- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 28794 OF 2015 (KVOA) BETWEEN: K.L. JAYAPRAKASHNARAYANARAO DEAD BY HIS LR'S 1 SRI K J VENKATANARAYANA, S/O LATE K L JAYAPRAKASHNARAYANARAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 2. SRI K J SHASHIBHUSHAN S/O LATE K L JAYAPRAKASHNARAYANARAO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MARAGANAKUNTE VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK PIN -572 118. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHASILDAR BAGEPALLI TALUK, BAGEPALLI-561 207. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. SRI. K.L. GNANAPRASAD RAO S/O K. LAKSHMAN RAO AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 4. SRI. K.L PRABHAKAR RAO S/O K. LAKSHMAN RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 5. SRI. K.L. RAJARAM MOHAN RAO S/O K. LAKSHMAN RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 6. SRI. K.L. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O K. LAKSHMAN RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO.21, "RAJATHADRI" 2ND CROSS, PARVATHI NAGAR LAGGERE MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 058. 7. SMT. SAVITHRAMMMA W/O LATE M.S. VENKATESHARAO AGE MAJOR R/AT MARAGANAKUNTE, GULUR HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK (SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER LRS RESPONDENT NOS.14 TO 16 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 8. M.S.SRINIVASARAO S/O LATE M.S. VENKATESHARAO AGE MAJOR R/AT NO.1028, 10TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, SHANKARAPURAM, BANGALORE 9. NALINI W/O M.V.NAGARAJARAO AGE MAJOR 10. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O M.V.NAGARAJARAO AGE MAJOR RESPONDENT NO.9 & 10 ARE R/AT 'SAVITHA NILAYA' 6TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, JAGADEESH NAGAR, BANGALORE 11. M.V.PRAKASH RAO S/O LATE M.S.VENKATESH RAO AGE MAJOR R/AT NO.60, VIJAYANAGAR EXTENSION B.E.M.L.NAGAR, K.G.F. 12. SMT. PRASANNA KUMARI W/O LATE M.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO AGE MAJOR 13. M.V.SHESHAGIRI RAO S/O LATE M.S.VENKATESH RAO 14. SMT. USHA KUMARI D/O M.S.VENKARESHA RAO AGE MAJOR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 15. KUM. BHAGYALAKSHMI D/O M.S.VENKATESH RAO MAJOR 16. SMT.INDIRAMMA D/O M.S.VENKATESH RAO AGE MAJOR RESPONDENT NO. 12 TO 16 ARE R/AT MARGANUKUNTE, BAGEPALLI (TALUK), CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 207. 17. K.LAKSHMANA RAO S/O LATE K.RAMAPPA, AGE MAJOR R/AT C/O K.L.GNANAPRASAD RAO NO.21, "RAJATHADRI" PARVATHI NAGAR, LAGGERE MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 058. 18. M.R.NAGENDRA S/O LATE M.S.RAMARAO AGE MAJOR R/AT NO.8963, 17E CROSS, 3RD MAIN, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070. 19. M.R. NAGABHUSHANA S/O LATE M.S. RAMARAO AGE MAJOR - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 20. M.R. SRINIVAS S/O LATE M.S. RAMARAO AGE MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS. 19 AND 20 ARE R/AT NO.8963, 17TH E CROSS 3RD MAIN, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 018. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS KUMAR M., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. A. SHIVARAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6 AND R17; SMT. P.V. KALPANA., ADVOCATE FOR R13 TO R16; V/O DATE 12.01.2018 R7 DEAD AND R14 TO R16 ARE LR'S DECEASED R7; R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R19 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. M.S. CHANDRASHEKAR BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R18; V/O DATED 29.07.2019 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R20 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST., JUDGE AT CHICKBALLAPUR VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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 Venkataramappa, the original holder of Shanbhog Village office of Marganakute village, Devikunte Village, Golur Hobli, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 Bagepally Taluk, had made an application before the Tahsildar seeking grant of lands attached to the said village office. That the said case was registered in Case HOA/R/SH/21/1979-80. By order dated 27.12.2001 the Tahsildar, Bagepalli had directed the petitioner along with other persons who were arrayed as respondents therein to approach competent Civil Court establishing their right with regard to their entitlement relating to the said Village Office. Aggrieved by the same petitioners herein had preferred a miscellaneous appeal in MA No. 11/2002 before the Principal District Judge, Kolar. By order dated 17.04.2007 the appellate Court had allowed the said appeal directing the Tahsildar, after holding an enquiry and affording opportunity to parties, to pass a speaking order one way or the other on granting the land to the claimants therein. Upon such remand, the matter was taken up by the Tahsildar and on reconsideration passed the impugned order dated 19.06.2009 by holding that the petitioners and the other respondents had not established their rights of they being the descendants of the holder of the Village Office by producing documents in support of their respective claims. Accordingly, directed the said lands to be resumed and forfeited in favour of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 the State. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.10/2009 before the Principal District Judge, Chikkaballapur. By impugned order dated 20.09.2014, the said appeal was dismissed confirming the order dated 19.06.2009 passed by the Tahsildar, Bagepally. However, liberty was reserved to the petitioners/appellants therein to institute a suit and obtain a decree of declaration of their title from a competent Civil Court on the basis of the claims made by them. It is these orders which are put in question in this petition. 2. Sri.Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners taking this Court through the records submits: (a) That the entitlement of the petitioners and their forefathers to the lands comprised/attached to Devikunte Firka and Margankunte Firka was long decided in the proceedings in RMC Case No.1/1920-21 and in Appeal No.434/1928-29, in which claim made by the descendants of the original holder of the office was resisted by certain Seenappa, who was appointed as a clerk by one of the widows of the descendants of original holder of office. The authorities back in the year 1920- 21 as well as in the appeal in 1928-29, after consideration of the merits of such claims and the rival claims, had come to the conclusion that Seenappa was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 not the hereditary holder of the original ancestor of the petitioners. As such, he could not lay any claim on the properties. However he was only entitled to enjoy the potgi allowance which was given to an officiator of the office. Whereas the claims of the descendants of the holder of the office was recognised. (b) He then refers to genealogy of the original holder of the office and submits that the grandson of the original holder of the office had two sons by name Sheshappa and Thimmappa. Thus his family consisted of two branches. Further Sheshappa had two sons by name Venkatagiriyappa and Venkatakrishnappa. Family of Venkatagiriyappa continued upto his grandson Krishnappa. Whereas family of VenkataKrishnappa stood extinct as he had no descendants. As regard the second son of Venkatanarayanappa, Thimmappa his family extended upto his great grandson Venkatanarayanappa. Since Krishnappa the great grandson of Sheshappa had adopted Venkatanarayanappa from the branch of Thimmappa said Venkatanarayanappa became entitled to the office in both the capacity as the natural heir of Thimmappa as well as being adoptive son of Krishnappa. Therefore he submits in any case there being no dispute with regard to the descendants of the original holder of office, the Tahsildar could not have assumed the dispute upon himself to hold and direct the parties to obtain decree of declaration of their entitlement. He further submits the appellate court also has fell in similar error in directing the parties to go and seek a declaration when infact there is no dispute to the Village Office of the ancestors of the petitioners. (c) As regards the claim of the Seenappa's descendants is concerned, he points out to the order dated 19.06.2009 passed by the Tahsildar on remand wherein at page 11 unnumbered paragraph 2 onwards, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 Tahsildar has categorically held that Seenappa being the officiator appointed under Krishnamma had no right on the property. He submitted the said finding and conclusion not having been challenged, Seenappa, respondent Nos.16, 17 and 18 herein cannot lay any claim on the property. Hence, he submits a necessary direction be issued to the Tahsildar to grant the land attached to Margankunte firka in the name of the petitioners as they are the only rightful claimants being the descendants of the original office holder. 3. In response, learned HCGP submits given sometime the matter will be considered in accordance with law and order will be passed thereon. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.14 on the other hand submits that though Seenappa and his descendants have not challenged the order of the Tahsildar, by virtue of the petitioners having filed the miscellaneous appeal and the same having been dismissed, it shall be deemed that they indeed had filed an appeal and the order of dismissal would enure to their benefit. 5. Heard and perused the records. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 6. Genealogy of the petitioner read as under: ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀë UÁæªÀÄ: ªÀiÁUÁð£ÀPÀÄAmÉ ºÉÆç½:UÀƼÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ:¨ÁUÉÃ¥À°è ªÀÄÆ®¥ÀÄgÀĵÀ : ªÉAPÀlgÁªÀÄ¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄUÀ: wªÀÄä¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄUÀ: ªÉAPÀl £ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) 1£Éà ªÀÄUÀ 2£Éà ªÀÄUÀ ±ÉõÀ¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) wªÀÄä¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ:gÁªÀÄ¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄUÀ:ªÉAPÀl¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄUÀ:ªÉAPÀl£ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄUÀ:®QëãÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄUÀ:ªÉAPÀl£ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) (PÀȵÀÚ¥Àà¤UÉ zÀvÀÄÛ) ªÀÄUÀ:ªÉAPÀlVjAiÀÄ¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) 2£Éà ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄUÀ:ªÉAPÀlgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà(¥ÀªÀw) ªÉAPÀlPÀȵÀÚ¥Àà GgÀÄ¥ï PÀȵÀÚ¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄUÀ:QȵÀÚ¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄgÀÄ E§âgÀÄ zÀvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀ:ªÉAPÀl£ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) ºÉAqÀw:¸Àħâ®PÀëªÀÄä (¥ÀªÀw) zÀvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀ:dAiÀÄ¥ÀæPÁ±ï£ÁgÁAiÀÄuï 1£Éà ºÉAqÀw 2£Éà ºÉAqÀw (¥ÀªÀw) PÀȵÀÚªÀÄä (¥ÀªÀw) gÁªÀĪÀÄä (¥ÀªÀw) ºÉAqÀw: PÉ.gÁeÉñÀéj (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄUÀ:ªÀ®è¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ:ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀÛgÁªï (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄUÀ:£ÁUÀªÀÄ®è¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw) 1£Éà ªÀÄUÀ 2£Éà ªÀÄUÀ PÉ.eÉ. ªÉAPÀl£ÁgÁAiÀÄuï eÉ. ±É¶¨sÀƵÀuï 28 ªÀµÀð 26 ªÀµÀð - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 7. Thus, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner only common heir of original holder of the office is Venkatanarayanappa and there are no other descendants of the original holder of office. 8. As regard claim of Seenappa and his descendants namely respondent No.14 relevant to refer to order dated 06.04.1923 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapur in RMC Case No.1/2020-21 which read as under: ORDER "The Firka of Devikunte comprising of 14 villages was in the name of one Krishnappa. These villages were divided into two firkas at the survey settlement into two firkas Devikunte and Margana Kunte. Krishnappa kept the Shanbhogue of Marganakunte and the Shanbhogue of devikunte was registered in the name of his elder brother donetra venkataryappa in the year sarvan. Venkataryappa's death his son Krishnappa became the registered Shanbhogue of Devikunte Fierka. Krishnamma was the wife of Krishnappa become the registered Shanhbogue of Margan Kunta firka after Krishnappa death's death Seenappa who was the gunasta of Krishnamma by the deputy commissioner in his order No. 573 dated 07.03.1890 and Krishnamma not having left any heirs this Seenappa was registered as the Shanbhogue. The inam lands of two firkas were along jointly enjoyed by both Krishnappa of Devikunte and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 Krishnamma of Margan There was Kunte as per agreement dated 17.09.1846. necessity for this kind of agreement probably because the lands attached to the Margankunte firka were larger in extent than those of the Devikunte Firka. It was entered into between Venkatagiriappa and Narayanappa on behalf of probably venkatarayappa and Krishnamma Both Kishnappa and Krishnamma have admitted this in their joint statement before the sub division office on 22.07.22. This statement is attested by the present Shanbhogue Seenappa. Seenappa does not want to have anything to do with the Inam lands of Devikunte Firka and wants that krishnappa should have nothing to do with the lands of the Margankunte Fierka. Seenappa refuses to give half the produced of the margankunte lands as the inam lands belongs to his firka. Krishnappa claim that he should get half the produce as he used to do in the life time of Krishnamma I am oathed to disturb an arrangement entered into between the parties so long as 1846 as along as one of the party Krishnappa is alive. Further I regard Krishnappa as a member of the original Hakudars family and his enjoyment on behalf the lands of the Miargankunte Firka does not in any way affect the potgi allowance which is payable to and enjoyable by the Officiators alone. Seenappa not being a hereditary holder cannot look to any other emoluments except his cash potgi. Sec. XXVI of the rule for the remuneration of village officers P. 201 of the Old Manual is very clear and lays down that the Official land under the settlement prescribed in the foregoing rules will form no part of the remuneration of the officiator who is to be paid wholly in cash and the land will therefore remain in the possession of the shares who may at present hold it. The same principles is embodied in Section 65(VO of the new Revenue Manual. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 In the result that seenappa should enjoy only half of the inam lands of Margankunte the portion that Krishnamma was enjoying and the other half should be enjoyed by Krishnappa during his life time. Krishnappa share of the produce attached if any should be given over to Krishnappa." 9. Thus at an undisputed point in time, the claims of the descendants of original holder of the office as well as the claim of Seenappa were determined. In that Seenappa was held to be not being the hereditary owner of the office and his rights were restricted only to claim emolument in the nature of cash only and not the land. The said aspect of the matter has been reiterated by the Tahsildar as late as order dated 19.06.2009 wherein at pages 10, 13 and 14 has held as under: "E°è ªÀÄÄRåªÁV UÀªÀĤ¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀ CA±À QæµÀÚªÀÄä vÀgÀ¥sï UÁæªÀÄ £ËPÀj PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä UÀĪÀiÁ¸ÀÛ£ÁV £ÉêÀÄPÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¹Ã£À¥Àà ªÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwUÉ CºÀðgÉà JA§ÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ UÁæªÀÄ £ËPÀj gÀ¢ÝAiÀiÁw PÁ¬ÄzÉ, 19612 C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2(N) gÀ ªÁåSÉåzÀAvÉ "Village Office" means, Village Office, to which emoluments have been attached and which was held hereditarily before the commencement of the constitution under an existing law relating to a village office, for the performance of duties connected with the administration or collection of the revenue or with the maintenance of order or with the settlement of boundaries or other matter of civil administration of a village whether the services originally appertaining to the office continue or have ceased to be performed or - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 demanded and by whatsoever designation the office may be locally known. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄAvÉ UÁæªÀÄ £ËPÀj PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ªÁåSÉåAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄRåªÁV UÀªÀĤ¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀ CA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉ, UÁæªÀÄ £ËPÀj PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄÄ ªÀA±À¥ÁgÀA¥ÀAiÀÄð¢AzÀ (Held hereditarily) §AzÀ ªÀåQÛ/ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À£ÉÆß¼ÀUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÉà DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ PÀqÀvÀzÀ°è ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀ ªÀiÁUÁð£ÀÄPÀÄAmÉ ¦PÁð UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ (1) ªÀiÁUÁð£ÀÄPÀÄAmÉ (2) ¦ZÀÑ®ªÁj¥À°è (3) ¥ÉÆÃPÀªÀiÁPÀ®¥À°è UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À ¨ÁgÁ§®Æw £ÀPÀ®Ä ¥ÀæPÁgÀ QæµÀÚªÀÄä JA¨ÁPÉAiÀÄÄ §gÁ§gïØzÁgÀ¼ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤±ÀÑAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ FPÉAiÀÄÄ, ¥Àæ²ßvÀ UÁæªÀÄ£ËPÀj PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ jf¸ÀÖgï ºÀPÀÄÌzÁgÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ UÁæªÀÄ £ËPÀj gÀ¢ÝAiÀiÁw PÁ¬ÄzÉ, 1961gÀ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2(g) C£ÀéAiÀÄ "Holder of a village office" or "Holder" means a person having an interest in a village office under an existing law relating to such office, provided that where any village office has been entered in a register or record under on existing law relating to such village office, as held by the whole body of persons having interest in the village office, the whole of such body shall be deemed to be the holder. ¥Àæ²ßvÀ UÁæªÀÄ £ËPÀj PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ jf¸ÀÖgïØ ºÀPÀÄÌzÁgÀ¼ÁzÀ QæµÀÚªÀÄä ¤¸ÀìAvÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¥sÀªÀwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj UÁæªÀÄ£ËPÀj PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ªÀA±À¥ÁgÀA¥ÀAiÀÄðvÉ (Held hereditarily) FPÉAiÀÄ ¥sÀªÀwUÉ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. FPÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ F UÁæªÀÄ £ËPÀj PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ PÉ®¸À PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¹Ã£À¥Àà JA§ÄªÀªÀgÁVzÀÄÝ "FvÀ£ÀÄ ¤±ÀÑAiÀĪÁV PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ d£ÀUÀ¼À vÀ¥À¹Ã®Ä£Àr" §gÀĪÀªÀ£Éà ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ, jf¸ÀÖgïØ ºÀPÀÄÌzÁgÀ JA§ ²Ã¶ðPÉAiÀÄr §gÀĪÀªÀ£À®è JA§ zsÀÈqÀªÁzÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ ºÁ¢UÉ §gÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ°è ¨ÁgÁ§®Æw £ÀPÀ°£À°è£À "¤±ÀÑAiÀĪÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ d£ÀUÀ¼À vÀ¥À¹Ã®Ä" JA§À ²Ã¶ðPÉUÀ¼Éà ¥ÀĶ×PÀj¸ÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀPÁgÀt ¹Ã£À¥Àà ºÁUÀÆ FvÀ£À ¸ÀAvÀwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ UÁæªÀÄ £ËPÀj gÀ¢ÝAiÀiÁw PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1961gÀ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2(N) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (gÀ) ªÁåSÉåAiÀÄ ¤nÖ£À°è ¨ÁgÀzÉà EgÀĪÀªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀj PÁ¬ÄzÉ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2(J) C£ÀéAiÀÄ "Officiator" means The person actually performing the duties of a village office, whether he be a person having a right to perform the duties of such office - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 or a substitute appointed under the existing law relating to such office. F ªÁåSÉåAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀÖµÀÖªÁV w½¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¹Ã£À¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀj UÁæªÀÄ£ËPÀj PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ jf¸ÀÖgïØ ºÀPÀÄÌzÁgÀ¼ÁzÀ QæµÀÚªÀÄä¼À vÀgÀ¥sï PÉ®¸À PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆArgÀĪÀ UÀĪÀĸÀÛ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, F ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ FvÀ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ FvÀ£À ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj ±Áå£ÀĨsÉÆÃUÀ £ËPÀj PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ jf¸ÀÖgïØzÁgÀgÀ£ÁßV ªÉÆPÀgÉÆgï ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj UÁæªÀÄ £ËPÀj PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÉà DVzÀÄÝ (Be a person having a right to perform the duties of such office) EzÀjAzÀ ¹Ã£À¥Àà ºÁUÀÆ FvÀ£À ¸ÀAvÀwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ C¦ü¹AiÉÄÃlgï (Officiator) ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ ºÉÆîÖgï (Holder) J¤¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è CzÀgÀAvÉ, ¸ÀzÀj PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 2(1)(gÀ) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 jAzÀ 7 gÀ°è ªÁåSÁ夹gÀĪÀAvÉ d«Ää£À ªÀÄgÀĪÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄÄ CAxÀ UÁæªÀÄ £ËPÀj PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ºÉÆîÖgï (Holder) CºÀð£Éà ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ C¦ü¹AiÉÄÃlgï (Officiator) CºÀð£À®è. ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ. Relevant paragraphs of the operative portion read as under: 'ಕಾಟಕ ಾಮ ೌಕ ರ ಾ ಾ , 1961ರ ಅಯಮ 7ರ ಪಾರ ಪತ ಾೋ! ಾಮ ೌಕ ಕ"ೇ ೆ #ೇ ದ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಜ*ೕನುಗಳ ಕಯ.ಾರರನು d«Ää¤AzÀ ºÉÆgÀzÀÆr EzÉà £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ಆ.ೇಶ ¸ÀASÉå :HOA/sh(R)21/79-80 ¢£ÁAPÀ:08.04.1981 gÀAzÀÄ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ಪ1ೆಯಲು ಆ.ೇಶ3ಾ4ರುತ5.ೆ. ತಹ7ವ9ೆ:ಗೂ ಾಮ;ಾಖ=ೆಗಳ>? ಈ ಆ.ೇಶವನು ನಮೂದು @ಾಡ.ೇ ಇದು , ಕೂಡ=ೇ ಇದನು ಾಮ;ಾಖ=ೆಗಳ>? ನಮೂದು @ಾಡತಕBದು . PÀæ.¸ÀA UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA vÀgÀºÉ «¹ÛÃtð 1 ªÀiÁUÁð£ÀÄPÀÄAmÉ 135 vÀj 0-24 2. ¥ÉÆÃPÀªÀiÁPÀ®¥À°è 28 vÀj 0-151/2 UÀÄAmÉ 3. ºÉÆ£ÀßA¥À°è 15 vÀj 1-32 4. £ÁgÁAiÀÄt¸Áé«ÄPÉÆÃmÉ 17 vÀj 0-29 5. ¦ZÀÑ®ªÁgÀ¥À°è 50/1 RÄ¶Ì 0-15 6. ¦ZÀÑ®ªÁgÀ¥À°è 50/3 RÄ¶Ì 0-17 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 ಈ Cೕ9ೆೆ ಇವರುಗಳ ಅDಗಳE ರಸB ಸಲGHIರುತ53ೆ. Jಾಗೂ ಪತ ಪಕರಣದ>?ನ 3ಾಗಳE ಮತು5 ಪ3ಾಗLೆಲ?ರೂ ಸದ ಾಮ ೌಕ ಕ"ೇ ಯ JೋಲMN (Holder) ಆಗ.ೇ ಇರುವದ ಂದ ಇವರುಗಳ ಅDಯನು ರಸB O.ೆ. Jಾಗೂ ಸದ ಾಮ £ËPÀj PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ PɼÀPÀAqÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄlÄÖUÉÆÃ®Ä ºÁQPÉÆArzÉ. UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA vÀgÀºÉ «¹ÛÃtð 88 ¨ÁUÁAiÀÄÄÛ 4-33 91 ¨ÁUÁAiÀÄÄÛ 3-03 152 RÄ¶Ì 10-29 180 vÀj 1-06 ªÀiÁUÁð£ÀÄPÀÄAmÉ 213 RÄ¶Ì 12-21 ¥ÉÆÃPÀªÀiÁPÀ®¥À°è 56/2 RÄ¶Ì 1-12 ºÉÆ£ÀßA¥À°è 56/2 vÀj 0-39 ªÀÄzÀÝPÀªÁgÀ¥À°è 26 vÀj 1-03 45/1 RÄ¶Ì 2-15 45/2 RÄ¶Ì 2-11 PÉÆPÀÄ̪ÁgÀ¥À°è 11/2 vÀj 0-25 CೕಲBಂಡ ಆ.ೇಶವನು ಉಕ5=ೇಖನ ೕR SೆರಳಚುU @ಾRO ಪ9ಾಂಬ O, ಈ ಾಂಕ:19/06/2019 ರಂದು Wೆ9ೆದ ಾಾಯದ>? XೂೕYO.ೆ". 10. Thus the claim of Seenappa and his descendants to the land attached to the aforesaid offices having been rejected and same having been attained finality, contention of the respondent 14, 15 and 16 to say that the filing of the appeal by the petitioners and rejection of the same would enure to their benefit cannot be countenanced. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 11. What remains therefore is whether the petitioners herein who claim to be the descendants of the holder of original office are entitled for the grant of land? 12. Since there is no rival claims by anyone whomsoever and claims if any made by Seenappa and descendants having been negated, it was not open for the Tahsildar or the appellate Court to have directed the petitioners to go to the Civil Court and establish their right which is an exercise in futility. 13. The Tahsildar under circumstances was only required to look into the claims made by the petitioners to the extent of the land if any and proceed to pass the order therewith. Indeed this was the line of direction which was issued by the Principal District Judge, Kolar in its order dated 17.04.2007 as per Annexure L. Relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: "6. In Mohamadsa and others case as reported in ILR 1988 Karnataka 2102 (DB), it has been held by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka that member of a joint family have a right to seek his share in the land regranted since regrant does not take away the right he has as a member of the joint family. Only thing that such a member has to prove is that common propositus of the family was the holder of village office. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 7. Rule 3 of the KVOA Rules 1961 speaks about the manner of holding enquiry. Rules have been framed as per Sec.3 of the KVOA Act. He has to hold an enquiry under sub rule (v) of Rule 3-as per the code. It should be a formal enquiry as contemplated under Secs. 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and he has to decide the questions by formulating necessary points for consideration. He is not empowered to delegate the power to decide any matter under sub rule (3) to any office subordinates. The Tahsildar is expected to hold an enquiry to ascertain whether the applicant is a holder of the village office immediately prior to coming into force of the act or a member of a family of the erstwhile authorised holder of the village office i.e., barawardar. Instead of passing an order of regnant, the tahsildar has virtually abdicated his responsibility by directing the parties to approach competent civil court to obtain a full pledged decision about the genuineness of the adoption deed relied upon by the appellants herein and the genuineness of the Will relied upon by Smt.Indiramma and Sheshagirirao". 14. Non application of mind by the Tahsildar into the provisions of law and the orders passed as far back as in the year 1923 and 2007 has resulted in this unwarranted litigation to linger up till here. It is unfortunate even the District Court in the Miscellaneous Appeal, has fallen into the similar error. 15. Having said that, the Tahsildar shall also make an enquiry as to the extent and survey numbers of the land being claimed by the petitioners. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32809 WP No. 28794 of 2015 16. Petitioners shall furnish details of the land, survey numbers and the measurement which according to them attached to the aforesaid two firkas, which they are laying their claim on. They shall also produce documents supporting their claim in this regard to the Tahsildar, who shall thereafter pass necessary orders. It is made clear there requires no further consideration or enquiry with regard to the claim of Seenappa or his descendants, the same having attained finality. With the above observation, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20