T RAMAREDDY Vs. TAHSILDAR BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or any order or direction directing the 1st respondent to regularise the sale in favour of the petitioner by accepting the necessary fee as per full bench decision of this Hon'ble court. He has also prayed for quashing of order dated 20-11-1993 passed by the ii additional district and sessions judge, kolar, in m. a. 72 of 1988 (Annexure-F) and for quashing of order dated 30-10-1987 bearing case No. Ina. 125:86-87 (Annexure-E) passed by the respondent 1 so far as it relates to claim of the respondents 2 and 5 for entire land of sy. No. 57 of kallavihosahalli village. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent 1 not to evict the petitioner without due course of law.

(2.) THE facts of the case in nutshell are that, the village offices abolition act of 1963, hereinafter referred to as the "act" came into force on 1-2-1963. The land of sy. No. 57 measuring 8 acres 7 guntas, according to the petitioner, was service inam land attached to thoti office of kullavihosahalli and Sri Byappa, S/o. Badigeppa, respondent 2 in the writ petition and a. k. narayanappa, husband of 5th respondent in the writ petition, who were the thoti office holders of kullavihosahalli, according to the petitioner, were in possession and enjoyment of the land in question as on the date of coming into force of the act. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner purchased 2 acres 20 guntas of said land from byappa, respondent 2 in the writ petition, vide agreement of sale dated 12-5-1969 (Annexure-A) to the writ petition) for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- and an area of 2 acres of land of sy. No. 57 from doddalak-shamma, widow of mariyappa, and a. k. narayanappa, son of mariyappa vide sale deed dated 17-6-1974 (Annexure-b to the writ petition ). It appears that mariyappa was the holder of thoti office earlier to a. k. narayanappa. Both these documents are said to be registered documents. The petitioner's case is that a total area of 4 acres 20 guntas was recorded in the name of the petitioner and he claims to be in its possession. Thereafter, an amendment was introduced in the act by the Karnataka act No. 13 of 1978 and late byappa and late a. k. narayanappa filed applications for regrant of inam lands attached to the village office including the land in question claiming half share each and according to the petitioner, in June 1988 they tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was not aware of the regrant proceedings. But anyhow the tahsildar in those regrant proceedings regranted the land in favour of the village office holders' heirs. The petitioner's case is that he was not given any opportunity. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal No. 72 of 1988 challenging the order of the tahsildar and that appeal had been dismissed. From that Order, it appears, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 21584 of 1994 in this court claiming a direction for regularisation of sale as well as for quashing of the order of the tahsildar and the appellate order namely order of regrant passed by the tahsildar and the appellate order therefrom and also sought mandamus that the petitioner be not evicted. Almost same pleas had been raised in writ petition No. 21584 of 1994 as were raised in this writ petition. This court dismissed the writ petition taking the view that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and no relief can be granted to him. It observed that the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of eviction passed against him by the tahsildar which he had not challenged in the earlier writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner in this petition has tried to claim the benefit of the case of Lakshmana Gowda v State of Karnataka and others, and the benefit of law laid down in the case of Syed Bhasheer Ahamed v State of Karnataka and others. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of this decision, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of regrant which had been made in favour of the former holders of village office and as alienation had been made in favour of the petitioner between the dates 1-2-1963 and 7-8-1978, the alienation cannot be said to be invalid and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doctrine of estoppel feeding the grant and by virtue thereof, the petitioner is not liable to be evicted. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner cannot be said to be an unauthorised holder and so he should not be evicted.