- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 34441 OF 2018 (KVOA) BETWEEN: 1. a) (i) SRI PERIYAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS ANNIAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS SMT. CHINNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI ANNIAPPA, (ii) SRI. HARISH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O SRI.ANNIAPPA (iii) SRI. ANIL, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, S/O SRI.ANNIAPPA, b) SRI. YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O PERIYAPPA, c) SRI. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 S/O PERIYAPPA, 2. SRI KAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, S/O SRI MUNISWAMY, SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: (a) SMT.LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O LATE KAKAPPA, (b) SRI.YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE KAKAPPA, (c) SRI.MUNIKAVERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE KAKAPPA, (d) SMT.RENUKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O LATE VENKATAPPA, (e) SMT.REKHA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, D/O LATE VENKATAPPA, (f) SMT.GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O LATE KAKAPPA, PETITIONERS NO.2(a) TO (f) ARE RESIDING AT - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 RAMASAGARA VILLAGE, MUTHANALLUR POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ATTIBELE TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 3. SRI. KAVERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O SRI MUNISWAMY, 4. 4(a) SRI. CHINNAPPA, SINCE DECEASED SMT. AMMAYYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O LATE CHINNAPPA, 4(b) SRI. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE, MUTHANALLUR POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ATTIBELE TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 5. (a) SRI. CHIKKA KAVERAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY SMT. YELLAMMA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/O SRI. CHIKKA KAVERAPPA, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 (b) SRI. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, (c) SRI. SHIVA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, (b) AND (c) SONS OF CHIKKA KAVERAPPA 6. (a) SRI. KRISHNAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, SMT. SHARADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA, (b) SMT. SHAKUNTALA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, (c) SMT. BHAGYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, (d) SMT. MANJULA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, (e) SMT. PUSHPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, (f) SMT. NETRA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, (g) SMT. SAVITHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, (a) to (g) DAUGHTERS OF SRI KRISHNAPPA - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 (h) SRI. SANTHOSH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA, 7. SRI. M. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SRI. MUNISWAMY, SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: (a) SMT.SAMPANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O LATE M.NAGARAJA, (b) SRI.N.S.VIJAYA BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE M.NAGARAJA, (c) SRI.N.S.DIWAKAR HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O LATE M.NAGARAJA, (d) SRI.N.S.SUDHAKAR HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE M.NAGARAJA, THE PETITIONERS NO.7(a) TO (d) ARE RESIDING AT NO.18, THUBRAHALLI VILLAGE, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST, BANGALORE - 560 066. THE PETITIONERS NO.5(a) TO (c) AND - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 6(a) TO (h) AND 7 ARE RESIDING AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE, MUTHANALLUR POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ATTIBELE TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. Y.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.Y.K.NARAYANA SHARMA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL - 562 106. 2. SMT. YELLAMMA, W/O NERAGANTE YELLAPPA, MAJOR, RESIDING AT THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI - 562 157. 3. (a) SMT. NINGAMMA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER L.R. SMT. THIMMAKKA, W/O SRI. GARE MUNIYAPPA @ PILLAPPA, MAJOR, OLD MATHIKERE, TOTTA NALLUR ROAD, NEAR WATER TANK, MATHIKERE, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT - 635 109. SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 3(a)(i) SMT.CHINNAKKAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 D/O LATE SMT.THIMMAKKA, 3(a)(ii) SRI.JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE SMT.THIMMAKKA AND GARE MUNIYAPPA @ PILLAPPA, 3(a)(iii) SRI.NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE SMT.THIMMAKKA AND GARE MUNIYAPPA @ PILLAPPA, RESPONDENTS NO.3(a) TO (c) ARE RESIDING AT NO.40-1/168, SEPAYEE PALYAM, MATHIGERE, HOSURU CATTLE FARM, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMIL NADU - 635 110. 4. SMT. RAMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O SRI. JAYARAM, 5. SRI. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 6. SRI. SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 7. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NOS.4 TO 7 SONS OF SRI THITAPPAIAPPA @ CHIKKA MUNISWAMY, ALL ARE RESIDING AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE, MUTHANALLUR POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ATTIBELE TALUK, - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.THILAK RAJ S.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3(a)(i) TO 3(a)(iii); SRI.PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7; SRI.RAJESHWARA P.N., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON IA 5/25) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2006 PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL VIDE ANNEXURE - E AND THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTICT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNX-G AND DIRECT THEM TO RECOGNIZE THE PETITIONERS AS THE PERSONS ENTITLED FOR REGRANT OF THE SCHEDULE LANDS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioners and Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by respondent No.1-Tahsildar in Case No.VOA- EVL/143/1980-81 as well as the order dated 13.04.2018 passed by the District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in M.A. No.5018/2017, produced at Annexures- E and G respectively. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 2. The dispute in these writ petitions revolves around the lands bearing Survey No.30 measuring 21 guntas, Survey No.75 measuring 2 acres 17 guntas, Survey No.103 measuring 6 guntas attached to Neeraganti Inam office of Ramasagara (Kolathur) and land in Survey No.50 measuring 4 acres 25 guntas, Survey No.79 measuring 1 acre 05 guntas, Survey No.102 measuring 0.9 guntas, Survey No.104 measuring 0.24 guntas attached to Talwar Inam Office of Ramasagara (Kolathur) Village. 3. Petitioners claim to be the descendants of one Allaliyappa, who was a purported holder of Talwar Inam office of the said village. Whereas respondent No. 2 to 3 claim to be the descendants of one Chikka Gurappa, who is stated to be the holder of the very same Talwar Inam Office of the said Village. 4. An application seeking re-grant of the aforesaid lands was made in the name of certain Talwar Kaverappa son of Gurappa and Kaverappa son of Gurappa of Ramasagara- (Kolathur) village Athibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk in respect of the aforesaid lands attached to the aforesaid two - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 offices. By order dated 09.12.1985 produced at Annexure-C, the respondent No.1- Tahsildar re-granted the aforesaid lands. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners herein had preferred a miscellaneous appeal in MA No.59 of 2001 before the 2nd Additional District and Session, Bengaluru Rural. By order dated 13.12.2002, the said appeal was allowed. The order of re-grant dated 09.12.1985 passed by the respondent No.1-Tahsildar was set aside. Matter was remanded back to respondent No.1-Tahsildar to dispose of the same within 6 months after affording opportunity to the contesting parties. 6. On remand, the respondent No.1-Tahsildar passed the impugned order dated 14.11.2006 at Annexure- E, confirming the earlier grant made vide order dated 09.12.1985 in favour of Yellamma and Ningamma, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred yet another appeal in Miscellaneous Appeal No.163 of 2006 - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 which is re-numbered as M.A.5018 of 2017 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. 8. Learned District Judge by order dated 13.04.2018 dismissed the said appeal, confirming the order passed by the respondent No.1-Tahsildar. However, reserved liberty to the petitioners herein to take proper legal action by approaching a competent Civil Court by filing a suit for partition. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the respondent No.1-Tahsildar and the order dated 13.04.2018 passed in M.A.5018/2017 in the present petition. 10. Impleading applications have been filed by proposed Respondent Nos. 10 to 16 in I.A.No. 1 of 26 claiming to be the family members and descendants of Allaliyappa. Similarly, another application in I.A.No. 5 of 2025 is filed by proposed Respondent Nos.8 and 9 claiming to be the - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 purchasers of a portion of subject lands from Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 11. Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7, taking this Court through the records submit: (a) that when the original order dated 09.12.1985 was passed by the respondent No.1-Tahsildar, petitioners herein were not made parties and the claim was made in respect of both office of the Inam, namely Neeraganti Inam as well as Talwar Inam by the very same family members claiming through and under one Chikkagurappa. Upon the appeal filed by the petitioner, disputing the claim of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to be the descendants of the original and actual holder of the office and also disputing their claim of Chikkagurappa being the holder of the office, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded; (b) that it was therefore incumbent upon the respondent No.1-Tahsildar to have conducted full-fledged inquiry with regard to authenticity of the claim made by Respondent - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 Nos.2 and 3 of they being the descendants of Chikkaguruppa and said Chikkaguruppa being the holder of the office. (c) That respondent No.1-Tahsildar has abdicated of his statutory obligation and had passed the order impugned without even conducting inquiry merely based on certain report obtained by him, which is prima facie unsustainable; (d) Learned counsel for the petitioners also bring to the notice of this Court the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the III Additional District Judge in M.A.No.5018/2017 at paragraph 20 and 21 of the impugned order whereby the District Court though has held that the re-grant in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being incorrect and improper, has however proceeded to confirm the same and has directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for partition. It is their contention that when the parties are at loggerhead, claiming their rights under two different holders of the office, the question of relegating the parties to approach - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 Civil Court for a suit for partition would not arise. Therefore, they submit the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.1-Tahsildar as well as by the first appellate court, suffer from perversity and illegality warranting interference at the hands of this Court. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits: (a) that though Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are claiming their right for re-grant through and under Chikkaguruppa, who is different and distinct from that of Allaliyappa under whom the petitioners are claiming, the records furnished by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had established they being the rightful claimants for the land; (b) that this fact was accepted by the respondent No.1- Tahsildar even at the original instance as well as after the remand, when the report was submitted the same is reiterated, therefore reversing or remanding the matter serves no purpose. Hence, seeks for rejection of the petition. - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 13. Heard. Perused the records. 14. The point that arise for consideration is: Whether the Respondent No.1-Tahsildar as well as the District Court have adverted to the actual dispute between the parties namely, as to who is the actual, genuine and the original holder of the office? and, whether the petitioners and respondents are the legal descendants of the holder of said Offices? 15. Originally, an application appears to have been filed on 06.01.1971 claiming re-grant of land in Survey Nos. 30, 75, 103 attached to Neeraganti Office and Survey Nos.50, 79, 102 and 104 attached to Talwar Office. There is no dispute of the fact that the said lands were vested with the State upon promulgation of Karnataka Villages Offices Abolition Act, 1961. Apparently, based on certain enquiries and the report, the order dated 09.12.1985 at Annexure-C came to be passed granting following lands with a clause prohibiting alienation for 15 years from 07.08.1978: PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå ªÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆjzÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ PÀZÉÃj ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. «¹ÛÃtð J.UÀÄAmÉ 1 1. UÀļÀî¥Àà 2.AiÀÄ®è¥Àà 3. C©âUÀ 1) ¤ÃgÀÄUÀAn E£ÁA 1) 30 2) 75 3) 103 0-21 2-17 0-06 - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 4. ªÀÄÄAaUÀ (EªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ ¯ÉÃmï £ÀAd¥Àà£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ) 5. ¥Á¥À ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ¥Á®Ä ªÀ®Ä£É¥Àà 6. AiÀÄ®è¥Àà (FvÀ£ÀÄ ¯ÉÃmï PÁªÉÃgÀ¥Àà¤UÉ zÀvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀ) (dAnAiÀiÁV) 2)vÀ¼ÀªÁgÀ E£ÁA 1) 50 2) 79 3) 102 4) 104 4-25 1-05 0-00 0-24 16. The said order seems to have been passed accepting the genealogy furnished by the applicants therein. The genealogy, which was the basis for passing the said order, is produced by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in their statement of objections as Annexure-R1 which read as under: CfðzÁgÀ£À ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀë ªÀÄÆ®¥ÀÄgÀĵÀ aPÀÌUÀÄgÀ¥Àà (¥sÀªÀw) UÀÄgÀ¥Àà (¥sÀªÀw) ¸ÀAiÀÄåªÀÄä ªÀÄÄvÀÛªÀÄä 2£Éà ºÉAqÀw (¥sÀªÀw) 1£Éà ºÉAqÀw (¥sÀªÀw) PÁªÉÃgÀ¥Àà (¥sÀªÀw) jÃUÁæAmï zÀvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀ AiÀÄ®è¥Àà £ÀAd¥Àà amÉÖ°è¥Àà ¸Á®Ä ªÀÄĤ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ 40 ªÀµÀð CfðzÁgÀ (¥sÀªÀw) (¥sÀªÀw) (¥sÀªÀw) ¥Á¥ÀUÀ (ºÁdgÀÄ) ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì UÀļÀî¥Àà AiÀÄ®è¥Àà C©âUÀ ªÀÄÄAaUÀ (ºÁdgÀÄ) (ºÁdgÀÄ) (ºÁdgÀÄ) (ºÁdgÀÄ) ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì F ªÀA±À ªÀÈPÀëªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ w½zÀ ªÀÄnÖUÉ ¤PÀgÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃAzÀÄÛ ¸ÀvÀåªÁV ºÉüÀÄvÉÛãÉ. - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 17. Perusal of the said genealogy indicate that the Moolapurusha/Propositors is stated to be one Chikkagurappa. Chikkagurappa is stated to have had two wives. Sayamma and Muthamma. Muthamma the second wife died leaving behind her son, Kaverappa. Kaverappa stated to have adopted one Yellappa. Respondent No.2 herein claims to be the wife of said Yellappa. From his first wife Sayamma Chikkagurappa had three sons namely, Nanjappa, Chittellippa, Salumuniyappa. Salumuniyappa the third son passed away leaving behind one Papaga. Respondent No.3 claims to be wife of said Papaga. Till here, there was no dispute. 18. Dispute arose when the petitioners herein filed the appeal in M.A.No.59 of 2001 claiming that it was one Allaliyappa who was the holder of Talwar and Neeraganti offices of the said village. Their claim is based on the genealogy produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition which read as under: - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 FAMILY TREE OF TALAVARI FAMILY ALLALIAPPA (WIFE) S1 S2 Late Munishamiga Kunga Muniyappa Thitatiappa @ (Late) Chikkamuniswamy (Late) Wife Wife Yellamma Gullamma (late) Wife late Muniyamma Sons Sons 1.Periyappa, 1)Jayarama (Since 2.Kakappa, dead by his L.Rs. 3.Kaverappa, a)Ramakka 4.Chinnappa, W/o Jayaram (late) 5.Chikka Kaverappa @ Kallekaiappa 2)Venkataswamy (Since dead by his L.Rs.) 3)Sampangiramaiah a)Smt.Yellamma 4)Narayanaswamy. b)Sri.Muniraju c)Shiva 6.Krishnappa 7.Nagaraju Bangalore, Advocate for Appellants: Dated:15/12/2006 19. Thus from the above, it is clear that while the petitioners are claiming their right to the aforesaid lands attached to Talwar as well as Neeraganti Office, being descendants of Allaliyappa, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are claiming their right for re-grant of the very same land through and under Chikkagurappa. - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 20. Since there was no dispute when the original order was passed on 09.12.1985, there was no occasion for the Respondent No.1-Tahsildar to have gone into the said dispute. However, when the dispute was raised and accepting the same, existence of such dispute, matter was remanded by the District Court vide order dated 13.12.2002 passed in MA No.59 of 2001, it was incumbent upon the Respondent No.1-Tahsildar to have adhered to the provisions contained under Section 3 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 and Rule 3(2), providing for a detailed enquiry, more particularly with regard to the claim of a person holding the office and the claim of the persons claiming for re-grant of the land. The Respondent No.1-Tahsildar was thus required to have come to a just conclusion based on the cogent and acceptable evidence. Instead, the Respondent No.1- Tahsildar has passed a cryptic order as per Annexure-E which read as under: ಆೇಕ ಾಲೂಕು, ತಹೕಾರವರ ಾಾಲಯ, ಆೇಕ ಾಲೂಕು, ಆೇಕ ¥Àæ.¸ÀA.«MJ:E«Dgï/143/1980-81, ¢£ÁAPÀ:14.11.06 ºÁdj: ²æà ©.²ªÀAiÀÄå.PÉ.J.J¸ï., - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï, D£ÉÃPÀ¯ï vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, D£ÉÃPÀ¯ï. ಾಗಳ ರುzÀÝ ಪ !ಾಗಳ (1) " ೕಮ! ಯಲªÀÄä 1) $ೆ%ಯªÀÄä &' (ೕರಗಂ*ಯಲಪ+ 2) ,ಾಕ¥Àà !ಮ-ಸಂದ 3)PÁªÉÃgÀ¥Àà ಸ2ಾ3ಪ4ರ 5ೋಬ7 4) 8ನ:¥Àà 5) 8ಕ;,ಾೇರ¥Àà 6) ಕೃಷ>¥Àà (2) " ೕಮ! (ಂಗªÀÄä 7) ಾಗ?ಾಜು &' ಮು(AಾBC ,ೋಂ $ಾಪಗ 8) ಗುಳDಮ- ,ೋಂ ಕುಂಟಮು(ಗ ?ಾಮAಾಗರ 9) ?ಾಮಕ; ,ೋಂ ೇ॥ ಜಯ?ಾಂ 10) ೆಂಕಟAಾBC &' !ಟFಯ¥Àà 11) ಸಂಪಂG?ಾಮಯ &' !ಟFಯ¥Àà 12) ಾ?ಾಯಣAಾBC &' !ಟFಯ¥Àà ಎಲರೂ ಾಸ ?ಾಮAಾಗರ, ಅ!KLೆೆ 5ೋಬ7, ಆೇಕ ಾಲೂಕು ಷಯ: ಆೇಕ ಾಲೂಕು, ಅ!KLೆೆ 5ೋಬ7, ?ಾಮAಾಗರ Mಾ ಮದ ಸೆ3 ನಂ.50, 79, 102 ಮತುK 104ರ ತಳಾರು ಇಾಂ ಜCೕನುಗಳನು: ಮರು ಮಂಜೂರು Oಾಡುವ ಬMೆQ. ಪ AಾKವೆ: ಆೇಕ ಾಲೂಕು, ಅ!KLೆೆ 5ೋಬ7, ?ಾಮನಗರ Mಾ ಮದ, ತಳಾರು ಇಾಂ ಸೆ3 ನಂ.50 ರS 4-25 ಎ-ಗು, 79ರS 1-05 ಎ-ಗು. 102ರS 0-09 ಎ-ಗು ಮತುK ಸೆ3 ನಂ.104ರS 0-24 ಗುಂTೆ ಜCೕನುಗಳನು: ಮರು ಮಂಜೂ?ಾ! Oಾಡುವ ಬMೆQ ಕಾ3ಟಕ ?ಾಜ Mಾ ಮ ಕUೇ%ಗಳ ರಾ! ,ಾVWೆ 1961 ಇಸಯ X 5ರ ಅನBಯ ಈ ,ಾಾ3ಲಯದ ಪ ಕರಣ ಸಂZೆ:ಒಎ:ಇಆ:143/80-81, ಾಂಕ: 9-12-1985ರಂೆ $ಾಪ &' ೇ\ $ಾಲುಮುೆಪ+ ಮತುK ಯಲಪ+ (ಈತನು ೇ\ ,ಾೇರಪ+(Mೆ ದತುK ಮಗ) ರವ%Mೆ ಜಂ*ಾG ಮರು ಮಂಜೂರು Oಾ]ದು. ಸದ% ಮರು ಮಂಜೂರು Oಾ]ರುವ ಬMೆQ Lೆಂಗಳ^ರು Aೆಷ'_ - 21 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 ಾಾಲಯದS $ೆ%ಯಪ+ ಮತುK ಇತ?ೆ 11 ಜನರು ಎಂ.ಎ.59:01 ರಂೆ `ೕಲ-ನ ಸSದು, ಅದರಂೆ ಘನ ಾಾಲಯವ4 ಾಂಕ: 13-12-2002ರ ತನ: ಆWೇಶದS ಈ ಕUೇ%ಯ ಾಂಕ: 9-12-1985ರS Oಾ]ರುವ ಸೆ3 ನಂ.50, 79, 102 ಮತುK 104ರ ಮರು ಮಂಜೂ?ಾ! ಆWೇಶವನು: ರದುಪ] ಮರು cಾರdೆ Oಾ] ಮರು ಮಂಜೂ?ಾ! Oಾಡಲು ಆWೇ"ರುಾK?ೆ. ಾ ಮತುK ಪ !ಾಗ7Mೆ ೋ*ೕಸು (ೕ] cಾರdೆ ನeೆಸಾGWೆ. ಾ ಮತುK ಪ !ಾಗಳ ಅಹಾಲನು: ,ೇಳಾGWೆ ಮತುK ಕಡತದSನ ಐ.ಎ. ಮತುK ಬರಬಲೂ! %gಸh%ನ ತಃZೆಗಳ Wಾಖಾ!ಗಳನು: ಪkಣ3ಾG ಪ%"ೕSಸಾGWೆ. Wಾಖೆಯಂೆ ?ಾಮAಾಗರ Mಾ ಮದ `ೕಲ;ಂಡ ಜCೕನುಗಳನು: ತಳಾರು ೌಕ% Oಾಡುವ4ದ,ೆ; ಸ,ಾ3ರಂದ 8ಕ;ಗು?ೆಪ+ ರವ%Mೆ ,ೊ*hರುವ ಇಾಂ ತಳಾ% ೌಕ%ಾGರುತKWೆ. PÀಡತದS ಲಭರುವ ವಂಶವೃnದಂೆ ಸದ%ಯವರು ಪವ!ಾGದು ಇವ%Mೆ ಗುರಪ+ ಎಂಬ ಮಗ(ದು ಸದ%ಯವರು ಪವ!ಾGದು ಇವ%Mೆ ಸಯಮ- ಮತುK ಮುತKಮ- ಎಂಬ ಇಬoರು 5ೆಂಡ!ಯ%ದು. ಸದ%ಯವರುಗಳ^ ಸಹ ಪವ!ಾGರುಾK?ೆ. 1ೇ 5ೆಂಡ!Mೆ 3ನ ಜನ ಗಂಡು ಮಕ;ಳ ಮತುK 2ೇ 5ೆಂಡ!Mೆ ಒಂದು ಗಂಡು ಮಗ(ದು, ಸದ%ಯವರು ಪವ!ಾGರುಾK?ೆ. ಈ $ೈq 1ೇ 5ೆಂಡ!ಯ 3ೇ ಮಗ $ಾಲು ಮುೆಪ+ ರವರ ಮಗ $ಾಪಗ ಮತುK 2ೇ 5ೆಂಡ!ಯ ,ಾೇರಪ+ ರವರ ದತುK ಮಗ ಯಲಪ+ ರವರು ಪ AಾKFತ ಜCೕ(ನ AಾBXೕನದSದು, ಅದರಂೆ ಸದ%ಯವರ 5ೆಸ%Mೆ ಜಂ*ಾG ಮರು ಮಂಜೂ?ಾ!ಾGರುತKWೆ. ಸr7ೕಯ ಅX,ಾ%ಗ7ಂದ ವರಯನು: ,ೇಳಾG ಸದ%ಯವರು ಈ %ೕ! ವರ Oಾ]ರುಾK?ೆ. " ೕಮ! (ಂಗಮ- ,ೋಂ $ಾಪ ಮತುK " ೕಮ! ಯಲಮ- &' ,ಾೇರªÀÄäರವರು ಪ AಾKFತ ?ಾಮAಾಗರ Mಾ ಮದ ಸೆ3 ನಂ.50ರS 2-12½ ಎ-ಗುಂTೆ ಸೆ3 ನಂ.79ರS 0-22½ ಎ-ಗುಂTೆ ಗುಂTೆ, ಸೆ3 ನಂ.102ರS 0-04½ ಗುಂTೆ ಮತುK ಸೆ3 ನಂ.104ರS 0-12 ಗುಂTೆಯಂೆ ಇಬoರೂ AಾBXೕಾನುಭವದSರುಾK?ೆ. ಪ !ಾಗಳ^ ಾರೂ ?ಾಮAಾಗರ Mಾ ಮದ ತಳಾರು ೌಕ% Oಾ]ರುವ4ಲ. ಸದ%ಯವರುಗಳ^ ತಳಾರು ವಂಶಸr%Mೆ Aೇ%ರುವ4ದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂರುವ4ಲ. 5ಾಗೂ ಸದ%ಯವರು ಪ AಾKFತ ಜCೕ(ನ AಾBXೕಾನುಭವದಲೂ ಇರುವ4ಲ. ಸದ% ಜCೕನು ಾವ ಧದಲೂ ಾ%ಗೂ ಪರtಾ?ೆ Oಾ]ರುವ4ದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂರುವ4ಲ. ಅದರಂೆ ಪ AಾKತ dCೕ(ನ ಅನುಭವಂೆ ತಳಾ% ೌಕ% ವಂಶಸr%Mೆ ಮರು ಮಂಜೂ?ಾ! ಬMೆQ ಈ ,ೆಳಕಂಡಂೆ ಆWೇಶ OಾಡಾGWೆ. ಆWೇಶ ಆWೇಶ ಆWೇಶ ಆWೇಶ ªÁ¢ ಪ !ಾಗಳ ಅಹಾಲನು: ಆSಸಾGWೆ. ಕಡತದS ಲಭರುವ Wಾಖೆಗಳನು: F SCನ% ಆ.*.. ಬರಬಲೂ! %gಸh%ನ Wಾಖಾ!ಗಳನು: ಪkಣ3ಾG ಪ%"ೕSರುೆKೕೆ. ?ಾಜಸB ಇಾZೆಯ Wಾಖೆಯ ಪ ,ಾರವ4 5ಾಗೂ Mಾ ಮಸrರ ಪಂಚಾಮ ಮತುK ಸದ% Mಾ ಮದ ತಳಾ% ೌಕರರ ವಂಶವೃnದಂೆ ಸSಸಾGರುವ ತಳಾ% ೌಕ% - 22 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 ಹಕು;Wಾರರು ತಳಾರು ೌಕರರುಗvಾGದುದರS ಸಂಶಯಲ. ಇದ%ಂWಾGwೕ ಈ ಇಾಂ! ಜCೕ(ನ ಮರು ಮಂಜೂ%Mೆ ಅಹ3?ಾGರುವ4ದು. PÀæ. ಸಂ ಮಂಜೂ%Wಾರರ 5ೆಸರು ಸೆ3 ನಂಬ Kೕಣ3 1 " ೕಮ! (ಂಗಮ- ,ೋಂ ೇ\ $ಾಪ, ?ಾಮAಾಗರ Mಾ ಮ 1) 50ರS 2) 79 ರS 3)102 ರS 4)104 ರS 2-12 ½ 0-22 ½ 0-04 ½ 0-12 2 " ೕಮ! ಯಲxಮ &' ಯಲಪ+, ?ಾಮAಾಗರ Mಾ ಮ 1) 50ರS 2) 79 ರS 3)102 ರS 4)104 ರS 2-12 ½ 0-22 ½ 0-04 ½ 0-12 ಈ `ೕಲ;ಂಡ ,ಾರಣಗ7ಂWಾG ಪ*hಯS ಅ!KLೆೆ 5ೋಬ7, ?ಾಮAಾಗರ Mಾ ಮದ ತಳಾ% ೌಕ% ಇಾಂ! ಜCೕನನು: ಹಕು;Wಾರ%Mೆ ಕಾ3ಟಕ ?ಾಜದ Mಾ ಮ ಕUೇ%ಗಳ ರಾG ,ಾVWೆ 1961ರ X 5 ರಂೆ. ಮಂಜೂರು OಾಡಾGರುೆK. ಈ ಮಂಜೂ%Wಾರರು ಈ ಇಾಂ! ಜCೕನನು: ಮೂಲ ಮರು ಮಂಜೂ?ಾ! ಆWೇಶದS !7ರುವಂೆ ಾಂಕ: 7-8-1978 %ಂದ 15 ವಷ3ಗಳ ,ಾಲ ಾವ4Wೇ ಧದಲೂ ಪರtಾ?ೆ Oಾಡತಕ;ದಲ. ಆWೇಶವನು: LೆರಳಚುyMಾರ%Mೆ ಉಕKೇಖನ ,ೊಟುh Lೆರಳಚುy Oಾ] ೆ?ೆದ ಾಾಲಯದS ಾಂಕ 14.11.06 ರಂದು ಬ{ರಂಗಾG |ೂೕ}ಸಾಯುK. 21. The aforesaid order does not advert in any manner whatsoever to the serious dispute raised by the parties of there being two different persons by name Allaliyappa and Chikkagurappa purportedly the holders of two Village Offices, namely, Talawar and Neeraganti. There is no whisper in the impugned order regarding any questions - 23 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 raised, enquiry conducted, oral or documentary evidence being produced and the same being considered by the Respondent No.1-Tahsildar. Thus, as rightly pointed by the counsel for the petitioners and counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 7 there is a clear abdication of the statutory obligation casted on the respondent No.1- Tahsildar. Needless to state, matter of this nature would require determination of the rights in immovable properties in exercise of the quasi-judicial power. The Respondent No.1-Tahsildar who is vested with the judicious powers is expected to discharge his obligations in a manner known to law which is completely absent. 22. The District Court on the other hand, at paragraph 20, after extracting the facts, arguments and citations in extenso, has observed as under: "20. From the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the re-grant of land in favour of Respondents No. 2 and 3, as per the Impugned Order is not correct. However, it is to be noted here that the present dispute between the parties has seen rounds of litigation both in this Court as well as before the 1st Respondent. Therefore, to put an end to further litigation under the provisions of Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act 1961, the proper course is to be adopted is that by confirming the Impugned Order, the Appellants are directed to pursue their remedy before the competent Civil Court by filing a suit for partition as per the ratio of the above-mentioned decisions - 24 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 reported in I.L.R. – 1987 – KAR – 3155 (D.B.) (Shivappa Fakirappa Shetsanadi vs. Kannappa Mallappa Shetsanadi), I.L.R. – 1988 – KAR – 2102 (D.B.)= 1988 (2) – K.L.J. – 89 (D.B.) (Mohamedsa vs. Allisa), 1996 (2) – K.L.J. – 102 = I.L.R. 1996 – KAR – 1435 (Patel Veerabhadrappa (dead) by LRs., vs. Smt. Basamma (dead) by LR and another) and A.I.R. – 1983 – S.C. – 684 (State of Bihar vs. Radha Krishna Singh and Others). With this observation I am of opinion that the Impugned order is not capricious, arbitrary or perverse and not liable to be set aside. Hence, I answer this Point in Negative." 23. The aforesaid order passed by the District Court consequently, confirming the order passed by the Respondent-No.1-Tahsildar on the face of it, cannot be sustained either on facts or in law, inasmuch as even the District Court has not adverted to the disputed questions of fact. 24. In that view of the matter, the following: ORDER (1) The Petition is allowed. (2) Order dated 14.11.2006 at Annexure-E passed by respondent No.1-Tahsildar in Case No.VOA-EVL/143/ 1980-81 as well as the order dated 13.04.2018 as per Annexure-G passed by the District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in M.A. No.5018/2017 are quashed. - 25 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 (3) Matter is remitted to the respondent No.1-Tahsildar, who shall while adverting to the following questions as to who are the original holders of the village office namely, Talwar and Neeraganti offices attached to Ramasagara Village, Athibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, shall specifically advert to following questions; (1) Whether the petitioners have proved and justified that Alialappa was the holder of Talwar office and that they are his descendants? (2) Whether respondent Nos.2 and 3 have proved that Chikkagurappa was the holder of Talwar and Neeraganti Office and that they are his descendants? (3) Who amongst the aforesaid claimants are entitled for re-grant of lands? (4) The Respondent No.1-Tahsildar shall conduct enquiry as provided under the Act by permitting the parties to lead evidence in this matter. Thus, the Respondent No.1-Tahsildar shall pass reasoned order adverting to the aforesaid issues and any other issue which he finds necessary in the course of the inquiry. Such order shall be passed within an outer limit of 6 - 26 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010113742018 NC: 2026:KHC:36635 WP No. 34441 of 2018 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (5) Since the parties are represented by their respective counsels, they shall appear before the Tahsildar on 17.08.2026 without any further notice. (6) The impleading applicants are at liberty to approach the respondent No.1-Tahsildar and seek redressal of their grievance, if any. Accordingly, I.A.No.5/2025 and I.A.No.1/2026 stands disposed of. (7) Till disposal of the matter by the Respondent No.1- Tahsildar, the parties shall not create any third party interest or change the nature of the property. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10