. As per Jubani Partition deed dated 28/11/1988 land was allotted to both B.G. Sharadamma and B.G. Rahtnamma. However B.G. Sharadamma had no issues. The Copy of the M.R. extract bearing M.R.No.61/1988-89 is produced here with and same is marked as ANNEXURE-R5. It is submitted that Respondent No.4 to 6 are the legal representative of deceased Maheshwarappa. It is further - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 submitted that by way of exchange deed dated 28/04/1995 the respondent No.4 to 6 transferred their right in respect of Sy.No.28 measuring 1 A 18G in favor of one K.R.Nagaraj i.e. Respondent No.7 and inturn the Respondent No.7 transferred his right, title and interest in respect of Sy.No.207/1P measuring 1 A 05G, 207/4P measuring 1A 02G and Sy.No.217/2P measuring 0 A 2G in Dodda bathi village, Davangere Taluk. On the same day i.e. on 28/04/1995 said K.R. Nagraj i.e. Respondent No.7 acquired right, title and interest in respect of Sy.No.28 measuring 20 G in Doddabathi village from one B.G. Thippeswamy. Later in family partition the property bearing Sy.No.28 measuring 1 A 38 G of Doddabathi was allotted to brother of the Respondent No.7 (K.R.Nagaraj) i.e. to K.R. Chandrakanth i.e. Respondent No.8. The copy of the Exchange deed dated 28/04/1995, copy of the Regd. Sale deed dated 28/04/1995 and Registered partition deed dated 19/11/2012 are produced herewith and same is marked as ANNEXURE-R6, R7 and R8 respectively." 11. Thus even according to the respondents they are not claiming land having been granted either in their name or in the name of their vendors. They claim their right over the land in terms of certain conveyance referred to therein. Clearly the issue with regard to the grant of land either in favour of the petitioners or in the favour of the respondents has remained inconclusive. This aspect of the matter has not been adjudicated by the District Court. 12. The second reason assigned by the District Court to reject the application is that earlier application made by the brother of the petitioners namely - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 Sri.B.G.Rajappa having been rejected to be binding on the petitioners. This reasoning runs contrary to the settled principle of law. Legal heirs of the holder of village office are entitled for the share through survivorship. The question however, whether the petitioners herein are the legal heirs or not is a question of fact to be determined by the competent Court namely the District Court itself. 13. These two questions not having been decided, in the considered view of this Court, the District Court has erred in dismissing the appeal merely because the application filed by Sri.B.G.Rajappa was rejected. 14. Other question which also required to be gone into is whether the application made by the petitioners was within the time extended by the State Government seeking re-grant. Even the said question also has neither been gone into nor adverted. 15. In view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the writ petition and remand the matter for reconsideration. Accordingly, the following: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30659 WP No. 13194 of 2023 ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in M.A.No.62/2016 and order dated 15.06.2016 passed by respondent No.2 in HOA CR/133/2013-14 are set aside and matter is remanded to the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, for reconsideration of appeal keeping in mind the observations made above. (iii) All contentions are kept open. (iv) Parties are liberty to file additional grounds and documents, if required. (v) The District Court shall advert to the aforesaid provisions of law, observations made hereinabove and dispose of the appeal within an outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32