Writ Appeal No. 833 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9042-DB WA No. 833 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO.833 OF 2023 (KVOA) BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
SRI. G.S.NARAYANA RAO S/O LATE N SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU – 560 067 (BY SRI. VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C A AJITH, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE TAHSILDAR KRISHNARAJAPURA BENGALURU EAST TALUK 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR NADA KACHERI BIDARAHALLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK – 560 067 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9042-DB WA No. 833 of 2023 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR KADUGODI CIRCLE, BIDARAHALLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK – 560 067 5. SRI SEENAPPA AGED MAJOR, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA R/AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK – 560 067 6. SRI ANJINAPPA AGED MAJOR, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA R/AT LAGUMENAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK – 560 067 7. SMT BYAMMA AGED MAJOR, W/O LATE NARANAPPA R/AT NO.123, (OLD NO.108), MATHRU NILAYA, BANASHANAKRI III STAGE KATHRIGUPPE, BENGALURU – 560 085 8. N REDDAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O N MUNIRATHNAMMA REDDY R/AT NO.401, “SAI KRUPA HEERA”, 1ST MAIN, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 093 9. SRI LOKESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA R/AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TLAUK – 560 067 (BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. HEMANT KUMAR D, ADVOCATE FOR R8) …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9042-DB WA No. 833 of 2023 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.14136/2018 (KVOA) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) We have heard Mr.Vijay Krishna Bhat, Advocate for the appellant, Mr.Hemant Kumar D., Advocate for the respondent No.8 caveator/contesting party and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The challenge in this appeal is primarily to the order dated 16.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.14136/2018 whereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein by stating in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 as under:- “11. Admittedly, petitioners' claim is based on entries in khetwar register etc. While passing impugned order, learned District Judge has considered relevancy of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9042-DB WA No. 833 of 2023 entries in khetwar register as well as other records produced by petitioner and specific finding is recorded that said entries would themselves indicate that lands in question were not Inam lands. Said conclusion is fortified by referring to conduct of petitioner's father, who had filed application and obtained re-grant in respect of other Inam lands, but maintained silence in respect of these lands. Moreover, claim for declaration of title as legatee under WILL dated 10.07.1922 in O.S.no.1343/2008 and not as Inamdar would also indicate that said lands were not Inam lands. 12. On above reasoning, learned District had arrived at a finding of fact. In absence of establishing that said conclusion was contrary to material on record or arrived ignorance of relevant material, cannot be at interfered with in writ Jurisdiction.” in 3. The submission of Mr.Vijay Krishna Bhat, Advocate for the appellant is that the claim in the suit of which a reference has been made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.11, being O.S.No.1343/2008, was as a legatee and not as an Inamdar is not tenable. But, he do concede to the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the father of the appellant who had filed an application for grant of Inam lands did not include the petition lands being Sy.Nos.63 and 82 (as is clear from page No.53 of the paper book). In this regard, we may reproduce paragraph No.19 of the judgment of the learned I Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9042-DB WA No. 833 of 2023 M.A.No.39/2007 dated 07.03.2018, wherein the following has been stated:- “19. As discussed above, it is an admitted fact that father of the appellant Sri. Seenappa and his two brothers had filed application for re-grant of land in various Survey numbers of Bemmenahalli and Nimbekaipura Villages. In that application Sy.No.63 and 82 of Bommenahalli village were not included. There is no explanation by the appellant why those two properties were not included in the application filed by his father and uncles, if really those properties were inam lands. That shows, as they were not Inam lands, appellant's father and his brothers did not put up their claim in respect of said two survey numbers seeking re- grant order under the Act. Otherwise, there was no possibility to exclude only these two properties and include all other properties. Adding to that, the appellant's father and two brothers did not challenge the re-grant order during their life time. The appellant who claims right through his father can not claim something not urged or asserted by his father or right not available to his father.” 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as a fresh application has been made, liberty be granted to the appellant to pursue the same before the Tahsildar. We find that the learned Single Judge had noted a similar submission in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order, but has not granted the liberty and
Decision
dismissed the writ petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9042-DB WA No. 833 of 2023 5. If that be so, the final conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order more particularly, when the conclusion is on a finding of fact, the same cannot be interfered with. That apart, it is not the case of the appellant that the conclusion arrived is contrary to material on record. We do not see any merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25