Rajappa A. and Venkatesh A. vs The State of Karnataka and Others

B.V. Nagarathna, J.—The Order of the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, dated 12/07/1984 is assailed by the grand-children of one Karakappa, holder of the Village Office, in these writ petitions. It is the case of the petitioners that Karaka @ Karakappa son of Hanuma was the holder of the Village Office at Bannerghatta Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District. That Sy. Nos. 8, 15, 39, 46, 48, 218 and 220 were attached to the said Village Office. Subsequent to the enforcement of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act 1961, Karakappa filed an application for re-grant of the aforesaid lands along with others namely, Muniswamy and Narasappa. The order of re-grant was yet to be passed. When the matter stood thus, certain proceedings were initiated by the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, under the provisions of the Act with regard to unauthorized occupation of the aforesaid lands by certain persons. In fact, insofar as those proceedings are concerned, they have culminated in the order dated 12/07/1984, wherein it has been held that the sales made by the holders of the Village Office to various persons were valid. That order has been made by following the decision of this Court in the case of Lakshmana Gowda and others Vs. State of Karnataka, . It is stated that Karkappa died in the year 2002 and he was not a party to the proceedings before the Tahsildar. The petitioners have also assailed the endorsement dated 22/05/2012 in which it has been stated that by order dated 12/07/1984 the matter has been concluded and at this stage it cannot be reopened. That endorsement is also challenged in these writ petitions.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the material on record.

It is contended that petitioners'' grand-father late Karkappa was not arrayed as party in case No. VOA. EVR 94/79-80 and the order dated 12/07/1984 is passed without issuing notice to the petitioners'' grand-father and without his participation, the proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar at Annexure-M is also bad in law.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the endorsement, it is rioted that the impugned order dated 12/07/1984 was in respect of the proceedings to find out as to whether the respondents therein were in authorized occupation of the lands in question as they were attached to the Village Offices. In that order, it is noted that Sri. Karkappa the holder of the Village Office had sold the land in. Sy. No. 220 under a registered sale deed dated 08/05/1968 to one Smt. Munabai and that Munabai in turn sold the land to one Narasappa. Therefore, Munabai and Narasappa were arrayed as parties to the proceedings to find out as to whether the parties are in authorized occupation or not.

Following Lakshmana Gowda''s case, the Tahsildar held that the lands were sold after the enforcement of the Act and before 07/08/1978 and therefore, the transactions were valid and the respondents were in authorized occupation of the lands. Following that order, the endorsement dated 22/05/2012 has been issued. From this it becomes clear that having alienated Sy. No. 220 by a registered sale deed dated 08/05/1968, Sri. Karkappa had lost his right, title and interest in respect of that land. The purchasers had title to that land which was subject to re-grant. In Lakshmana Gowda''s case, the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that if the holder or the authorized holder of a Service Inam Land had alienated it after the Act coming into force and before it was re-granted to him under Sections 5 or 6, as the case may be, the alienee acquired a title to that land after such re-grant from his alienor on the principle of feeding the grant by estoppel.

In the impugned order, what the Tahsildar concluded was that the occupants of the lands were in authorized occupation having purchased the lands under the registered sale deeds. Therefore, the petitioners herein who are the grant-children of late Karkappa who had alienated the land in the year 1968 have in fact no locus standi to assail the order dated 12/07/1984. That apart, in case the land is re-granted in the name of late Sri. Karkappa, that would enure to the benefit of the purchasers of the land. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has also been followed by the Full Bench in Syed Bhasheer Ahamed and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, . That apart there is exorbitant delay in assailing the order of the year 1984 in the year 2013. Therefore, the writ petitions have to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches also. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are rejected.