MUNIVENKATASWAMY Vs. MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the claim of the petitioner that Channahalli in Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore District was an inam village under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Inams Abolition Act', for brevity).

(2.) It transpires that one Muniveerappa had sought for grant of occupancy rights of land in Sy.No.58 to the extent of 20 guntas claiming that he was a permanent tenant under the inamdar. An order was passed in his favour granting such right on the footing that he was a permanent tenant in terms of Section 5 of the Inams Abolition Act. Similarly, one Thoti Muniga also had made an application for grant of land in Sy.No.58 measuring 20 guntas, as a permanent tenant and an order was granted in his favour in terms of Annexure-"B" to the writ petition and thereafter, endorsements were issued in this regard in favour of the said grantees dated 3.2.1964. Occupancy rights in their favour was duly conferred and entered in the appropriate register. It is claimed that they had remained in possession as owners thereof. Under a registered sale deed dated 22.09.1966, the said occupants had sold 1 acre and 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.58/1 including kharab land of 6 guntas to one B.H. Narayan Swamy, S/o. Hanumanthappa. Later, the widow of Narayan Swamy is said to have sold the land to the petitioner under a sale deed dated 27.06.1996, and the petitioner claims to be in possession of the same.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that apart from several other proceedings in relation to the land in question, there were proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar, the sixth respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KVOA Act' for brevity). He is said to have passed an order of re-grant in favour of Respondents 1 to 5, jointly, in respect of an extent of 1 acre 6 guntas of land bearing Sy.No.58, placing reliance mainly on the entry in the Index of Lands and Record of Rights, which indicated the land to be "sthala inamti". Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is said to have preferred an appeal before the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District. The said appeal having been dismissed holding that the order of grant of occupancy in favour of the appellant's predecessors in title, were without jurisdiction, and that the regrant made in favour of Respondents 1 to 5 was valid, the present writ petition is filed.