- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 18855 OF 2018 (KVOA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI H R MUNIYELLAPPA S/O LATE RAMA @ RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. SRI MUNIKRISHNA S/O LATE RAMA @ RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH RESIDENT AT HENNAGARA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001 BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE- 562 106. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 SRI CHIKKAYELLAPPA S/O LATE BALARAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 3. SRI S C MUNIYAPPA @ CHINAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 4. SRI H C LAKSHMAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKAYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SRI.T. MUNIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 5. SRI. VENKATSWAMY SON OF LATE T. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 6. SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE T MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SRI YELLAPPA S/O SHOMBAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S 7. SRI. H.Y.RAMACHANDRA SON OF LATE H.S.YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 8. SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O LATE RAVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS SRI M YELLAPPA S/O LATE MURTHYAMMA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 9. SMT. KAVERAMMA W/O SHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SRI BELUR MUNIGA' S S/O PAPAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 10. SMT. LINGAMMA W/O LATE P RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, DEAD BY LRS 11 SRI MUNIYELLAPPA S/O LATE P RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 12 SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE P RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SRI MARIGANA ALIA LINGAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS LATE KUMBALAPPA S/O LATE LINGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 13 SMT. JYOTHAMMA D/O LATE KUMBALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 14 SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O LATE KUMBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT HENNAGARA VILLAGE AND POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 SRI H M KRISHNAPPA S/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 15. SRI PRASANTH S/O LATE H M KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 16. SRI GANGADHAR S/O LATE H M KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 17. SMT. VIJAYA D/O LATE H M KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 15 TO 17 ARE RESIDENT OF HINNAKKI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, HENNAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. P ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6,15; SRI. A. VIJAY KUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R7, R16; R3, R4, R5, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R17 ARE SERVED V/O DATED 04.08.2021 R11 AND R12 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R10) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 30.01.2018 IN M.A.NO.84/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL, AND REMAND THE MATTER TO BE HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON MERITS AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.10.1990 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 IN CASE NO. KOA.167/1982-83 ON THE FILE OF THE OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE AUTHORITIES TO CONTINUE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS TILL THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARE SETTLED. 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 legal representatives of one Rama also known as Ramaiah, s/o Murthamma are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.1990 passed by respondent No.2-Tahsildar in case No.167/82-83 as per Annexure-B as well as the order dated 30.01.2018 passed in M.A.No.84/2011 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, SIT at Anekal, as per Annexure-A are before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits: (a) That by virtue of order dated 30.03.1983 as per Annexure-D, the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Bangalore, had granted four items of land in favour of Ramaiah, S/o Murthamma, namely Sy.No.3 measuring 16 guntas, Sy.No.34 measuring 11 guntas, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 Sy.No.73 measuring 23 guntas and Sy.No.81 measuring 26 guntas. (b) That by another order dated 31.07.1981 as per Annexure-E, Tahsildar, Anekal had granted rights in respect of land in Sy.No.34 measuring 20 guntas, Sy.No.67 (though wrongly mentioned as 69) measuring 10 guntas and Sy.No.72 measuring 2 guntas. Thus, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same ever since the said grant and they have not sold or created any kind of rights in favour of any person till date. (c) That things stood thus, in the year 2011 they noticed that respondents 5 and 6, the legal representatives of one T.Muniyappa claimed their rights in respect of land in Sy.No.73 measuring 23 guntas as well as Sy.No.67 measuring 10 guntas on the premise that their father Muniyappa had purchased the same in terms of two deeds of sale dated 29.08.1964 and 27.10.1967. Soon thereafter petitioners on enquiry further learnt that proceedings was initiated in the name of certain persons including name of the father of petitioners herein in case No.V.O.A.167/1982-83 before the Tahsildar, Anekal in which the said T.Muniyappa, father of respondents 4 and 5 was arrayed as respondent. The Tahsildar without even issuing any notice or providing any opportunity, proceeded to pass the order dated 09.10.1990 to enter - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 the name of said T.Muniyappa as khathedar in respect of certain lands including lands in Sy.No.73 measuring 11½ guntas, Sy.No.67 measuring 28 guntas and Sy.No.72 measuring 6 guntas. (d) That petitioners not having alienated any land in favour of T.Muniyappa by executing any deed of sale, preferred an appeal under Section 3 of the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anekal, who by impugned order dated 30.01.2018 had dismissed the said appeal by holding that the appeal as filed was not maintainable inasmuch as the challenge is not in respect of grant orders but with respect to order passed by Tahsildar for revenue entries. As such, grievance if any was required to be redressed elsewhere and not before the said Court. (e) That very case of the petitioners is that the Tahsildar in the order dated 09.10.1990 could not have accepted the case of respondent regarding sale of land in Sy.No.73 measuring 11½ guntas, Sy.No.67 measuring 10 guntas Sy.No.72, measuring 6 guntas to have been made by the petitioners or their father herein as even according to the details provided at page 2 of the said order, names of the vendors shown at Sl.No.7 and Sl.No.8 as Yellappa bin Balaramaiah and M.Yellappa, Ramaiah, Lingappa - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 respectively and not the names of the petitioners or their father. (f) Therefore he submits that the reliance placed on by the Tahsildar on to the order of this Court passed in the case of Lakshmana Gowda and others Vs State of Karnataka by its Secretary to Government, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangalore -1 and others is inapplicable. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition, quashing of the impugned orders and for remand of the matter to Tahsildar for reconsideration of the matter. 3. Learned HCGP for respondents 1 and 2 do not dispute that portions of the land in Sy.No.73, Sy.No.63, Sy.No.72 were regranted in favour of the father of the petitioners in terms of the orders dated 30.03.1983 and 31.07.1981 as per Annexures-D and E respectively. He however submits that since the name of the father of petitioners reflected in the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar on 09.10.1990 at Annexure-B, it shall be presumed that the father of the petitioners was aware of the proceedings initiated before the Tahsildar. Therefore the outcome of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 said proceedings are equally binding on the petitioners. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard and perused the records. 5. Respondent No.2-Tahsildar in the impugned order dated 09.10.1990 at Annexure-B has found alienation of land in Sy.Nos.73 of Hennagara Village by Yellappa bin Balaramaiah in favour of T.Muniyappa and land in Sy.No.67 and Sy.No.72 of Hennagara Amanikere Village by M.Yellappa Ramaiah Lingappa in favour of T.Muniyappa. Relevant portion of the details of the alienation is as under: PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå UÁæªÀÄ ¸À.£ÀA «¹ÛÃtð J-UÀÄAmÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉzÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ 7 ºÉ£ÁßUÀgÀ 73 0-11½ AiÀÄ®è¥Àà ©£ï §®gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå n. ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà 8. ºÉ£ÁßUÀgÀ CªÀiÁ¤PÉgÉ 67 72 0-28 0-06 JA AiÀÄ®è¥Àà gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå °AUÀ¥Àà n. ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà 6. Petitioners have contended that no portion of the land which was granted to their father -Ramaiah, S/o Murthamma has been conveyed in favour of T.Muniyappa. 7. Annexure-D is the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 30.03.1983 providing details of the lands - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 situated in Hennagara Village granted in favour of various persons. Perusal of the said order indicate Ramaiah, S/o Murthamma has been granted following lands : (i) Sy.No. 3 measuring 0.16 guntas, (ii) Sy.No.34 measuring 0.11 guntas, (iii) Sy.No.73 measuring 0.23 guntas and (iv) Sy.No.81 measuring 0.26 guntas. 8. The said order also indicate another extent of 23 guntas of land in Sy.No.73 has been granted in favour of one Yellappa, S/o Shambaiah. 9. There is no reference with regard to any land in Sy.No.73 much less 11½ guntas of land situated at Hennagara Village being granted in favour of Yellappa bin Ramaiah in the said order at Annexure-D. As such, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner, there is no question of said Yellappa, s/o Balaramaiah conveying/transferring 11½ guntas of land in favour of T.Muniyappa. 10. Similarly Annexure-E is the order dated 31.07.1981 passed by the Tahsildar providing details of the lands situated in Hennagara Amanikere Village granted in favour of various - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 persons. Perusal of the said order indicate Ramaiah, S/o Murthamma has been granted following lands: (i) Sy.No.34 measuring 0.20 guntas, (ii) Sy.No.67 measuring 0.10 guntas (though wrongly shown as Sy.No.69) (iii) Sy.No.72 measuring 0.02 guntas. 11. The actual extent of the lands in survey numbers 34, 67 and 72 of Hennagara Amanikere Village are as under: (i) Sy.No.34 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas, (ii) Sy.No.67 measuring 0.28 guntas and (iii) Sy.No.72 measuring 0.06 guntas. 12. That the said land measuring 0-28 guntas in Sy.No.67 has been granted as under: (i) 0-09 guntas in favour of H.S.Yellappa bin Shambaiah (ii) 0-09 guntas in favour of M.Yellappa bin Murthamma (iii)0-10 guntas in favour of Ramanna bin Murthamma, (father of the petitioner) 13. 0-06 guntas of land in Sy.No.72 has been granted as under: (i)0-02 guntas in favour of H.S.Yellappa bin Shambaiah (ii)0-02 guntas in favour of M.Yellappa bin Murthamma (iii)0-02 guntas in favour of Ramanna bin Murthamma, (father of the petitioner). - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 14. Thus, no portion of land either in Sy.No.67 or in Sy.No.72 of Hennagara Amanikere Village has been granted in favour of M.Yellappa Ramaiah Lingappa. As such, there is no question of said Yellappa Ramaiah Lingappa conveying/transferring 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.67 and 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.72 of Hennagara Amanikere Village in favour of T.Muniyappa. 15. The order passed by this Court in the case of Lakshmana Gowda (supra) will apply only if the alienation made by the grantee prior to the grant would enure to the benefit of alienee. 16. In the instant case as rightly pointed out since there was no alienation by the grantee or his children in favour of T.Muniyappa as contended, the question of benefit of regrant enuring to the alienee would not arise. The District Court in the considered view of this Court has lost sight of this aspect of the matter while dismissing the appeal. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 17. Paragraphs 10 to 13 of the order passed by District Court reads as under: "10. Admittedly, the disputed properties were Thoti Inamti Service Lands and the same were re-granted as per the Orders Ex. P. 2 dated 30.03.1973, Ex. P. 12 dated 31.07.1981 and another Order dated 13.05.1982 respectively. The original deceased 3rd Respondent / Sri. T. Muniyappa has purchased some of the lands from the original holders, as per the Registered Sale Deed dated 29.08.1964 and 27.10.1967 which are marked as Ex. P. 10 / Ex. R. 2 and Ex. P. 11/Ex. R.3. After re-grant of the said lands, the original deceased 3rd Respondent / Sri. T. Muniyappa applied for regularisation of his purchase and to change of Khatha in his favour before the 1st Respondent in view of the ratio of the decision reported in 1980 (1) - Κ.L.J. - Page 1 (D.B.) (Lakshmana Gowda and Others vs. State of Karnataka by its Secretary to Government, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangalore-1 and others). The said request of the original deceased 3rd Respondent / Sri. T. Muniyappa was rejected by the 1st Respondent as per an Endorsement dated 17.08.1988, as could be seen from the recitals in Page No. 2 of Ex. P. 13. The original deceased 3rd Respondent / Sri. T. Muniyappa challenged the said Endorsement before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 17463/1988 and as per the Orders dated 03.11.1989, the said Writ Petition was allowed as per Ex. P. 5, wherein the above-mentioned endorsement was quashed with a direction to the 1st Respondent to regularise the sale transaction after collecting an amount equal to 15 times of the assessment on the land in dispute from the original deceased 3rd Respondent / Sri. T. Muniyappa. 11. In pursuance to the said direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka the 1st Respondent initiated a proceedings In V.O.A. No.167/1982-83 as per Ex. P. 6, and passed the Impugned Orders wherein the 1st Respondent regularised the sale transactions in favour of the original deceased 3rd Respondent / Sri. T. Muniyappa after collecting the amount equivalent to 15 times of assessment / land revenue to the Government, and ordered to change Khatha of the said land in favour of the original deceased 3rd Respondent / Sri. T. Muniyappa. 12. From the above said facts, it is very clear that the Impugned Order was passed under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act for change of Khatha in favour of the original deceased 3rd Respondent / Sri. T. Muniyappa, in pursuance to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 Karnataka in Ex. P. 5. When such being the case, the Impugned Order / Ex. P. 13 was not passed under the provisions of Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act. The appellant has also not challenged any of the grant Orders passed in the above-mentioned Ex. P. 2 dated 30.03.1973, Ex.P. 12 dated 31.07.1981 and another Order dated 13.05.1982 respectively, in this Appeal. When such being the case, the Appeal itself is not maintainable since the Impugned Order was not passed under the provisions of Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act. 13. As per the arguments of the learned Advocate for the Appellant, the grievance of the Appellants is that while passing the Impugned Order as per Ex.P.13, the extent of the land granted/re-granted in favour of the father of the Appellants, i.e., Sri.Rama @ Ramaiah S/o Murthy, get minimized and hence, they are aggrieved from the Impugned Order. The said grievance has to be redressed elsewhere and not before this Court. As per the provisions of Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, this Court is only Persona Designata to consider the Appeal preferred under Section 3 of the said Act. When such being the case, at any event, the said grievance of the Appellants cannot be considered in this Appeal. Hence, the Appeal itself is not only maintainable before this Court but also devoid of merits. When such being the case, the question of condonation of delay in preferring this Appeal does not arise at all. Hence, I answer these two points in Negative." 18. The District Court has failed to address the core issue raised by the parties i.e., neither the father of the petitioners as a grantee nor the petitioners have alienated any portion of land in Sy.No.73 of Hennagara Village and Sy.No.67 and Sy.No.72 of Hennagara Amanikere Village in favour of T.Muniyappa. The finding on this aspect of the matter will have serious consequence on the nature of claim made by T.Muniyappa and his legal representatives in the light of the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30142 WP No. 18855 of 2018 provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 regarding unauthorised holders. This question has remained unanswered. Therefore, petition is allowed. Order dated 30.01.2018 passed in M.A.No.84/2011 by the District Court is set aside, matter is remitted to the District Court to reconsider in the light of the facts and observations made hereinabove, after ensuring that notice of the proceedings are served on all the persons interested in the matter. The District Court shall dispose of the matter expeditiously within an outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4