Kamalamma, Sri A.E. Shivashankara, Sri A.E. Somasekhara and Sri A.E. Rajasekhara vs Chandravathi and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order dated 14.12.2009 in Misc. Appeal No. 2/2005 of the Additional District Judge, Shimoga, Annexure ''H'', what calls for decision making lies in a narrow compass. The question is:

Whether the District Judge was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the holder of the village office to which was attached the lands in Sy. Nos. 264 and 272 disentitling the petitioners-purchasers of the said lands for a re-grant of the said lands in their favour under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (for short, "the KVOA Act")?

The answer to this question is no more res integra in the light of the law laid down by the Full Bench in Syed Bhasheer Ahamed and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, which reads thus:

xxx

(C) Alienation of Service Inam Land between 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978, by a holder or an authorised holder before re-grant, is not invalid, as he had a vested right to get re-grant and as there was no bar regarding alienation during that period; but the alienee will be a person with imperfect title entitled to continue in possession and when the land is re-granted to the alienor, the title obtained by the alienor will enure to the benefit of the alienee;

(d) xxx

(e) The alienee between 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978 has no right to seek re-grant in his own name and his right is only to claim the benefit of doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel as and when re-grant is made to his alienor under Sections 5(1) or 6; and for this purpose he may support or pursue any application for re-grant in favour of his alienor;

XXX

The District Judge, in my considered opinion, was fully justified in allowing the appeal, to set aside the order of the Tahsildar directing re-grant of the lands in question in favour of the petitioners, at the instance of the legal representatives of the deceased holder of the inam by name, Jeevappa.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the original holder of the inam had filed an application on 02.01.1967 for re-grant of the lands in question invoking Section 3 of the KVOA Act pending before the Tahsildar and hence a direction be issued to the Tahsildar to conclude the said proceeding and pass an order re-granting the land in favour of respondents 1 to 7, the legal representatives of the deceased Jeevappa, so as to enable the petitioners to secure the benefit of perfecting their title by invoking the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel.

Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submits that no such application is filed by Jeevappa during his life time.

The dispute as to whether or not Jeevappa has filed an application, is not for consideration before this Court. If an application is filed, it is the duty of the Tahsildar to conclude the proceedings under the KVOA Act without any further delay after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law. Subject to what is stated supra, petition stands rejected.