1. The entitlement of the petitioners to have their names entered in the revenue records in respect of Survey No.75/4 of Chokkanahalli Village of Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, is the subject matter of these writ petitions.

FACTS:

2. On 15th September 1956, a Notification was issued by the State Government under Section 1(4) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (published in the Karnataka Gazette on 20th September 1956) appointing the 02nd October, 1956 as the date on which the Act came into force.

3. In this Notification, K.G.Chokkanahalli Village of Yelahanka Hobli was included, as a result of which, with effect from 02nd October 1956, the village of Chokkanahalli, which was a Jodi Inam village, stood vested in the State of Karnataka. The effect of this Notification was that the entire K.G. Chokkanahalli village stood vested in the State and all rights over the lands in K.G. Chokkanahalli village by other persons, including the inamdars, stood extinguished.

4. According to the State Government, applications were made by the kadim tenants, minor inamdars and inamdars as provided under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. According to Register No.VIII maintained by the State Government under Section 11 of the said Act, land to an extent of about 291 acres 07½ guntas was registered in the name of the Kadim tenants under Section 4 of the said Act. No lands were however registered in favour of either permanent tenants or to quasi permanent tenants under Sections 5 and 6 of the said Act.

5. An extent of 16 acres 33 guntas was registered in favour of the minor inamdars under Sections 7 and 8 of the said Act and a total extent of 252 acres 11½ guntas was registered in favour of the Inamdars under Section 9 of the said Act. Thus, an extent of about 560 acres and 12 guntas was registered in the name of Kadim tenants, minor inamdars and inamdars under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (Document No.1 to the affidavit dated 30.07.2022 produced in W.P. No.9203 of 2020).

6. According to the State Government, no application was made in respect of land bearing Sy.No.75/4 by any person and consequently, no order was passed registering anybody as an occupant in respect of Sy.No.75/4 and the said land consequentially stood vested with the State.

7. The Register produced by the State as Annexure "R1" to its Statement of Objections indicates a claim was made in respect of Sy.No.75/1 by one H.S.Narasaiah, which was rejected. There is also an entry in the Register in relation to Sy.No.75/2 measuring 14 acres, which is registered in favour of Muniswamappa. However, as stated above, neither a claim was made nor an order of registration was passed in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.75/4.

8. It is also stated that the compensation was claimed by the Inamdars—J.Srinivas Rao and N.Madappa Reddy in respect of the Inam Land under Section 21 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act and an Order dated 16th September 1976 was passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. By the said order, Inamdars were held entitled to a sum of `11,788/- and it was to be divided equally amongst them (Document No.36 to the affidavit dated 30.07.2022 produced in W.P. No.9203 of 2020).

9. Thus, according to the State Government, the entire village of Chokkanahalli stood vested in the State and apart from kadim tenants, minor inamdars and inamdars, who were registered as occupants, no other person was registered as an occupant in respect of Sy.No.75/4 and compensation was also paid to the Inamdars i.e., J.Srinivas Rao and N.Muddappa Reddy.

10. The fact that the lands were Jodi Inam lands is not in dispute. The petitioners herein are persons who claim that they were either re-granted the land or that they were granted lands by the Special Deputy Commissioner. Some of the petitioners are purchasers from the persons who claimed to have been re-granted the land.

11. The grants claimed by the petitioners and their successors in interest are narrated briefly as under:-

ORDERS OF GRANT:

12. In order to have complete clarity, it would be better to classify the claims made by the petitioners in five different categories:

"I. The first order of re-grant is stated to have been made on 15th February 1965 in favour of one Appajappa son of Anjani in respect of 6 acres 33 guntas. This grant is hereinafter referred to as the ‘1965 re-grant’ for the purpose of brevity.

II. The second order of re-grant that is put forth in these cases is an order of re-grant made on 17th October 1966 in respect of 7 acres 6 guntas in favour of one T. Krishna Reddy. This grant shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘1966 re-grant’.

III. The third order of re-grant is stated have been made on 30th July 1975 in respect of 10 acres 24 guntas in favour of one Muniraja Reddy. This grant is referred to as the ‘1975 re-grant’ hereinafter.

IV. The fourth order of grant claimed in these petitions is the order of grant stated to have been made on 31st September 1978 in favour of four persons namely, Ashwath Reddy, Muni Anjanappa, Lingappa and Muniraja Reddy. This grant hereinafter are referred to as the ‘1978 grant’.

V. The fifth order of grant that is claimed in these set of writ petitions is the order of re- grant made on 23rd June 1984 in favour of Zaibunnissa Sharif by the Land Tribunal. This grant shall be hereinafter referred to as the ‘1984 re-grant’."

13. In order to appreciate the facts involved in these cases in the proper context, each of the above mentioned grants alleged to have been made are explained hereunder:

FIRST ORDER OF GRANT, i.e., 1965 Re-grant:

14. It is stated by the petitioners in W.P. No.9203 of 2020 and petitioner in W.P. No.9196 of 2020 i.e., Gowramma and Krishnappa respectively, that a sale deed was executed on 19th January 1920 by one K.Sheebanna in favour of six persons. One among the six purchasers was Anjani (The names of the six purchasers are: Muninarasimha Reddy, Nadappa (also Nadukala) Narasimha Reddy, Anjani, Huchappa, Mudaiah and Munishamy).

15. The copy of the sale deed which has been produced in the writ petition (Annexure ‘B’), however, does not indicate the survey number that was sought to be conveyed under the sale deed. Nevertheless, the petitioners claim that land bearing Sy.No.75/4 was the subject matter of the sale.

16. It is contended that the son of Anjani, who was one of the six purchasers, i.e., Appajappa is stated to have made an application for re-grant of 6 acres 33 guntas (Annexure ‘E1’) and the Special Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 15th February 1965 is stated to have re-granted the said land of 6 acres 33 guntas under Section 6A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (Annexures ‘D’ & ‘E’).

17. It is contented that in the year 1981, there were three mutations made in favour of these lands in M.R. Nos.7/1981, 8/1981 and 9/1981 in favour of Appajappa, Eerappa and Nanjappa to an extent of 01 acre 28 guntas (Annexure ‘E5’). It is also stated that on the death of Appajappa, his two sons Krishnappa and Ramaiah, and Mariyappa S/o.Erappa succeeded to the said property.

18. Krishnappa—the first son is the petitioner in W.P. No.9196 of 2020 and he claims that 3 acres 19 guntas of land was allotted to him in a partition. As far as the remaining land is concerned, the petitioner in W.P. No.9203 of 2020—Gowramma contends that the other son—Ramaiah and Mariyappa S/o.Erappa had entered into an agreement of sale dated 27th September 1995 agreeing to convey 3 acres 16 guntas and since they did not come forward to execute a sale deed, she had instituted a suit for specific performance and ultimately, the Civil Court executed two sale deeds in her favour on 13th July 1999 and 14th July 1999 to an extent of 1 acre 28 guntas each, in all 3 acres 16 guntas (Annexures ‘F’ and ‘F2’ to W.P. No.9203 of 2020).

19. Thus, in respect of the 1965 grant, Gowramma-the petitioner in W.P.No.9203 of 2020 claims 3 acres 16 guntas, while Krishnappa-the petitioner in W.P. No.9196 of 2020 claims 3 acres 19 guntas.

SECOND ORDER OF RE-GRANT i.e., 1966 Re-grant:

20. The second grant that is stated to have been was made was on 17th October 1966 in favour of T.Krishna Reddy, i.e., the 1966 re-grant.

21. T.Krishna Reddy claims that he had purchased the entire land from one Huchchappa under a registered sale deed dated 08th August 1961. The sale deed indicates that he had purchased land to an extent of 13 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.75/3 and western portion of the 1/3rd of 21 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.75/4. Thus, according to this sale deed, T. Krishna Reddy is stated to have purchased 7 acres 06 guntas which was situate on the western side of Sy.No.75/4 (Annexure “D” to W.P. No.9482 of 2020).

22. T.Krishna Reddy is stated to have sold an extent of 13 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.75/4 and also another extent of 01 acre 19 guntas in Sy.No.75/4 in favour of K.V. Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa under the registered sale deed dated 09th of August 1965 (Annexure “E” to W.P. No.9482 of 2020).

23. K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa have thereafter conveyed 2 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.75/4 under the registered sale deed dated 20th January 1983 in favour of Anwar (Annexure “F”).

24. Anwar, in turn, sold the land measuring 2 acres 28 guntas under registered sale deed 04th April 1988 in favour of Abdul Gafoor (Annexure ‘H’).

25. Abdul Gafoor, thereafter, sold an extent of 20 guntas out of 2 acres 28 guntas in favour of K.Lokesh and K.Manjunath under registered sale deed dated 03rd January 2006 (Annexure ‘B’).

26. Abdul Gafoor is also stated to have sold an extent of 12 guntas in favour of Muni Reddy under a sale deed dated 24th January 2006 (Annexure ‘C’ to W.P. No.9482 of 2020).

27. These purchasers of 20 guntas and 12 guntas of Sy.No.75/4 from Abdul Gafoor i.e., L.Lokesh, K.Manjunath and Muni Reddy are the petitioners in W.P. No.9482 of 2020.

28. Krishna Reddy claims that he had made an application for re-grant of the said land and the Special Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 17th October 1966 had re-granted him an extent of 7 acres 6 guntas.

29. As stated above, even before the order of re- grant had been made in his favour on 17th October 1966, Krishna Reddy had sold the entire extent in favour of K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa.

30. As stated above, out of 7 acres 6 guntas re– granted, K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa had sold 2 acres 28 guntas in favour of Anwar on 20th January 1983.

31. The very same K.V.Jayaram, J.S.Nanjundappa and G. Kalappa Reddy to sold another extent of 5 acres 6 guntas on 24th November 1982 in favour of Aminabi and C.J.Abdul Kareem, her son (Annexure “E” to W.P. No.9502 of 2020). The petitioners in W.P.No.9502 of 2020 are stated to be the legal heirs of Aminabi and C.J.Abdul Kareem and they are laying a claim in respect of this 5 acres 6 guntas of Sy.No.75/4.

THIRD ORDER OF GRANT i.e., 1975 Re-grant:

32. The third set of re-grant stated is the order of re-grant dated 30th July 1975. It is stated that the Jodidar Sheebanna executed a Sale Deed in favour of six persons on 19th January 1920 and one of the purchasers was Nadukala Narasimha Reddy.

33. It is stated that the Jodidar-Sheebanna sold 13 acres in favour of Nadukala Narasimha Reddy along with five others. It is stated that this Nadukala Narasimha Reddy had two brothers namely Dodda Narasimha Reddy and Kuntamuniyappa. It is stated that the elder brother of Nadukala Narasimha Reddy i.e., Dodda Narasimha Reddy had a son called Ramareddy and he, in turn, had a son called Muniraja, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.9529 of 2020. It is stated that Dodda Narasimha Reddy, the elder brother of Nadukala Narasimha Reddy was allotted 3 acres 26 guntas of land in an oral partition.

34. It is also contended that Nadukala Narasimha Reddy, the purchaser, had four sons namely Narasimha Reddy (who had no issues), Chikkathayappa Reddy (who had three sons, Radha Krishna Reddy and others; Radha Krishna Reddy is the petitioner in W.P. No.14796 of 2020) and two other sons Nanja Reddy and Pilla Reddy. It is stated that Nanja Reddy and Pilla Reddy hadrelinquished their property in favour of Chikkathayappa Reddy, the father of the petitioner-Radha Krishna Reddy.

35. It is stated that Muniraja (the petitioner in W.P. No.9529 of 2020) had made an application seeking for re- grant in respect of Sy.No.75/4 and the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 30th July 1975 re- granted an extent of 10 acres 24 guntas of land in Sy.No.75/4.

36. Thus, in respect of the 1975 re-grant, the source of title is an order of grant dated 30th July 1975 stated to have been passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in favour of Muniraja, the grandson of the elder son of the purchaser, Nadukala Narasimha Reddy. This order of re-grant is also stated to be under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955.

37. The petitioners in W.P. No.9529 of 2020 and in W.P. No.14796 of 2020 i.e., Muniraja Reddy and Radha Krishna Reddy had, in fact, been litigating before the Civil Court in O.S.No.133 of 2011 for partition. It is stated that the said suit was dismissed and an appeal in R.F.A. No.229 of 2022 is pending. Thus, the 1975 re- grant in respect of 10 acres 24 guntas is confined to two claimants i.e., Muniraja Reddy and Radha Krishna Reddy, who claim as the legal heirs of Nadukala Narasimha Reddy.

FOURTH ORDER OF RE-GRANT i.e., 1978 Grant:

38. The fourth set of grant in this case are the four grants that are stated to have been made by the revenue authorities on 31st September 1978. The recipients of the grant are:

"a. Ashwath Reddy to an extent of 2 acres 35 guntas;

b. Muni Anjanappa (husband of Munilakshmamma) to an extent of 4 acres 5 guntas;

c. Lingappa (husband of Anjanamma) to an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas; and

d. Muniraja Reddy, who is incidentally the son of Rama Reddy. This Muniraja Reddy is in fact staking a claim not only under the 1975 grant but also claims he had been allotted land in 1978."

39. The three grantees and their successors-in- interest, i.e., Munilakshmamma—wife of Muni Anjanappa (the second grantee mentioned above) and Anjanamma— wife of Lingappa (the third grantee mentioned above) are stated to have entered into three Agreements of Sale on 17th June 2010 with one H.Govindappa and his two sons G.Vijay Kumar and G.Vasanth Kumar. G.Vijay Kumar and G.Vasanth Kumar are the petitioners in W.P. No.9275 of 2020 and are staking a claim over these lands granted in the year 1978 on the basis of Agreements of Sale that they claim to have entered with the grantees.

40. The other grantee, i.e., Ashwath Reddy (the first grantee mentioned above) is also before this Court in W.P. No.10434 of 2021.

41. Thus, in respect of 1978 grant, the agreement holders from the three grantees are staking a claim in W.P. No.9275 of 2020 and the original grantee is also before the Court in W.P. No.10434 of 2021 and are seeking for entry of their names in the revenue records on the basis of the 1978 grant.

FIFTH SET OF GRANT i.e., 1984 Re-grant:

42. The fifth set of grant that is the subject matter of these writ petitions is the order of re-grant dated 23rd June 1984 made in favour of Zaibunnissa Sheriff by the Land Tribunal.

43. Zaibunnissa Sheriff claims that one Muniswamy Reddy executed a Sale Deed in respect of 7 acres 4 guntas in her favour on 08th January 1981 and thereafter she made an application on 30th March 1984 to the Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in her favour on 23rd June 1984. She also contends that she had deposited the premium amount on 26th June 1984 and had thus become the owner.

44. It is stated that Zaibunnisa Sheriff executed two Sale Deeds, one in favour of Mohammad Shariff and three others on 20th September 1984 to an extent of 03 acres 16½ guntas and another sale deed, also dated 20th September 1984 in favour of Sharifunnissa to an equal extent of 03 acres 16½ guntas.

45. Mohammad Shariff and three others had in turn conveyed 03 acres 16½ guntas that they had purchased in favour of T.M.Mohammad Hussain and Syed Hashim, who, in turn, had conveyed the property under registered Sale Deed dated 26th November 2007 in favour of K.R.Sudhir, the first petitioner in W.P. No.9179 of 2020.

46. The other set of purchasers, i.e., Sharifunnissa and two others, who had purchased remaining 03 acres 16½ guntas have also sold their property to an extent of 03 acres 16½ guntas in favour Syed Saleem Pasha under registered Sale Deed dated 09th May 1988 and Syed Saleem Pasha has, in turn, conveyed the property that is purchased under the registered sale deed in favour of A.Mehboob Pasha and A.Khaleel under registered Sale Deed dated 04th July 1989. It is stated that A.Khaleel had relinquished his rights in the property in favour of co-purchaser A.Mehboob Pasha and thus A.Mehboob Pasha has become the owner of 03 acres 16½ guntas. This A.Mehboob Pasha is the second petitioner in W.P.No.9179 of 2020.

HISTORY OF LITIGATION:

47. Before adjudicating the issues involved in these cases, it would also be necessary to briefly consider the chronology of litigation relating to the revenue records, which has ultimately culminated in the passing of the impugned order.

48. It appears that on 30th April 1996, the Tahasildar directed the names of Ashwath Reddy, Muni Anjanappa and Muniraja Reddy (the grantees under the 1978 Grant) to be entered in Column No.12(2). This order of mutation i.e., M.R. No.36/1995-96 was made on the basis of their possession and not on the basis of any order of grant. This order directing their names to be entered in the revenue records in column No.12(2) was challenged by Krishnappa and Mariyappa before the Assistant Commissioner. By an order dated 08th August 1997, their appeal was allowed and the mutation made by M.R. No.36/1995-96 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tahasildar.

49. Thereafter, on 17th August 2000, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner received a direction from the Special Officer to the Chief Minister to conduct an enquiry regarding the entries made in respect of Sy.No.75/4 and as a result, the Deputy Commissioner called for a report from the Tahasildar by his communication dated 17th August 2000.

50. The Tahasildar submitted a report in which it was stated that as per the Preliminary Register maintained in Form No.1 relating to the land bearing Sy.No.75/4 measuring 16 acres, an entry had been made in Column No.9 that it belonged to Gramastharu (UÁæªÀÄǔÀÜgÀÄ-villagers) and in respect of Column No.10 of the Preliminary Register, it was stated as under:

“UÁæªÀÄǔÀÜgÀÄ ǔÀéA À G¥ÀAiÉsÃUÀPÉ̬ÄnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄ ÀÄÛ

PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ǔÀºÀ C£ÀĨsÀªÀ”

51. It was reported that in the Index of Lands, Sy.No.75/4 measuring 21 acres 19 guntas (inclusive of 1 acre of Phut Kharab) was mentioned as Sarakari in Column No.4 and in respect of Column No.19 relating to possession, it was mentioned as Gramastharu (UÁæªÀÄǔÀÜgÀÄ- villagers).

52. The Tahasildar also stated that there were pencil entries in the name of T.Krishna Reddy, K.V.Jayaram and J.S. Nanjundappa (the persons claiming under the 1975 grant) showing R.R. Nos.226A and 226B.

53. The Report also stated that 6 acres 33 guntas were stated to have been granted to Sharif Ibrahim and the application of one Kempanna over 5 acres 7 guntas had been rejected by the Tribunal on 09th June 1992. The Report also stated that there were other claims of one H.Rahim Sharif over 01 acre 28 guntas on the basis of a purchase from A.Nanjappa and also the claim of Gowramma over 3 acres 16 guntas under the sale deeds executed by the Civil Court on 13th and 14th July 1999.

54. It was also noticed that the grantees of the 1978 grant i.e., Ashwath Reddy and 3 others were also making a claim and if all the claims together were aggregated, it would amount to a claim being made in excess of the total extent of Sy.Nos.75/4, which was to an extent of 21 acres 19 guntas.

55. In the light of this Report, the Deputy Commissioner invoked his power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and started an enquiry to examine the validity of the entries in the revenue records.

56. During the pendency of this enquiry, a writ petition was filed in public interest before this Court in W.P. No.16775 of 2002. This writ petition was dismissed. However, this Court observed that the order of dismissal would not preclude the authorities from acting in accordance with law.

57. The Deputy Commissioner, after holding an inquiry, came to the conclusion that there were no entries in Register No.VIII which was maintained under Section 11 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act and this indicated that no person had been registered as an occupant under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. He also noticed that the Case No.INAPR 104/66-67 which was relied upon by the 1966 grantee, was unavailable.

58. The Deputy Commissioner also noted that the 1975 grant could not be accepted since the grantee of T.Krishna Reddy had made a claim for registering his name in the Revenue Records and the same had been rejected vide M.R. No.15/1965-66 on the ground that the said land was unclaimed.

59. The Deputy Commissioner also noticed that the purchasers from T.Krishna Reddy, i.e., K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa had made a claim to have their names entered in the revenue records, but the same had been rejected vide M.R. No.16/1965-66 on the ground that this land was unavailable as unclaimed.

60. The Deputy Commissioner also noticed that the name of T.Krishna Reddy and the purchasers from him, i.e., K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa were inserted in the Index of Lands between R.R.Nos.225 and 226 by inserting an entry as R.R.Nos.226A and 226B. He therefore concluded that the claim of T.Krishna Reddy (1975 grantee) was unacceptable and his name could not be entered.

61. The Deputy Commissioner also noted that as per the claim of Rahim Sharif, B.K.Sheebanna—the Jodidar had sold the land to Anjani and five others and on the death of Anjani, there was a partition, in which 01 acre 28 guntas was stated to have been allotted to A. Nanjappa. This A. Nanjappa was stated to have sold the property to his only son Anjanappa and Anjanappa in turn had sold the property to Rahim Sharif on 28th June 1984.

62. The Special Deputy Commissioner, however, came to the conclusion that there was a valid order of grant insofar as it related to the 1984 grant and he proceeded to hold that all the revenue entries, except the persons claiming under the 1984 grant, were liable to be removed from revenue entries and he also directed the Tahasildar to evict the unauthorised occupants of this land.

63. As against this order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 26th April 2004, the first set of writ petitions challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner was filed by Gowramma in W.P. No.23271 of 2004. This order was also challenged by the 1978 grantees in W.P. No.24403 of 2004. Apart from these two writ petitions, another writ petition was also filed by Aminabi, i.e., the purchaser who was claiming through the 1966 grantee in W.P.Nos.30698 of 2004 and 30696 of 2004.

64. The writ petition filed by Aminabi (claiming under the 1966 grant) came up before the Court for consideration first and by an order dated 26th March 2008, the said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that Aminabi was not heard in the matter.

65. However, the writ petitions of the 1978 grantees i.e., Ashwath Reddy, Muni Anjanappa, Muni Raja Reddy and Manjunath son of Lingappa were posted before the Court subsequently and by an order dated 27th May 2008, these writ petitions were dismissed. Liberty was however reserved to the petitioners to approach the Tahasildar or the Civil Court.

66. It is pertinent to state here that these petitioners were actually not parties before the Special Deputy Commissioner, but since the Special Deputy Commissioner had stated in his order dated 26th April 2004 that barring the entry in respect of the 1984 grant, all the entries were illegal, they had chosen to challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

67. The other writ petition filed by Gowramma in W.P. No.23271 of 2004 was also posted before the Court subsequently and by order dated 16th September 2008, this writ petition was dismissed. Thus, the claim of the 1978 grantees and the claim of Gowramma who claimed under the 1965 grant were negatived by this Court inW.P. No.24403 of 2004 and W.P. No.23271 of 2004 and these persons did not choose to challenge the order passed by learned Single Judge and these judgments have thus attained finality. As a consequence, their claims to have their names entered in the revenue records stood rejected and this rejection has also attained finality.

68. It appears thereafter that the Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 09th August 2012 on a request by Muniraja Reddy—the beneficiary of the 1975 grant, directing the name of Muniraja Reddy to be entered in the revenue records.

69. However, immediately thereafter, the very same Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 29th September 2012 recalling the order dated 09th August 2012 and rejecting the claim of Muniraja.

70. This order of the Deputy Commissioner recalling his earlier order dated 09th August 2012 was challenged by Muniraja in W.P. No.47080 of 2012. This Writ Petition was allowed by an order dated 27th November 2012 and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration (Annexure ‘M’ to W.P. No.9529 of 2020).

71. Apart from the above, a writ petition was also filed by Krishnappa-the person claiming under the 1965 grant, in W.P. No.30784 of 2013. This Court by an order dated 21st July 2014 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration.

72. Thus, as a matter of fact, it was only the claim of Aminabi—the person claiming under the purchaser pursuant to the 1966 grant; Muniraja-the person claiming under the 1975 grant and Krishnappa- the person claiming under the 1968 grant, were only entitled to prosecute their claims to have their names entered in the revenue records.

73. It is also pertinent to state here that during the pendency of the writ petition filed by Krishnappa— the beneficiary under the 1965 grant, a writ petition in W.P. No.12768 of 2013 (KLR-RES-PIL) had been filed in public interest before this Court. This Court, by an order dated 24th June 2014, held that the Special Deputy Commissioner was at liberty to refer the records to the Forensics and in the said public interest litigation, liberty was also reserved to the petitioners to challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with law (Annexure ‘P’ to W.P. No.9529 of 2020).

74. Thereafter, by an order dated 30th August, 2016, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to pass an order only in respect of the claim of Krishnappa and Gowramma (both claiming under the 1965 grant) holding that they had established their rights to have their names entered, on the basis of their respective grants.

75. This was, however, challenged in a series of writ petitions and ultimately, in W.P. Nos.59273-78 of 2017 and connected matters, this Court, by an order dated 16th November 2017, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh concentration of all the claims.

76. The Deputy Commissioner took up the matter for consideration in exercise of his powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and during the course of his enquiry, he referred the matter to the Forensic Department and after securing the Forensic Report dated 26th September 2019, he has proceeded to pass the impugned order on 17th June 2020.

77. By the impugned order, he has stated that all the entries in respect of Sy.No.75/4 were not sustainable and it was required that all the names found in the records in relation to Sy.No.75/4 were required to be deleted and the name of the “Government” was to be entered.

78. It is this order of the Deputy Commissioner which is challenged in these writ petitions.

79. In order to examine whether the petitioners have a right to have their names entered in the revenue records, it would be essential to consider the grants separately as the 1965 grant, 1966 grant, 1975 grant, 1978 grant and 1984 grant. If these grants are found to be valid, then the grantees or their successors-in-interest would be entitled to have their names entered in the revenue records. If, however, it is found that there was no order of re-grant made in favour of the alleged grantees, none of the successors- in-interest or these people would have the rights to have their names entered in the revenue records.

80. For this, it would be rather useful to examine the respective claims in a chronological order i.e., the years in which the re-grants are claimed to have been made.The claim under the 1965 Re-grant:

81. As stated above, the first order of re-grant is stated have been made on 15th February 1965, in favour of Appajappa, who was the son of Anjani and who was stated to have been re-granted an extent of 06 acres 19 guntas under Section 6A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act.

82. In this case, it is stated that the Jodidar called B.K.Sheebanna had executed a sale deed dated 19th January 1920 in favour six persons i.e., Muninarasimha Reddy, Nadappa (also Nadukala) Narasimha Reddy, Anjani, Huchappa, Mudaiah and Mariswamy and one of the purchasers was Anjani. It is stated that Appajappa-son of Anjani made an application for re-grant and the Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order of re- grant on 15th February 1965. The fact as to whether an order of re-grant was indeed passed in favour of Appajappa is, however, in serious dispute.

83. The Special Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order has stated that as per the Forensic Report, the signatures of the Special Deputy Commissioner did not tally with the signatures of the same Special Deputy Commissioner and this was therefore a fake order. He has also stated that the original orders of grant were unavailable and lastly, he has stated that Gowramma, who was claiming under this 1965 grant, had earlier made a claim which had been rejected by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 26th April, 2004 and the writ petition filed by her in W.P. No.23271 of 2004 was also dismissed and this had attained finality. He has therefore concluded that the persons claiming under the 1965 grant did not have any right at all over Sy.No.75/4 and hence, their name could not be entered.

84. It is to be mentioned here that though it is claimed that an order of re-grant was made on 15th February 1965, there is no corresponding entry made in the revenue records at all in the year 1965 or thereabouts indicating that an order of re-grant was indeed made. It is only about 16 years thereafter i.e., in the year 1981, revenue entries were mutated in favour of Appajappa, Eerappa and Nanjappa, vide M.R. Nos.7/1981, 8/1981 and 9/1981 in respect of 01 acre 28 guntas to each of the beneficiaries.

85. It is to be stated here that the basis for these entries mentioned in the above mutation extract is not the grant of the year 1965 but only a request made by Appajappa (Son of Anjanapppa), Eerappa (Son of Kariyappa) and Nanjappa (Son of Anjanapppa) and this request was in respect of 3 bits of land, each measuring 01 acre 28 guntas. Since these entries were not made on the basis of the order of re-grant, it will have to be held that as on 1981, the applicants did not stake a claim on the basis of the order of re-grant and this renders their whole claim suspicious. The entries in fact read as follows:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

86. It is also to be stated here that right from 1965 till 1981, there is no indication of any order of re- grant that had been made. Krishnappa—the son of Appajappa, the recipient of the order of re-grant claims that his name had been entered in column No.12(2). If an order of re-grant had been made in favour of Appajappa, obviously there should have been a corresponding entry in the revenue records regarding the grant in Column No.9. However, even according to Krishnappa the names were entered only in column No.12 i.e., the Cultivators' column.

87. It may be pertinent to state here that in respect of the three orders of grant, i.e., the order of grant made in the years 1965, 1966 and 1975, it is contended that there was an order of re-grant made under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act.

88. The State has produced a Notification issued under Section 1(4) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. The effect of this statutory Notification is that the entire village of Chokkanahalli is deemed to have vested in the State free from all encumbrances since the village was an inam coming within the purview of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. Once all the lands in the village stood vested in favour of the State, only those persons who have made applications seeking for registration as occupants will secure a right over the lands that they claim if an order registering them as an occupant is passed by the competent authority under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. It cannot be in dispute that it is only if it is established that a person is a lawful occupant of the land, can his name be entered in the revenue records.

89. The State Government has maintained a Register which is titled “Register No.VIII” and this Register is stated to have been maintained under Section 11 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, showing the details of the assessment payable to Government by Kadim, Permanent, Quasi- Permanent and minor Inamdar, etc. in every taluk of a district.

90. The State has not only produced the entire Register, but also all the orders that have been passed in respect of the claims made on the lands in Chokkanahalli village in these writ petitions. (Document Nos.1-36 to affidavit dated 30.07.2022 in W.P. No.9203 of 2020).

91. The Register, which is produced before this Court, also indicates the claims that were made by individuals and the survey numbers over which they had made a claim is also specified. An abstract of the claims made is also found at the end of the Register. This abstract indicates the claims made were decided in the following manner:

92. According to this extract, an extent of 291 Acres 07½ Guntas has been registered in favour of the Kadim Tenants while the remaining land has been registered in favour of the Minor Inamdars and Inamdars under Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. Thus, the abstract of the Register, accounts for all the lands in Chokkanahalli village.

93. The name of either Appajappa or Krishna Reddy or Muniraja Reddy is not found in this Register. In fact, there is no claim made by any person in respect of Sy.No.75/4 as per the Register.

94. This would indicate that, as a matter of fact, there had been no claim made to be registered as an occupant in respect of Sy.No.75/4 under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. If no claims had been made in respect of Sy.No.75/4, obviously there would be no orders of re- grant in favour of Sy.No.75/4 at all.

95. By virtue of the notification issued under Section 1(4) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, which also included Sy.No.75/4, all the lands in Chokkanahalli stood vested with the State free from all encumbrances and no person would have a right to have his name entered in the revenue records after 02nd October 1956, except the ones in whose favour orders of re-grant had been made by the Special Deputy Commissioner. In this view of the matter, the claim made on the premise that there were orders of re- grant made in respect of Sy.No.75/4 is wholly without any substance.

96. Since the lands stood statutorily vested in the State by virtue of the Notification under Section 1(4) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, it is only the name of the State Government which could be entered in the revenue records.

97. In the light of the above, the claims made by the successors-in-interest of the grantee—Appajappa, who claimed that there was an order of grant dated 15th February 1965 and also T.Krishna Reddy—the person claiming re-grant under order dated 17th October 1966 and the claim of Muniraja Reddy—the person who claims the land under the grant order dated 30th July 1975, will have to fail.

98. It is also to be stated here that the Government has taken up this specific contention that there is no order of re-grant at all made on 15th February 1965. However, the petitioners have produced the order of re-grant dated 15th February 1965. The basis for the order of re-grant is obviously the sale made by the Jodidar on 19th January 1920, in favour of six persons including one Anjani—father of Appajappa. The relevant portion of the sale deed dated 19th January 1920 reads as follows:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

99. As could be seen from this sale deed, the Survey number of the land, which was stated to have been sold, has not even been mentioned in the sale deed. If the sale deed, which is the basis of the entire claim, did not contain the survey number at all, it is inconceivable that Appajappa had a right to claim re- grant of the land, over land to which he possessed title under this sale deed.

100. The Forensic Report also indicates that the signatures found in the order dated 15th February 1965 and as compared to another order passed by the same Deputy Commissioner do not tally and they showed a pattern difference. The Forensic Report also notices that in the order dated 15th February 1965, which is relied upon by the petitioner, there is a clear over-writing in respect of the respondent.

101. It is stated that the original writing, which was partially deciphered as “Madappa Reddy son of Muniswamy Reddy”, had been erased and over that, “Sri jodidar” and “inamdar” has been written. It is also noticed that the existing date of the order as “15th February 1965” was written in the same ink, but there was alteration of figures in the date. It is also stated that the existing typed matter which read 15th February 1965 was typed over the originally typed matter after erasure and the original typed date was deciphered as “11th March 1966". It is thus clear that the Forensic Department has found that the order dated 15th February 1965 has been tampered with.

102. In the light of the fact that the order dated 15th February 1965 has been found to be tampered, coupled with the fact that there is no entry of any order of re-grant made in favour of Appajappa in the Register, it is obvious that the persons who claimed that the land had been re-granted to them on 15th February 1965 are putting forth a false claim.

103. It is to be stated here that in order to have a right to get their names entered in the revenue records, it will have to be established that they have acquired a right in a lawful manner. It is also to be noticed here that though the land is stated to have been granted in the year 1965, for almost twenty years, there is no entry in favour of the recipient of the order of grant. There is also no record to indicate that any premium was paid. In the light of these facts, the assertion that there is an order of re-grant on 15th February 1965 cannot be accepted at all.

104. The Deputy Commissioner was, therefore, justified in refusing to entertain the claim and has rightly ordered the name of the Government to be entered.

105. In the instant case, the petitioner claims that Appajappa was granted the land under Section 9 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. Under Section 9 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, it is only the inamdar who could have made a claim for being registered as an occupant. However, in the instant case, Appajappa claims to have made an application for the grant and arrayed the Jodidar as the first respondent and his vendor as the second respondent.

106. If, assuming that the said order is genuine, the fact that Appajappa did not even state as to who the Jodidar of the land was, itself casts a serious doubt on the veracity of this order. The further fact that the Forensic Department has given a report that the name of the Jodidar has been typed over the name of Madappa Reddy, by itself indicates that the Jodidar was Madappa Reddy (Annexure ‘K’ to WP No.9196 of 2020).

107. As stated earlier, the Inamdars—J.Srinivasrao and Muddappa Reddy, were granted compensation by the Government for the lands which had been registered in favour of the kadim tenants under Section 4 and minor inamdars under Sections 7 and 8 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (document No.36 to affidavit dated 30.07.2022 WP No.9203 of 2020). In the light of the fact that they were not even arrayed as parties in the proceeding for re-grant, by itself indicates that the petitioners claiming under the 1965 grant did not really seek for re-grant and consequently, have no right to have their names entered in the revenue records. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is therefore perfectly in order and does not call for any interference.

108. In the result, the writ petitions filed by Gowramma in W.P. No.9203 of 2020 and Krishnappa in W.P. No.9196 of 2020 are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.

The claim under the 1966 Re-grant:

109. The facts that could be ascertained from the pleadings of the respective parties are that on 08th August 1961, Huchchappa sold the land measuring 13 acres 28 guntas of Sy.No.75/3, and 1/3rd of Sy.No.75/4 under the registered sale deed dated 08th August 1961 to T.Krishna Reddy.

110. T.Krishna Reddy, in turn, sold 7 acres 6 guntas in favour of K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa under registered sale deed dated 09th August 1965. (Annexure “E” to W.P. No.9482 of 2020, at pages 99 to 106).

111. After T.Krishna Reddy had sold the property to K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjudappa, he claims that he made an application seeking for re-grant by making an application under the provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and he claims that an extent of 07 acres 06 guntas was re-granted to him by order dated 17th October 1966 of the Deputy Commissioner.

112. Thus, essentially, a claim is made that in the year 1966, there was a second order of re-grant in favour of T.Krishna Reddy to an extent of 07 acres 06 guntas, apart from the grant that had already been made in favour of Appajappa on 15th February 1965 to an extent of 06 acres 33 guntas (Annexure ‘R3’ to Statement of Objections by Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in WP No.9196 of 2020).

113. If these assertions are to be correct, as on 17th October 1966, a total extent of 13 acres 39 guntas [06 acres 33 guntas plus 07 acres 06 guntas] was re- granted.

114. Thereafter, K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa contended that an extent of 05 acres 06 guntas was sold vide sale deed dated 24th November 1982 (registered on 20th January 1983) in favour of Aminabi and C.J.Abdul Kareem (who are the wife and son of C.K.Jafffer Sheriff) and the petitioners in W.P. No.9502 of 2020 are the legal heirs of Aminabi and C.J.Abdul Kareem (Annexure “E” to WP No.9502 of 2020).

115. It is also stated that on 20th January 1983, K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjudappa sold a further extent of 02 acres 28 guntas in favour of Anwar (Annexure 'F' to W.P. No.9482 of 2020).

116. It may be pertinent to state here that since T.Krishna Reddy was re-granted only 07 acres 06 guntas, obviously, K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa could have acquired title over 07 acres 06 guntas only.

117. However, it is stated that they had sold 05 acres 06 guntas in favour of Aminabi and C.J.Abdul Kareem. This would therefore mean that they had retained an extent of only 2 acres with them, but K.V.Jayaram and J.S. Nanjundappa have executed a sale deed dated 20th January 1983 to an extent of 02 acres 28 guntas in favour of Anwar (Annexure ‘F’ to W.P. No.9482 of 2020). This would indicate that they had sold 7 acres 34 guntas though they had purchased only 7 acres 06 guntas.

118. Anwar, in turn, sold the same property that he had purchased, to Abdul Gafoor under the sale deed dated 04th April 1988 (Annexure “H” to W.P. No.9482 of 2020).

119. Abdul Gafoor in turn executed two sale deeds. Under one sale deed dated 03rd January 2006, he sold 20 guntas out of 02 acres 28 guntas in favour of K.Lokesh and K.Manjunath and in the other sale deed dated 24th January 2006, he sold 12 guntas in favour of Muni Reddy (Annexures 'B’ and ‘C’ to W.P. No.9482 of 2020).

120. Thus, even though Anwar could have conveyed only 02 acres 28 guntas, Abdul Gafoor—the purchaser who had purchased the land from Anwar, proceeded to execute two sale deeds measuring a total extent of 32 guntas.

121. The purchasers from Abdul Gafoor i.e., K.Lokesh, K.Manjunath and Muni Reddy, are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.9482 of 2020.

122. The Deputy Commissioner under the impugned order has noticed that T.Krishna Reddy, K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa had sought for mutation of their names in the revenue records, on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 09th August 1965 (Annexure ‘E’ to W.P. No.9482 of 2020). But, this claim was rejected by the revenue authorities vide M.R. No.15/1965-67 and M.R. No.16/1965-67 on the ground that these properties in respect of which mutation is sought, i.e., Sy.No.75/4 measuring 21 acres 20 guntas was classified as ”unclaimed” property by the Special Deputy Commissioner.

123. The Deputy Commissioner has noticed that despite this rejection, in the very same year, once again, their claim for mutation was accepted vide M.R. Nos.23/1966-67 and 24/1966-67 and this by itself indicated a serious suspicion regarding the validity of these entries.

124. The Deputy Commissioner has also noticed that there was no entry in Register No.VIII which was maintained in respect of the claims made in respect of all the lands in Chokkanahalli village. He has specifically stated that there is no entry in the said Register indicating that a claim was made in respect of Sy.No.75/4 by T.Krishna Reddy and therefore, the contention that there was an order of re-grant in favour of T.Krishna Reddy would be incorrect. He has also noticed that there was no case number bearing No.INA.PR.104/1966-67, as found in the order of re- grant put forth by T.Krishna Reddy.

125. The Deputy Commissioner has also noticed that the entries made vide M.R. Nos.23/1966-67 and 24/1966-67 were manipulated entries and this could be ascertained from the insertions made in the Index of Lands. He has noticed that in between the entries relating to R.R. Nos.225 and 226, an entry has been made in a different ink as R.R. No.226/A and the mutation in favour of T.Krishna Reddy vide M.R. Nos.23/1966-67 has been entered and thereafter, the alphabet ‘B’ has been inserted next to 226 and the mutation in favour of K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa has been inserted.

126. He has opined that since the insertion was by a different ink, it clearly proved that a fraudulent insertion has been made and the entire basis of the claim put forth by T.Krishna Reddy and consequently, by his successors-in-interest was in serious doubt.

127. The Deputy Commissioner has also noticed that the order of re-grant made in favour of T.Krishna Reddy indicated that it was made on 17th October 1966 and that day was a Sunday and therefore, the order of re-grant was suspected.

128. He has also noticed that T.Krishna Reddy was granted only 07 acres 06 guntas and he had sold the entire extent in favour of K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa and they had in turn sold 05 acres 06 guntas out of this land in favour of Aminabi and C.J.Abdul Kareem and had retained only 02 acres, but they had sold 02 acres 28 guntas in favour of Anwar and the purchaser from Anwar i.e., Abdul Gafoor had sold an extent of 32 guntas and these conveyances indicated that an attempt was being made to enlarge the holdings of the purchasers.

129. The Deputy Commissioner has lastly relied upon the forensic report in which it has been clearly established that the order in favour of T.Krishna Reddy was tampered and the insertions made in the revenue records had also been established. He has, therefore, concluded that there was no grant in favour of T.Krishna Reddy and consequently, the persons claiming under T.Krishna Reddy or from his purchasers—K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa had no title at all to entitle their respective names to be entered in the revenue records.

130. The findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner that the entry in favour of T.Krishna Reddy was suspecious, cannot be found fault with and deserves to be accepted for more than one reason.

131. Firstly, T.Krishna Reddy had purchased Sy.No.75/4 on 08th August 1961 when the land had already stood vested in the State in the year 1956 and T.Krishna Reddy, thereafter, sold the land to K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa in the year 1965.

Though Krishna Reddy had sold his entire holding in the year 1965 itself, he has nevertheless sought for re-grant and claims to have secured an order of re-grant on 17th October 1966. Since, T.Krishna Reddy had lost all subsisting interest in Sy.No.75/4 as on the date 09th August 1965 itself, he could not obviously seek and obtain an order of re-grant in the year 1966 and thus, the entire claim that an order of re-grant had been made in favor of T.Krishna Reddy will have to be rejected.

132. Secondly, as noticed by the Deputy Commissioner, the entire village of Chokkanahalli had been vested in the State. In the reasoning relating to the re-grants made in respect of Sy.No.75/4, I have already held at paragraphs 81 to 97 above that the concerned Register did not indicate that any order of re- grant had been made in respect of Sy.No.75/4 and consequently the claim on the basis of order of re-grant in favour of T.Krishna Reddy will have to fail.

133. Therefore, it will have to be held that there is no order of re-grant in favour of T.Krishna Reddy and as a further consequence, every person claiming under this order of re-grant in favour of T.Krishna Reddy would have secured no title at all to entitle their names to be entered in the revenue records.

134. Thirdly, and more importantly, the Deputy Commissioner, has noticed that as per the Forensic Report, the mutation made in favour of T.Krishna Reddy and his purchasers—K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa had been inserted by way of R.R.Nos.226/A and 226/B and this by itself indicated that their entitlement to have their names entered in the revenue records was fraudulent.

135. In my view, this finding regarding insertions will have to be accepted since the entry in the Index of Lands, on a bare perusal, indicates clear insertions. If it is noticed that the claim for mutation on the basis of the very same sale deed had been rejected vide M.R. No.15/1965-67 and M.R. No.16/1965-67, but, nevertheless was accepted vide M.R. No.23/1966-67 and M.R. No.24/1966-67, coupled with insertion made on the strength of M.R. Nos.23/1966-67 and 24/1966-67, clearly leads to the conclusion that the names of T.Krishna Reddy and his purchasers were sought to be surreptitiously inserted though there was no order of grant at all.

136. It may also be pertinent to state here that though the names of T.Krishna Reddy and his purchasers is stated to have already been mutated in the revenue records way back in the year 1966-67 itself, their names were never found in Column No.9 of the RTC. If, as a matter of fact, there was an order of mutation in favour of the above-mentioned persons, necessarily their names ought to have been found in Column No.9.

137. Though the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner that 17th October 1966 was a Sunday and this indicated that the order was fraudulent, cannot be accepted since 17th October 1966 was a Monday, in view of the reasons mentioned above regarding the re-grant, this reasoning may not be of any relevance.

138. An argument was also advanced that the validity of the grant cannot be called in question, in view of the fact that the entire matter relating to the purchase of the land by Aminabi and C.J.Abdul Kareem was the subject matter of an enquiry by a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary—Mr.J.C.Lynn who had examined the entire matter and had concluded that there was a valid sale in favour of Aminabi and C.J.Abdul Kareem (Annexure ‘K’ to W.P. No.9502 of 2020).

139. It has to be stated here that this Report, upon which reliance was placed, cannot be the basis for arriving at the conclusion as to whether there is indeed an order of re-grant on 17th October 1966.

140. The Committee on the basis of the records relating to the revenue entries has observed that there was a purchase by Aminabi and C.J.Abdul Kareem from K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa and the report did not really examine whether the proceedings had been actually initiated for re-grant and whether there was a valid order of re-grant.

141. In this view of the matter, the argument about the re-grant being verified by J.C.Lynn Committee cannot be accepted.

142. In the light of the above mentioned reasons, I am of the view that the claim made by the successors- in-interest of T.Krishna Reddy i.e., Nasreen Jan and others—the petitioners in W.P. No.9502 of 2020; by K.Lokesh, K.Manjunath and Muni Reddy—the petitioners in W.P. No.9482 of 2020 are also devoid of merits and the same are liable to be rejected.

THE CLAIM UNDER THE 1975 RE-GRANT:

143. This claim is made on the premise that there was an order of re-grant on 30th July 1975 in favour of Muniraja Reddy (the petitioner in W.P. No.9529 of 2020).

144. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P. No.9529 of 2020 and W.P. No.14796 of 2020 that Sheebanna—the original Jodidar had sold the properties to six persons including one Nadukala Narasimha Reddy—purchaser No.2.

145. It is contended that Nadukala Narasimha Reddy had an elder brother—Dodda Narasimha Reddy and younger brother—Kunta Muniyappa. It is stated that in a partition between these three persons, an extent of 03 acres 26 guntas was allotted to Dodda Narasimha Reddy and on the strength of this allotment, his grandson—Muniraja Reddy (petitioner in W.P. No.9529 of 2020) had secured an order of re-grant in respect of 10 acres 24 guntas under an order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 30th July 1975. Muniraja Reddy claims that his name was to be entered in the revenue records on the basis of the re-grant order passed in his favour on 30th July 1975. However, it is also contended by the petitioner in W.P. No.14796 of 2020 that Nadukala Narasimha Reddy—the purchaser under the sale deed dated 19th January 1920, had four sons namely, Narasimha Reddy, Chikkathayappa Reddy, Nanja Reddy and Pilla Reddy.

146. It is contended that the last two sons i.e., Nanja Reddy and Pilla Reddy had relinquished their shares in favour of the second son Chikkathayappa Reddy.

147. It is stated that Chikkathayappa Reddy was allotted 06 acres 38 guntas in an oral partition and the petitioner in W.P. No.14976 of 2020 i.e., Radhakrishna Reddy had succeeded to this property as the son of Chikkathayappa Reddy. It is contended that since the re- grantee i.e., Muniraja Reddy had clearly admitted in his application that his father Radhakrishna Reddy was cultivating the land jointly with Chikkathayappa Reddy (the father of Radhakrishna Reddy i.e., the petitioner in W.P. No.14796 of 2020), the petitioner also had a share in this property which was the subject property of re-grant dated 30th July 1975 and hence, his name was to be entered in the revenue records.

148. It is also admitted in the case of the above- mentioned petitioners that Radhakrishna Reddy had filed a suit seeking for partition in respect of the properties including Sy.No.75/4 and the said suit had ended in dismissal, as against which, an appeal in R.F.A No.229 of 2022 has been filed and the said appeal is stated to be pending for consideration.

149. The Special Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order has rejected the claim of these petitioners on the ground that the order of re-grant was stated to have been made under Section 6A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, whereas the land bearing Sy.No.75/4 was a Personal and Miscellaneous Inam and the entire village had been notified under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act and consequently, there could have been no order passed under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act.

150. It is already noticed above that, as in the case of re-grants in respect of Sy.No.75/4, at paragraphs 81 to 97, there had been no mention in Register No.VIII regarding any claim having been made in respect of Sy.No.75/4 by Muniraja Reddy and no endorsement regarding an order having been passed in his favour and Muniraja Reddy was available and it cannot therefore be contended that there was an order of re-grant in his favour.

151. The Deputy Commissioner has also noticed that the order was passed on 30th July 1975 and the premium was also paid on the same day and this, by itself, created a serious suspicion on the order of re- grant. He has also stated that though the claim was in respect of 13 acres, the order of re-grant was only in respect of 10 acres 24 guntas and no reason was forthcoming as to why a lesser extent than what was claimed had been granted.

152. The Deputy Commissioner has noticed that Muniraja Reddy had challenged the earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26th April 2004 in W.P. No.24403 of 2004 and the said writ petition had actually been dismissed, thereby implying the order that had been passed earlier by the Special Deputy Commissioner refuting the claim of Muniraja Reddy had stood confirmed and he could not therefore put forth a fresh claim for having his name being entered in the revenue records.

153. In my view, the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner that Muniraja Reddy’s name cannot be entered in the revenue records is justified and sound.

154. As already held in the cases relating to orders of re-grant, there is no entry in Register No.VIII indicating that any claim had been made in respect of Sy.No.75/4 by Muniraja Reddy and there is also no entry of an order of re-grant having been made in respect of Sy.No.75/4.

155. By issuance of a notification under Section 1(4) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, the entire village of Chokkanahalli village stood vested in the State. Since the entire village of Chokkananhalli was a Personal and Miscellaneous Inam as defined under the said Act, the Notification had been issued. If this statutory Notification indicated the nature of inam as Personal and Miscellaneous Inam, the order alleged to have been passed under the provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act would be wholly without any jurisdiction.

156. It is admittedly not the case of Muniraja Reddy that there is a Notification notifying the entire village of Chokkanahalli as having vested in the State by virtue of it being a Religious and Charitable inam and therefore the orders stated to have been passed under the Religious and Charitable Inam would be untenable.

157. If, Sy.No.75/4 was an Inam land and was coming within the purview of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act and had stood vested in the State by virtue of the statutory Notification, it is imperative that an order under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act would have to be secured in order to claim registration as an occupant.

158. Since, there is no order passed under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, the claim of Muniraja Reddy under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act cannot be considered for the purpose of entering his name in the revenue records.

159. It is also not in dispute that Muniraja Reddy had challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed on 26th April 2004, by which the Deputy Commissioner had categorically concluded that the land belong to the Government and the entries in the revenue records including that of Muniraja Reddy was required to be deleted.

160. Muniraja Reddy had admittedly challenged this order, but the writ petition filed by him in W.P. No.24403 of 2004 was dismissed and this dismissal was accepted by Muniraja Reddy. Once the claim of Muniraja Reddy was negatived and confirmed by this Court, it is obviously impermissible for Muniraja Reddy to seek for the revival of his claim on the basis of an order made in respect of other persons who had filed separate writ petitions.

161. It is also to be stated here that though Muniraja Reddy claims that there was an order of re- grant in his favour his name was never found in the revenue records till the year 1996.

162. In view of the above, the claims of Muniraja Reddy in W.P. No.9529 of 2020 and Radhakrishna Reddy in W.P. No.14796 of 2020 cannot be entertained and the same are accordingly dismissed.

163. It may be pertinent to state here that Section 10A of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act mandates that the name of the persons who are registered as occupants was required to be entered in the Records of Right. Thus, if there was really an order of re-grant in favour of Appajappa (1965), T.Krishna Reddy (1966) and Muniraja Reddy (1975), the Special Deputy Commissioner ought to have issued a direction to the authorities to enter their names in the Records of Right.

164. Admittedly, no such order has been produced before this Court and the revenue records also do not indicate any such direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner.

165. It is settled law that if the statute prescribes a particular procedure to be followed, then that procedure would have to be scrupulously followed. Consequently, if the law mandated that pursuant to an order of re-grant, the entries were to be made as per the order, necessarily the records should be produced indicating that there has been an order of re-grant and the revenue records have to be suitably mutated.

166. Since there is absolutely no material produced to show that such a procedure, as mandated under Section 10A of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, has been followed, the revenue entries sought to be made on the basis of the requests of the alleged grantees cannot be accepted. Thus, the refusal by the Special Deputy Commissioner to enter the names of either the re-grantees or their successors-in-interest of the grants of the years 1965, 1966 and 1975 cannot be found fault at all.

167. In the result, the claim made by the successors-in-interest of the alleged re-grantees, namely Gowramma (petitioner in W.P. No.9203 of 2020), Krishnappa (petitioner in W.P. No.9196 of 2020); Nasreen Jan and six others (petitioners in W.P. No.9502 of 2020); K.Lokesh, K.Manjunath and Muni Reddy (petitioner in W.P. No.9482 of 2020); Muniraja Reddy (petitioner in W.P. No.9529 of 2020); Radhakrishna Reddy (petitioner in W.P. No.14796 of 2020) are devoid of merits and hence, the writ petitions filed by them are accordingly liable to be dismissed.

The claim under the 1978 grant:

168. The fourth set of grants that are put forth in this batch of writ petitions are the orders of grant stated to have been made under the provisions of Karnataka Land Grant Rules.

169. It is contended that on 31st September 1978 Ashwath Reddy, Muni Anjanappa, Lingappa and Muniraja Reddy were granted lands measuring 02 acres 35 guntas, 04 acres 05 guntas, 02 acres 30 guntas and 03 acres 10 guntas respectively.

170. It is contended that the grantees agreed to sell the lands granted to them under three agreements of sale dated 17th June 2010 executed in favour of H.Govindappa and his two sons—G.Vijaya Kumar and G.Vasantha Kumar. It is contended that the entire sale consideration was paid and an order refusing to enter the name in the revenue records in favour of their father was passed and hence, G.Vijaya Kumar and G.Vasanth Kumar—both sons of H.Govindappa have filed this writ petition (W.P. No.9275 of 2020).

171. Writ Petition is also filed by one of the grantees i.e., Ashwath Reddy (along with two others) in W.P. No.10434 of 2021.

172. At the outset, it has to be stated here that the petitioners in W.P. No.9275 of 2020 only claim that they have an agreement of sale in their favour. Their vendors, barring Ashwath Reddy i.e., Munianjanappa— husband of Munilakshmamma, Anjanamma—wife of Lingappa have themselves not challenged the refusal of Deputy Commissioner to enter their names in the revenue records and consequently, the petitioners’ claim on the basis of them being prospective purchasers would be untenable and they cannot also espouse the cause of their vendors. In other words, since their vendors have themselves accepted the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners would not be entitled to lay a challenge to the same.

173. Notwithstanding the above, it has to be stated here that the Deputy Commissioner has recorded a clear finding of fact that there were no records available indicating any order of grant being made in favour of the aforementioned persons. He has also observed that the date of issuance of saguvali chits was on 31st September 1978 and the month of September has only thirty days and therefore, the entire claim was suspected. It is also noticed by him that the original order of grant is not produced and the claim of alleged grantees to have their names entered in the revenue records was unsustainable.

174. In my view, since, admittedly, the original order of grant is not produced and furthermore, since the Deputy Commissioner has recorded a finding that there were no records available indicating that any grants have been made, the grantees, who claim an order of grant has been made in the year 1978, i.e., Ashwath Reddy, Munianjanappa, Lingappa or their successors-in-interest, cannot put forth a claim that their names are required to be entered in the revenue records.

175. It is also to be stated here that no material is produced to indicate that they had made an application for grant and the same was processed under the Rules and an order was made for grant of the lands.

176. In this view of the matter, Writ Petition No.9275 of 2020 filed by G.Vijaya Kumar and G.Vasantha Kumar and also W.P. No.10434 of 2021 filed by the alleged grantees—Ashwath Reddy and two others are also devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed.

The claim under the 1984 Re-grant:

177. The last of grants that are put forth for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is an order of grant made by the Land Tribunal on 23rd June 1984 in favour of Zaibunissa Sharif.

178. It is stated that one Muniswamy Reddy had sold 07 acres 04 guntas in favour of Zaibunnissa Sharif under a sale deed dated 08th January 1981 and Zaibunnissa Sharif had made an application before the Land Tribunal seeking to be registered as an occupant on 30th March 1984. The Land Tribunal by order dated 23rd June 1984 had registered Zaibunnissa Sharif as the occupant. It is contended that she had thereafter deposited the premium on 26th June 1984. It is also stated that thereafter, Zaibunnissa Sharif executed two sale deeds on 20th September 1984 to an extent of 03 acres 16½ guntas each in favour of Mohammed Shariff and three others, and Shariffunnissa and two others. It is also stated that these purchasers viz., Mohammed Shariff and three others, and Shariffunnissa and two others, had executed two sale deeds both dated 09th May 1988 in favour of T.P.Mohammad Hussain and in favour of Syad Saleem Pasha. It is submitted that T.P.Mohammad Hussain sold 03 acres 16½ guntas that he had purchased in favour of K.R.Sudhir under a registered sale deed dated 26th November 2007. It is also stated that Syad Saleem Pasha sold 03 acres 16½ guntas that he had purchased in favour of A.Mehaboob Pasha and A.Khaleel under a registered sale deed dated 04th July 1989. It is also stated that thereafter, A.Khaleel relinquished his rights over the said property in favour of A.Mehaboob Pasha under a registered relinquishment deed dated 09th April 1997.

179. The said purchasers K.R.Sudhir and A.Mehaboob Pasha are the petitioners in W.P. No.9179 of 2020 and both of them are claiming the title primarily under Zaibunnissa Sharif who had been registered as an occupant by the Land Tribunal on 23rd June 1984.

180. The Deputy Commissioner in the order dated 26th April 2004 had clearly recorded a finding that there was indeed an order passed by the Land Tribunal in favour of Zaibunnissa Sharif and in view of the said order, it ought to have held that Zaibunnissa Sharif had acquired title. It is also held therein that the conveyance made by Zaibunnissa Sharif would also have to be recognized. The Deputy Commissioner consequently upheld the entries made in favour of the successors-in- interest of Zaibunnissa Sharif.

181. In the impugned order also, the Deputy Commissioner accepts that there is an order passed by the Land Tribunal. However, the Deputy Commissioner has fundamentally found fault with the reasoning of the Land Tribunal in passing the order. The Deputy Commissioner has observed that the application had been made under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act whereas the land bearing Sy.No.75/4 was under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. He has made an observation that there was an overwriting in the application and the application had been made by the Power of Attorney holder of Zaibunnissa Sharif and she could not have cultivated the said land personally, since she was a resident of London.

182. It is also observed that Muniswamy Reddy had sold the land after it had stood vested in the State and as such, Zaibunnissa Sharif had not acquired any title. It is also observed that the source of the title of Muniswamy Reddy’s vendor was also not forthcoming.

183. It is also noticed that the order of the Land Tribunal in favour of Zaibunnissa Sharif was made on 23rd June 1984 and she immediately sold the land on 20th September 1984 and therefore, she had no right to have her name entered in the revenue records and so also, her successors-in-interest would also have no right to have their names entered in the revenue records.

184. It has to be stated here at the outset that in a proceeding under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner has been conferred with the power of examining any records made under Sections 126 and 127 of the said Act.

185. Section 127 of the said Act deals with Records of Right, while Section 129 deals with the registration of mutation and register of disputed cases.

186. The Deputy Commissioner, no doubt, has the power to examine the orders that have been passed under Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Section 128 of the said Act mandates that any person acquiring any right by any means stated therein is required to report the acquisition of his right and thereafter, an inquiry is to be conducted as to whether the acquisition of right was acceptable and orders to mutate their names could either be granted or refused. In such a proceeding, the officer who receives a report of an acquisition of a right has not been clothed with the power to decide upon the validity or invalidity of the right acquired.

187. It is no doubt true that the revenue authorities can refuse to enter the name if there is no order from the competent court at all in favour of the applicant. However, the revenue officers cannot be possessed with the power to examine the merits of the order that has been produced before them and conclude that the order was incorrect and therefore, it would not be given effect to.

188. So long as there is an order of the competent court or authority, the authorities are bound to give effect to such orders. The authorities are empowered to examine as to whether such an order does or does not exist. If the order relied upon by the applicant does not really exist, then they can refuse to act upon a request made on the basis of a non-existing order. They cannot however sit in judgment over the order and refuse mutation on the ground that the order was improper, illegal or without jurisdiction.

189. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner has fundamentally refused the claim of the persons claiming under Zaibunnissa Sharif on the ground that the order made in favour of Zaibunnissa Sharif was illegal. This power to sit in judgment over an order passed by the Land Tribunal is not available with the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the order insofar as it relates to the successors-in-interest of Zaibunnissa Sharif i.e., K.Sudhir and A.Mehaboob Pasha—the petitioners in W.P. No.9179 of 2020 will have to be quashed.

190. Writ Petition No.9179 of 2020 is therefore allowed.

Legal contentions advanced by all the Counsel:

191. It was contended by all the Senior Counsel and all the learned Counsel that it was impermissible for the Deputy Commissioner to examine the validity of the order or even examine whether the order was fake or genuine. It was also argued that the exercise of the revisional power having not been exercised within a reasonable time, the impugned order could not be sustained.

192. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:

• •Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & Another vs. D.Narsing Rao and others - (2015) 3 SCC 695 [LQ/SC/2015/53] ;
• State of Karnataka, Revenue Department and others vs. Smt.Shakuntalamma w/o. Narappa Reddy and others, W.A. No.804 of 2018 DD: 30.05.2018 at High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore Bench.
• Kunnappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2012 (1) KLJ 28;
• B.K.Narasinga Rao vs. State of Mysore, 1966 (2) KLJ 152.

193. As far as the argument that the revisional jurisdiction was invoked after an unreasonable period is concerned, it has to be stated here that the revenue entries were not mutated in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the alleged orders of re-grant made in the years 1965, 1966 or 1975 and disputes arose only in the year 1996, when the entries were made for the first time in favour of the grantees who claimed under the grant of 1978 vide M.R. No.36/95-96 and this was challenged in an appeal. It is only thereafter litigation started and in the year 2000, the Deputy Commissioner invoked his revisional jurisdiction.

194. It may also be pertinent to state here that the name of the grantees or their successors-in-interest were not found in the records from the date of their alleged grant. In fact, the name of some of the parties only appeared in Column No.12(2) and not in Column No.9 and it is not the case of the parties that their names had been entered for several years in Column No.9 and therefore could not be amenable for correction.

195. In my view, given the facts of these cases, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner had invoked his revisional jurisdiction the moment it was brought to his notice in the year 2000 and the parties have been litigating ever since.

196. The judgments relied upon are of no avail since, in those cases, the entries were found to be in existence for a lengthy period of time and hence, the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction ought to have been exercised within a reasonable period.

197. As far as the argument that the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to examine whether the order was valid or whether it was genuine is concerned, it is to be stated that the very purpose of conferring power on the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is to ensure that there is an oversight over the revenue entries and if it is found that there was no basis for the entry at all and the claim made for an entry was based on a fictitious order, it would be the obligation of the Deputy Commissioner to ensure that a fraudulent act is not regularised.

198. In the case of Kunnappa, the Court there found that the Deputy Commissioner had annulled the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and in that context, the Court held that the Deputy Commissioner, acting under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot go into the question of correctness or otherwise of an order, or examine whether it is forged or fabricated.

199. It is to be stated here that if a land statutorily stood vested with the State under a Notification issued under a statute, for a person to claim a right over such land, an order passed under the statute is essential and if it is found that no proceeding or order had been passed in respect of the said land, the question of entertaining a claim would not arise.

200. In the present case, there is no order of re- grant in existence as per the records maintained by the State. The ruling, therefore relied upon in Kunnappa’s case, which was dealing with a situation where the Deputy Commissioner had annulled the order of a Special Deputy Commissioner under the Inams Act cannot be applicable to the present case.

201. Consequently, Writ Petition Nos.9482 of 2020, 9196 of 2020, 9203 of 2020, 9275 of 2020, 9502 of 2020, 9529 of 2020, 14796 of 2020 and 10434 of 2021 are dismissed.

202. However, since it is held above that there is an order of re-grant made in favour of Zaibunnissa Sharif, her successors-in-interest i.e., K.R.Sudhir and A.Mahaboob Pasha would have the right to have their names entered in the revenue records as per the registered documents executed in their favour. Consequently, W.P. No.9179 of 2020 alone is ALLOWED.

203. The authorities are directed to mutate the names of K.R.Sudhir and A.Mahaboob Pasha as per the sale deed dated 26th November 2007 and 04th July 1989 and the relinquishment deed dated 09th April 1997, in the revenue records. However, the passing of this order would not come in the way of the concerned aggrieved parties to challenge the order of the Land Tribunal, if permissible in law and obviously, the revenue entries would be subject to any litigation that may be initiated against the order made in favour of Zaibunnissa Sharif.