Sri. Chikkagundappa v. The Assistant Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 35097 OF 2024 (KVOA) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI. CHIKKAGUNDAPPA, S/O LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶2SRI. DODDANANJUNDAPPA, S/O LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶3SRI. ANJINAPPA, S/O LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶4SRI. RAMANJINAPPA, S/O LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶5SRI. CHIKKANANJUNDAPPA, S/O LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶6SMT. NANJAMMA, D/O LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶7SRI. MUNIANJINAPPA, by ANNAPURNA G Location: High Court of Karnataka e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42718 WP(No.(35097(of(2024 CNR:(KAHC010748872024 S/O,LATE,A.,THIRUMALAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS,,,

8., SMT.,ANADAMMA,, D/O,LATE,A.,THIRUMALAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,52,YEARS,,,

9., SRI.,RAJANNA,, S/O,LATE,A.,THIRUMALAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS,,,

¶10SRI.,GANGADHARA,, S/O,LATE,RATHNAMMA,,, AGED,ABOUT,35,YEARS,,,

¶11SMT.,ARUNA,, D/O,LATE,RATHNAMMA,,, AGED,ABOUT,32,YEARS,,,

¶12SRI.,DEVARAJU,, S/O,LATE,RATHNAMMA,,, AGED,ABOUT,29,YEARS,,,

¶13SRI.,MUNIMARAPPA,, S/O,LATE,CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,75,YEARS,,,

¶14SRI.,RAJANNA,, S/O,LATE,MUNIANJINAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,52,YEARS,,,

¶15SMT.,MUTHAMMA,, W/O,LATE,GUNDAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,65,YEARS,,, e -e3e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42718 WP(No.(35097(of(2024 CNR:(KAHC010748872024

¶16SMT.,ANANDAMMA,, D/O,LATE,GUNDAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEARS,,,

¶17SRI.,RAMANJINAPPA,, S/O,LATE,CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS,,,

¶18SRI.,MUNIYAPPA,, S/O,LATE,CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,55,YEARS,,, ALL,ARE,RESIDENTS,OF,, LINGANAHALLI,VILLAGE,,, KASABA,HOBLI,-,561,203,,, DODDABALLAPURA,TALUK,,, BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT., (PETITIONERS,NO.1,,7,,13,,15,AND,17,ARE,NOT, SEEKING,BENEFITS,OF,SENIOR,CITIZENSHIP), REPRESENTED,BY,THEIR,G.P.A.,HOLDER, SRI.,RAVIKUMAR,R.,S/O,RUDRACHAR,, AGED,ABOUT,51,YEARS,,, R/AT,NO.126,,SATWIKA,,, TH15 ,CROSS,,MAHALAKSHMI,LAYOUT,,, BENGALURU,-,560,086., (COPY,OF,GPA,IS,PRODUCED,AT,PAGE,NO.37), …PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.,VARAPRASAD,K.,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER,, DODDABALLAPURA,SUB-DIVISION,, DODDABALLAPURA,-,561,203,,, e -e4e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42718 WP(No.(35097(of(2024 CNR:(KAHC010748872024 BANGALORE,RURAL,DISTRICT.,

2., THE,TAHSILDAR,, DODDABALLAPURA,TALUK,,, DODDABALLAPURA,-,561,203,,, BANGALORE,RURAL,DISTRICT.,

3., SMT.,AKKAYAMMA,, W/O,LATE,MUNIANJINAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,59,YEARS,,,

4., SRI.,ANJINAPPA,, S/O,LATE,THIMMAIAH,,, AGED,ABOUT,61,YEARS,,,

5., SMT.,JAYAMMA,, W/O,LATE,HANUMANTHAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS,,,

6., SMT.,ANJINAMMA,, D/O,LATE,HANUMANTHAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,66,YEARS,,,

7., SMT.,ASHWATHAMMA,, D/O,LATE,HANUMANTHAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,61,YEARS,,,

8., SMT.,RATHNAMMA,, D/O,LATE,HANUMANTHAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS,, RESPONDENTS,NO.3,TO,8,ARE, R/O,LINGANAHALLI,(ANCHARAHALLI),,, KASABA,HOBLI,-,561,203,,,

DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶9SRI. GUNDAPPA, S/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O LINGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI - 561 203, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SRINIVAS KUMAR M., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.DINESH KUMAR K RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3 - R8; NOTICE TO R9 HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED

28.02.2025)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE NO. HOA(CR)04/2024-25 VIDE ANNX-F IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES; DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 10.12.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE VIDE ANNX-D IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER

¶1Petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by respondent No.2-Tahsildar, in terms of which, he has rejected the

application filed by the petitioners seeking impleadment in the proceedings in Case No. HOA/CR/04/2024-25 (Old No. VOA/69/1968-69). The reason assigned for rejection of the application is non-furnishing of genealogy by the petitioners.

¶2Learned counsel for petitioners taking this Court through the records submits that the lands in Survey No.129 measuring 05 acres 14 guntas and Survey No.130 measuring 01 acre 39 guntas were attached to the office of Thalari and Neeraganti, Linganahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk. The holder of the said office was one Anugana Hanumantappa also known as Nanjunda, son of Thirumaliga alias Thirumalappa, who apparently had one son Gunda and who in turn had two sons namely, Thalavara Munithirumaliga also known as Munithirumaliga and Thimma also known as Thimmaiah. The petitioners are the decedents of the said holder of the office. In the earlier proceedings before the Assistant

Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, in Case No. VOA/DBP/69/1968-69, the aforesaid lands were granted jointly in the names of father of petitioner Nos.1 to 6 and father of petitioners No.7 to 9, along with others whose names are shown in the cause title of the said order as respondents. Things stood thus, the present respondents No.1 to 7 have yet again approached the Tahsildar alleging that in the earlier grant their names have been left out. The respondent No.2-Tahsildar has re-opened the said proceedings by assigning the new number HOA/CR/04/2024-25. It is under these circumstances, petitioners have filed an impleading application which has been rejected by the impugned order. Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the Tahsildar is unsustainable and seeks for quashing of the same.

¶3Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 ,on the other hand submits that as per the RTC extracts produced by the petitioners, the

said lands are still shown as 'Talavara Saukari Inamthi and Kalavara Saukri Inamthi' and there is no reference with regard to grant made if any. Therefore, he submits that the very re-grant order made in favour of the petitioners required to be verified.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, on a query by this Court as to whether the private respondents also claiming their lineage from a common ancestor, he answers the same in the affirmative. Thus, from the above facts and the submissions, what emanates is that by order dated 26.05.1972 produced at Annexure A, lands in Survey No.129 measuring 05 acres 14 guntas and in Survey No.130, measuring 01 acre 39 guntas of Linganahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, which are purportedly attached to the Village Office of Talvari Inamti, appears to have been re-granted in favour of certain persons, namely,

(1) Sri. Venkataramanappa; (2) Anjini; (3) Gunda;

(4) Marappa; (5) Thirumalappa; (6) Chikamuniyappa and

(7) Munianjinappa. Petitioners herein claim to be the descendants of Marappa and Thirumalappa.

¶5The respondent No.2 -Tahasildar, ought not to have rejected the application of the petitioners merely for the reason of they non-production of the genealogy without providing them an opportunity regarding the same.

¶6Another aspect of the matter to be seen is, there is no dispute between petitioners on the one hand and the private respondents on the other hand, of they being the descendants of common ancestors. The question of reopening the matter would also not arise, as the grant made in favour of one member of the family would enure to the benefit of other members of the family and the appropriate course of action for the members would be to seek partition before a Court of competent jurisdiction. This is, however, subject to parties admitting to they being

the descendants of common ancestor. The Tahsildar shall keep this also in mind.

¶7However, since learned Additional Government Advocate has raised serious doubt, with regard to the nature of land and to the very order of re-grant produced as Annexure-A, the Tahsildar shall verify the genuineness or otherwise of the said order.

¶8With the above observation, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.12.2024 is quashed. The respondent No.2-Tahsildar shall consider the application filed by the petitioners for impleading, keeping in mind the above observation made herein above and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46