Writ Petition No. 8663 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8663 OF 2017 (KVOA) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. RENUKARADHYA S/O LATE B GURUBASAVARADHYA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.22, 4TH CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 2. SHRI MALLESH S/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.766, KALAMMA TEMPLE ROAD DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 3. SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.21 KAVERAMMA TEMPLE ROAD WARD NO.16, DEVANAHALLI TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 4. SMT. LAKSHMINARASAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.114, KUMBARA ROAD, WARD NO.13, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 5. SMT. AKKAIAHMMA W/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.77A, YELAHANKA ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 6. SMT. S. K. JAVEEDH, S/O LATE BAJISAB, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.129C, MASIDI ROAD, WARD NO.4, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. (DECEASED AND RESPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) a. b. c. SMT. JAMMARUD BEGUM W/O. SHRI. S.K. JAVEED AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.129C, MASIDI ROAD, WARD NO.4, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. SHRI. AFROZ S/O. SHRI. S.K. JAVEEDH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.129C, MASIDI ROAD, WARD NO.4, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. SHRI. MUBARAK S.H. S/O. SHRI. S.K. JAVEEDH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.129C, MASIDI ROAD, WARD NO.4, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. d. SHRI WAHEED S/O. SHRI S.K. JAVEED AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 RESIDING AT NO.129C, MASIDI ROAD, WARD NO.4, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. e. f. g.
Legal Reasoning
SHRI. VAJEED S/O. SHRI S.K. JAVEED AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.129C, MASIDI ROAD, WARD NO.4, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. SHRI. SHABEER S/O. SHRI S.K. JAVEED AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.129C, MASIDI ROAD, WARD NO.4, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. SMT. SHAHANAZ S.I. D/O. SHRI S.K. JAVEEDH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.129C, MASIDI ROAD, WARD NO.4, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 7. SHRI. NAGARAJA S/O KRISHNAJIRAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.15-2, BEHIND CHOULTRY, WARD NO.6, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 8. SHRI. ANNAYYAPPA S/O LATE HIKKARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.67, MHANTHI MUTT WARD NO.15 DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 9. SHRI. MARAPPA S/O LATE MUNIMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT PUTTAPPANA TEMPLE ROAD, WARD NO.20, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 10. SMT. MARIMUTTU S/O SUBBAIAH DEVARU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.806, SHANTHINAGAR, WARD NO.22, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562110. 11. SHRI. JAYANNA S/O PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.937, MAJJIGE ROAD, WARD NO.14, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 12. SHRI. P NAGARAJA, S/O LATE PUTTACHARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.15, NEAR CARMEL SCHOOL DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 13. SHRI. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.149-A KUMBARA ROAD, WARD NO.13 MARALUBAGILU, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 14. SHRI. MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE GANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.113 CHALAPATHI ROAD - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 WARD NO.15, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 15. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT WARD NO.22, D V M COLONY, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 16. SHRI MARIYAPPACHAR S/O NYANACHAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.438, PATELSHETTAPPA ROAD WARD NO.3, DEVANAHALI TOWN - 562 110. 17. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O NARAYANAMURTHI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.3 MASIDI ROAD DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 18. SHRI. NARASIMHAPPA, S/O SALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22, D V M COLONY, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 19. SMT. SHASHIKALA, W/O LATE SHRIRAMAPPA, AGEDA BOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.802, WARD NO.20, PUTTAPPANAGUDI BEEDI, CHANNARAYAPATTANA ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TWON - 562 110. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 20. SMT. NAGAJOTHI W/O LATE GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.20 PUTTANAGUDI ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TWON - 562 110. 21. SMT. NAJAMUNNISA, W/O NAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.19, PUTTANAGUDI ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 22. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.20, PUTTANAGUDI ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 23. SMT. BAGYAMMA, W/O KESHAVAMURTHI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT 155, KUMBARABEEDI DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 24. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O CHANNARAJU (NAGARAJU) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.6, SAROVARA BEEDI, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 25. SHRI. VENUGOPALAIAH, S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.159, KUMBARA BEEDI, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 26. SHRI. GURURANGAIAH, S/O LATE CHIKKANALLURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAILWAY STATION ROAD WARD NO.2, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 27. SHRI. MARIYAPPA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.6, AGASARA BEEDI, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 28. SHRI NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WARD NO.13, KUMBARABEEDI, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 29. SHRI. SEENAPPA, S/O ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 30. SMT. BEERAMMA , W/O LATE BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT WARD NO.5 YALAHANKABEEDI DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 31. SMT. NARAYANAMMA, W/O MUNI VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.17, DASARA BEEDI, DEVANAHALLI TWON - 562 110. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 32. SMT. NANJAMMA, W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.19, PUTTANAGUDI BEEDI, CHANNARAYAPATTANA ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 33. SHRI. N. JAGADISH, S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.11, MARALUBAGILU, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110. 34. SHRI. DODDAMUNIMARAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAMARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.22, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110. 35. SHRI. RAJAMMA W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.9, PARVATHIPURA ROAD, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110. 36. SMT. GAURAMMA, W/O NANJUNDAYYA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVANAHALLI VILLAGE TOWN 4TH DIVISION, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110. 37. SHRI. HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.52A, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 TALUK OFFICE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110. (DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) a. b. SMT. SAVITHA W/O. SHRI RAVICHANDRA B. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 69, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, BANGALORE- 560 092. SHRI H. NAGARAJ S/O. SHRI HANUMANTHAPPA NO. 69, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, BHARATH NAGAR, BYDARAHALLI SUNKADKATTE, VISHWANEDAM, BANGALORE- 560 091. 38. SMT. RAMEE JABEE, W/O SAIYADGOUSE SAB, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.467, HARIJAN COLONY, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110. 39. SHRI. CHALUVAPPA, S/O LATE SHRI GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.556, D V M COLONY, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. CHANDRANTH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR P3 TO P6, P11, P15, P18, P20, P21, P26, P29 AND P30; SRI. KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE FOR P24, P34, P36 AND P38 (VK RETURNED IN O/O'S) V/O. DATED 22.02.2023, SRI. H.K. DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE (VK NOT FILED); - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 V/O. DATED 23.01.2025, PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER NOS. P3, P35 AND P39 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESEED; V/O. DATED 23.01.2025, PETITION FILED BY P23 IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION; V/O. DATED 23.01.2025, PETITION FILED BY P1, P2, P7 TO P10, P12, P14, P17, P19, P22, P27, P28, P31, P32, P33 AND P37 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED; V/O. DATED 18.01.2023, P16 AND P25 ARE DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS; V/O. DATED 23.01.2025, PETITION FILED BY PETITIONERS P3 TO P16, P11, P15, P18, P20, P21, P26, P29 AND P30, SURVIVES FOR CONSIDERATION) AND: 1. 2. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER, DR B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. TAHASILDHAR, DEVNAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TOWN-562 110. SHRI D. S. ADINARAYANA S/O LATE D. R. SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A VENUGOPALA TEMPLE STREET, DEVANAHLLI TOWN-562 110. 3(a) SMT. B.R. JAYASHREE, W/O. LATE ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 3(b) 3(c) SRI. ASHWIN, S/O. LATE ADINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, SRI. ARVIND, S/O. LATE ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ALL RESIDING AT SHANTHINAGAR SOUTH, VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. GIRISH R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A TO C); SRI. VINOD KUMAR B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.A.NO.15005/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.8.2016 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED THEREIN AND ALLOW M.A.NO.15005/2015. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed impugning the order dated 16.08.2016 in M.A. No.15005/2015 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Devanahalli. The petitioners who are pursuing this petition claim to be the grantees of certain sites under Ashraya Scheme under Devanahalli Town Municipality. The aforementioned impugned order is passed in an appeal from an order in a proceeding order dated 30.08.2005 passed by the Tahsildar in HOA. No.158/1979-80. In terms of the said order passed by the Tahsildar, the property in question measuring 6 acres 6 guntas in survey No.70 of Akkupete village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Town is regranted to 3rd respondent. The District Court has affirmed the order of the Tahasildar. 2. The entire extent of survey No.70 before its subdivision was 9 acres 10 guntas. The father of 3rd respondent by name Srinivasa Murthy filed an application seeking regrant of 1/3rd share. The said application seeking regrant of 1/3rd share was allowed in terms of order dated 25.04.1984. Thereafter, the remaining 6 acres 6 guntas was found to be a land for which there was no claims by any one for regrant. The Government noticing this, has transferred the said property - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 measuring 6 acres 6 guntas of the Town Municipality, Devanahalli in terms of an order dated 14.11.1991. The petitioners further submit that the Municipality taken a decision to form sites and to allot sites in favour of deserving beneficiaries in respect of the land transferred to the Town Municipality, Devanahalli and accordingly, the beneficiaries were identified the position of the sites in the aforementioned 6 acres 6 guntas of land have been transferred to the allottees. 3. The petitioners further alleged that some of them had put up a structure in the sites allotted and some were unauthorisedly removed by respondent No.4 and later, the petitioners realised that there is an order passed on 30.08.2005. Whereas 6 acres 6 guntas as aforementioned in Survey No.70 is said to have been regranted to 3rd respondent. Petitioners alleged that earlier order not granting 6 acres 6 guntas in Survey No.70 has attained finality and in the earlier order, it is noticed that none has filed application for regrant and the Government has taken position and transferred the property to the Town Municipality and without Town Municipality being made a party to the said proceeding, the land could not have been regranted to 3rd respondent. It is - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 further alleged that before passing the said order, the Tahsildar had already passed an order rejecting the application vide order dated 25.02.1997 and said order having attained finality and said order not being questioned, the same proceeding could not have been proceeded further to consider the claim for regrant. It is further stated that after having rejected the application for regrant in the said proceedings, the Tahsildar without any jurisdiction, proceeded to hear the application for regrant on the premise that there is one more application filed by 3rd respondent seeking regrant. 4. It is further contended that in the year 2010, writ petition No.6628/2010 is filed for writ of mandamus to consider the application for regrant in respect of aforementioned survey No.70 measuring 6 acres 6 guntas and in the said proceedings, the State was made a party. The Town Municipal Council, Devenahalli was also made a party and both the State and Town Municipal Council did not bring it to the notice of this Court that the property have already granted to the Town Municipal Council. Under these circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court issued a direction to consider the application for regrant. However, despite a direction issued by - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 this Court in the said proceedings, the application is not yet considered. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said writ petition is filed by suppressing all the material facts and if at all, the application for regrant was not yet considered and that made 3rd respondent to file a Writ Petition seeking writ of mandamus. The proceeding which is now questioned before District Judge could not have taken at all. Thus, it is contended that the proceeding, which is questioned before the District Judge is an anti dated proceeding, where the orders sheet has been inserted after the rejection of the claim for regrant in terms of earlier order dated 25.02.1997. The petitioners contend that the learned District Judge committed an error in not noticing this fact and erroneously rejected the petition on the premise that there is no valid grant in favour of the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 would jointly submit that earlier the father of 3rd respondent filed an application seeking regrant of land in Survey No.70, which measured 9 acres 10 guntas in Akkupete Village, Devanahalli. The application was allowed in part. The Tahsildar granted 1/3rd share in the said property vide order - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 dated 25.04.1984. Thereafter, the Government noticed that for the remaining extent of 6 acres 6 guntas of land, there is no application filed by anyone claiming regrant. Thus, the property is stated to have been Government property and later the property is transferred to Devanahalli Town Municipality vide order dated 14.11.1991. He would submit that the time for filing an application for regrant was extended vide circular dated 09.10.1998 and time was extended upto 30.06.1999. Noticing the new window being opened for filing the application for regrant, the father of 3rd respondent who was in possession of property moved an application on 19.12.1998 seeking regrant. It is submitted that said application is filed before the stipulated date. Thus, he would contend that the property does not vest with the Town Municipality, Devanahalli and the Government was competent to decide the claim for regrant and same was considered by the Tahsildar for following the procedure and the properties granted in favour of father of 3rd respondent. 6. Learned counsel would also contend that when the WP No.6628/2010 was filed before this Court, the petitioner in the said petition was not aware of the order passed by the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 Tahsildar. If he was aware of the order passed by the Tahsildar, there was no need for him to file the writ petition seeking a direction to consider the application for regrant. It is also his contention that the fact that he moved an application before the Tahsildar, was very much disclosed and there is no suppression of material fact. 7. It is also his contention that the claim made by the petitioners that property is formed into several sites and petitioners are put in possession of the sites by the Town Municipality, Devanahalli, is incorrect as the hakku patra produced by the petitioners would reveal that on 19.11.1991, the grantees were put in possession of the property. Whereas the records would indicate that the Tahasildar allegedly transferred the possession of the property to Town Municipality, Devanahalli on 20.11.1991. Thus, he would contend that the contention that the sites have been allotted to the petitioners is untenable and before taking possession of the property, the property could not have been transferred to the allottees. It is also his further contention that no layout is formed and without forming the layout, without preparing the sketch, it is not possible to identify the survey number as well as the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 boundaries of the property and all those hakku patras produced by the petitioners are not the valid documents to uphold that the sites were formed and have been transferred in favour of the petitioners. Thus he would urge that the petition needs to be dismissed. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 9. Certain facts are not in dispute that the land bearing Sy. No.70 in Akkupete Village, Devanahalli Taluk, bearing No.70 totally measured 9 acres and 10 guntas. 3rd respondent's father namely D.R. Srinivasmurthy filed an application seeking regrant of 1/3rd share in the said property. Said application is allowed granting 1/3rd share vide order dated 25.04.1984. It is also forthcoming from the record that on 14.11.1991, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order transferring the property in favour of Town Municipality, Devanahalli. The report of the Tahsildar would indicate that on 20.11.1991, Tahsildar transferred the possession of the property to Town Municipality, Devanahalli. Whether this transfer is valid in accordance with law, is a point to be - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 considered. However, it is noticed that Town Municipality, Devanahalli is not made a party to the proceeding before the Tahsildar. Whether Town Municipality, Devanahalli has any claim over the property or not, has to be adjudicated by issuing notice to Town Municipality, Devanahalli. 10. It is also noticed that in WP No.6628/2010 Town Municipality, Devanahalli was read as respondent No.2. It is also forthcoming from Annexure-M dated 10.10.2012, the Chief Officer of Town Municipality, Devanahalli has addressed a letter to Tahsildar, Devanahalli claiming right over the property on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The said order is dated 14.11.1991. It is also noticed from the said Annexure-M dated 10.10.2012, that the Municipal Officer has asserted allotment of sites in favour of the petitioners before this Court. 11. The Tahasildar, Devanahalli, while considering the application seeking regrant in respect of remaining 6 acre 6 guntas of land was under obligation to issue notice to Town Municipality, Devanahalli in whose favour the land is said to have been transferred vide order dated 14.11.1991. Hence, - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 Town Municipality, Devanahalli was a necessary party to the said proceedings. 12. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners before this Court are claiming right over the property on the basis of hakku patra said to have been issued by Town Municipality, Devanahalli. Whether hakku patra dated 19.11.1991 would indicate transfer of possession on the said date or is just an indication of the fact that the properties have been allotted, is another matter which requires to be considered. When the possession is transferred to the petitioners, if at all the layout was formed and sites were formed and the sites were allotted to the petitioners, is again a matter which requires consideration. Admittedly, the petitioners were not parties before the Tahsildar, Devanahalli. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the Tahsildar erred in passing the impugned order at Annexure-B. The entire proceedings before the Tahsildar is vitiated for not issuing notice to the petitioners as well as the Town Municipality, Devanahalli. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the application was filed by the petitioners seeking certified copies of the records maintained by the office of the Tahsildar in connection with the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 present case, the petitioners were informed that the records are not available. This Court had directed the learned Government Advocate to secure the records and the original records are now secured and placed before this Court. Since the matter is disposed of, the records have to be returned to the Tahsildar. However, the petitioners are permitted to file an application for certified copies of the documents found in these original records and after issuing a certified copy, the Registry shall return the same to the learned Government Advocate. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the application was filed by the petitioners seeking certified copies of the records maintained by the office of the Tahsildar in connection with the present case, the petitioners were informed that the records are not available. This Court had directed the learned Government Advocate to secure the records and the original records are now secured and placed before this Court. Since the matter is disposed of, the records have to be returned to the Tahsildar. However, the petitioners are permitted to file an application for certified copies of the documents found in these original records and after issuing a - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 certified copy, the Registry shall return the same to the learned Government Advocate. Hence, the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order dated 30.08.2005 passed by the Tahsildar, Devanahalli in HOA No.158/1979-80, is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to Tahsildar, Devanahalli to consider the matter afresh. (iv) It is relevant to note that before this Court some of the petitioners have entered into settlement with 4th respondent and have given up their claim. Those petitioners are petitioners No.1, 2, 7 to 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 22, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 23, 37, 13, 35 and 39. Hence, there is no need to issue notice to the said petitioners as they have no claim over the property in question. (v) The other petitioners who have pursued the matter shall be heard and Town Municipality, - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:5423 WP No. 8663 of 2017 Devanahalli shall also be made a party to the proceeding before the Tahsildar. (vi) The parties shall appear before jurisdictional Tahsildar on 10.03.2025 without any further notice from the Tahsildar. (vii) This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. (viii) All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS/DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27