ADVERTISEMENT
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kadiri Narasamma @ Menasamma vs Sri Thimmaiah on 27 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.14663 OF 2016 (KVOA)
BETWEEN:
SMT. KADIRI NARASAMMA @ MENASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
W/O LATE CHIKKA HANUMAIAH,
RESIDING OF RACHANAMADU VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY HER LR'S
(PETITIONER DIED ON 29.11.2016
LR APPLICATION WAS ALLOWED ON 19.01.2018
WITH PERMISSION OF COURT AMENDMENT
CARRIED OUT ON 19.01.2018)
P1(B) SMT JAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
D/O KADIRI NARASAMMA @ MENASAMMA,
W/O SRI NAGARAJU,
R/AT NO.45, GUNDU RAO QUARTERS,
MAGADI ROAD, DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ABHINAY Y T, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KARTHIK V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O VENKATARAMAPPA,
RESIDING OF RACHANAMADU VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
2. SRI CHIKKA NARASIMHAIAH,
2
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O NARASIMHAIAH,
RESIDING AT RACHANAMADU VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URRBAN DISTRICT.
3. SRI RAJA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
RESIDING OF RACHANAMADU VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-9.
5. SMT NARASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
W/O SRI PUTTANNA,
D/O SMT KADIRI NARASAMMA @ MENASAMMA @
LATE CHIKKA HANUMAIAH,
R/AT NO.40, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
HOSAKERE HALLI ROAD, VEERABHADRA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
6. SMT GALAMMA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S
6(a) SRI HANUMANTHAPPA,
HUSBAND OF LATE GALAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
6(b) MS.UMA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
D/O LATE GALAMMA & SRI HANUMANTHAPPA,
6(c) SRI DILIP,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
S/O LATE GALAMMA & SRI HANUMANTHAPPA,
R6(a to c) ARE RESIDING AT NO.13,
BYTARAYANAPURA SLUM QUARTERS,
VASUDEVABHATTACHARYA EXTENSION,
3
NEAR SHARADA SCHOOL, BENGALURU - 560 026.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA A, ADVOCATE C/R1,
SRI RAJAKUMAR M, AGA FOR R4,
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT,
R3, R5, R6(a), R6(b) & R6(c) ARE SERVED
BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECRODS CONNECTED WITH
MA.108/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF II ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE
TO THE EXAMINE THE SAME AND ISSUE A WRIT CERTIORARI
QUASHING JUDGEMENT DTD 20.2.2016 PRODUCED AS PER
ANENXURE-L AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 25th MARCH 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the order dated
20.02.2016, in M.A.No.108/2011, on the file of II Additional
District Judge, Bangalore Rural District.
2. In terms of the said impugned order at Annexure-
L, learned District Judge has allowed the appeal under
Section 3(2) of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961,
('Act, 1961') filed by respondent No.1. Consequently, the
order at Annexure-H, dated 20.07.2010, in HOA.CR.87/
2003-04, passed by Tahsildar is set-aside.
4
3. The Tahsildar in terms of the said order dated
20.07.2010 at Annexure-H, had re-granted the land bearing
Survey No.3, measuring 2 acres 35 guntas, in Rachanamadu
Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk in favour of
Kadari Narasamma @ Menasamma, the original petitioner of
this petition.
4. In terms of the impugned order, the learned
District Judge by setting aside Tahsildar's order has
regranted the land in favour of respondents No.1 to 3 the
legal representatives of late Narasimhaiah.
5. The learned District Judge further held that late
Narasimhaiah was the original barwardar of the land in
question, and late Narasimhaiah had sold the
aforementioned property to Thimmaiah son of
Venkataramanappa (the appellant before the learned District
Judge) through registered sale deed dated 09.09.1971.
6. The learned District Judge also held that, though
the property was re-granted in favour the legal
representatives of late Narasimhaiah, in view of the law in
Syed Bhasheer Ahmed And Others V. State of
5
Karnataka1, the benefit of the grant would enure to the
purchaser. Thus, the learned District Judge directed the re-
grant in favour of Thimmaiah-the purchaser from Late
Narasimhaiah.
7. The petitioner Kadari Narasamma @ Menasamma
(wife of late Chikka Hanumaiah, and the daughter of late
Narasimhaiah who sold the property on 09.09.1971) is
before this Court assailing the order passed by the learned
District Judge.
8. The genealogy furnished by the original petitioner
Kadari Narasamma is as under and this genealogy appears
to be not in dispute.
BYLA
BYLA
HOTTETHIMMAIAH (DEAD) MUNIVENKATAMMA (WIFE (DEAD))
BYLAPPA CHIKKAHANUMAIAH
(DEAD) (DEAD)
KADIRI NARASAMMA
@ MENASAMMA
1
ILR 1994 KAR159
6
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would contend that Kadari Narasamma @ Menasamma,
(original writ petitioner) is wife of Chikka Hanumaiah. Said
Chikka Hanumaiah is son of Hotte Thimmaiah. Said Hotte
Thimmaiah is the son of Byla. And said Byla is the son of
Byla (both father and son are named Byla).
10. It is urged that Byla, the propositus was the
Holder of village office. After his demise, said office is
inherited by his son Byla. And after the demise of said Byla
son of Byla, Hotte Thimmaiah inherited the office. Said Hotte
Thimmaiah had two sons namely Bylappa and Chikka
Hanumaiah. Bylappa was unmarried and died without issues.
Chikka Hanumaiah married Kadari Narasamma. Said Kadari
Narasamma after the death of her husband Chikka
Hanumaiah inherited the rights of a village office holder.
11. The contention is, Kadari Narasamma, being the
wife of Chikka Hanumaiah, alone is entitled to re-grant.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge
that, Kadari Narasamma's father-Narasimhaiah though sold
Sy.No.3 measuring 2 acre 35 guntas to Thimmaiah-1st
respondent of this petition, through a registered sale deed
7
dated 09.09.1971; the sale is invalid and does not confer
any right in favour of 1st respondent-Thimmaiah as
Narasimhaiah did not have any right over the said property.
It is also urged that, as on the date of sale (09.09.1971) the
property was not yet re-granted to Narasimhaiah or any one
else.
13. Under the Act, 1961, three applications were
filed seeking re-grant. One application dated 29.11.1967 is
by Narasimhaiah (father of Kadari Narasamma), and another
application dated 26.09.1977 by 1st respondent-Thimmaiah
who purchased the property under the sale deed dated
09.09.1971 from Narasimhaiah, and the third one is by
Kadari Narasamma the daughter of Narasimhaiah, is dated
28.08.2003 marked at Annexure-R1(8). It is to be noticed
that Kadari Narasamma has not claimed right through her
father but from her husband.
14. Initially, in the first round of litigation, vide order
dated 14.05.1979, the application filed by 1st respondent-
Thimmaiah seeking re-grant of the land which he had
purchased under the registered sale deed dated 09.09.1971
was rejected. The application filed by Narasimhaiah seeking
8
re-grant was not considered as Narasimhaiah had died by
the time the order was passed.
15. In terms of the said order dated 14.05.1979, the
Assistant Commissioner directed that, in case, there is a
claim by legal heirs of Narasimhaiah, same has to be
adjudicated. Assistant Commissioner also held that 1st
respondent-Thimmaiah is in unauthorized occupation and
has to be evicted.
16. Admittedly no such eviction proceeding has taken
place.
17. It is seen that legal representatives of late
Narasimhaiah namely, Chikka Narasimhaiah and Raja
Narayanappa, and the daughter-Kadari Narasamma, did
not make a claim to re-grant the land immediately after the
demise of Narasimhaiah as legal representatives of
Narasimhaiah. Chikka Narasimhaiah and Raja Narayanappa
filed Writ Petition No.38785/2003 and sought direction to
consider their claim as legal representatives of deceased
Narasimhaiah. The Court directed the consideration of the
same by the Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, in view of
the amendment to the law, the jurisdiction is conferred on
9
the Tahsildar and accordingly, the legal representatives of
Narasimhaiah namely Chikka Narasimhaiah and Raja
Narayanappa filed claim before the Tahsildar in proceeding
No.HOACR87/2003-2004. And Kadari Narasamma made the
claim for the first time in the year 2003 by moving an
application in the proceeding before the Tahsildar which was
initiated at the instance of Chikka Narasimhaiah and Raja
Narayanappa.
18. It is relevant to notice that, Kadari Narasamma
made the claim for re-grant in the year 2003, not as the
daughter of Narasimhaiah, but as successor of her husband
on the premise that her husband's ancestors were the Village
Office Holders.
19. The Tahsildar in the said proceeding referred to
above, vide order dated 21.08.2006 held that Chikka
Narasimhaiah and Raja Narayanappa, the legal heirs of
Narasimhaiah are eligible for re-grant.
20. Kadari Narasamma filed an appeal before District
Judge in M.A.No.139/2006 challenging the order dated
21.08.2006 rejecting her application seeking re-grant and
allowing Narasimhaiah's application.
10
21. The said appeal was allowed-in-part, vide order
dated 09.03.2007, and the matter was remitted to Tahsildar
for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
22. The order in M.A.No.139/2006 remitting the
matter to Tahsildar is called in question by 1st respondent-
Thimmaiah in Writ Petition in W.P.No.6164/2007. 1st
respondent-Thimmaiah also filed W.P. 12186/2006 seeking a
declaration that in view of re-grant of land to his seller
Narasimhaiah's two sons, the purchaser- Thimmaiah would
be entitled to the benefit of re-grant as per the ratio in
Syed Bhaseer Ahmed (supra).
23. Writ petitions are disposed of vide order dated
22.08.2008, with an observation that the declaration sought
in the Writ Petition cannot be considered in writ jurisdiction.
24. 1st respondent-Thimmaiah filed Writ Appeals No.
1615/2008 and 2177/2008 assailing the order in the
aforementioned Writ Petitions.
25. The Division Bench vide order dated 26.06.2012
disposed of the Writ Appeals with liberty to agitate all
grounds in M.A.No.108/2011 pending before District Judge
11
which was filed by 1st respondent-Thimmaiah assailing the
order dated 20.07.2010 passed by Tahsildar as the Tahsildar
had re-granted the land to Kadari Narasamma pursuant to
the remand order dated 09.03.2007 in M.A.No.139/2006.
26. In M.A.No.108/2011, the learned District Judge
in terms of the impugned order dated 20.02.2016 has set-
aside the order passed by Tahsildar and re-granted the
property to legal representatives of deceased Narasimhaiah
and also held that the said re-grant would enure to the
benefit of 1st Thimmaiah-the appellant in M.A.No. 108/2011.
27. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
(legal representatives of the original petitioner Kadari
Narasamma) assailing the order in M.A. No. 108/2011 would
contend that Narasimhaiah, the father of the original
petitioner, is not an heir to the property of Byla and his
descendants. Kadari Narasamma being the daughter-in-law
of Hotte Thimmaiah is the only person who can claim re-
grant.
28. It is further urged that, merely because tastik
amount is said to have been received by him, Narasimhaiah
cannot claim to be the Barwardar of the property.
12
29. It is also urged that Narasimhaiah never made a
claim that his ancestors were village office holders. Tahsildar
having rightly noticed that Kadari Narasamma has inherited
the property as village office holder from her husband
Chikka Hanumaiah, rightly ordered re-grant in favour of
Kadari Narasamma.
30. The learned District Judge could not have
disbelieved Annexure-B, the copy of the extract of barabaluti
register signed by the Tahsildar, North Bengaluru. Though
the property is located in Bengaluru South taluk, it is quite
possible that when Annexure B was issued, the office of the
Tahsildar, Bengaluru South might have been vacant on
account of transfer or retirement of the Tahsildar and the
Tahsildar, Bengaluru North must have had the charge of
Bengaluru South Tahsildar is the submission.
31. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also
urge that under the Act, 1961, the expressions 'Holder of
village office' or 'Holder' and 'Officiator' are defined.
Narasimhaiah whose claim is allowed, cannot be considered
as 'Holder of a village office' or 'Holder' is the submission.
13
32. The Court's attention is also invited to Annexure
R1(1), the application filed by late Narasimhaiah under
Section 5 of Act, 1961 and the Rules framed under the Act,
1961. In the application, Narasimhaiah has claimed one
Venkatagiri as Barwardar and also stated that he is
interested in serving as Thoti. Referring to the contents of
the said application dated 29.11.1967 marked at Annexure
R1(1), it is urged that, late Narasimhaiah did not make a
claim that he is a 'Holder of a village office' or 'Holder'.
33. It is urged that, at best, late Narasimhaiah can
claim to be the 'Officiator', and the "Officiator" under the Act,
1961, does not get the status of the "Holder of a village
office" or "Holder" and is ineligible to claim re-grant as held
in Deshaih vs Chinnaswamy2
34. It is also urged that, having applied to be
registered as Thoti, on the same day, i.e., 29.11.1967,
Narasimhaiah filed an application under Section 5 of Act,
1961 seeking re-grant of the land. Later, he filed undated
application under Section 9. In the said application, the
2
(1995) 5 KLJ 402
14
details of "Village Office" is not furnished and columns meant
for it is mentioned as 'nil'.
35. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that,
certified copy of the barabaluti register marked at Annexure-
B, reveals that the petitioner's husband's ancestor-Byla as
the "Holder of village office" and, as such, applicant Kadari
Narasamma is entitled to re-grant as held by Tahsildar.
36. Referring to the original records in the
government file (secured by the Court), it is also urged that
the Revenue Inspector had submitted the report to the
Tahsildar stating that the property in possession of
Narasimhaiah. Tahasildar forwarded the said report to the
Assistant Commissioner. The said report dated 02.06.1972
is rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the premise
that, the Revenue Inspector is not a competent person to
issue such report.
37. It is also urged that the Assistant Commissioner
on 16.09.1974 has also directed that the copy of the
barabaluti register be produced for further action and the
Tahasildar has addressed a letter to the Assistant
Commissioner on 06.07.1977 enclosing the extract of the
15
barabaluti register. Said extract is marked at Annexure-B
and learned District Judge erred in rejecting the claim on the
premise that, the name of the village is struck off and
rewritten in the extract of the barabaluti register.
38. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners
that, claim of first respondent is accepted on the basis of the
tastik said to have been paid in respect of the petition
property in the year 1987. The tastik is said to have been
paid is based on the report of the Revenue Inspector, which
is without jurisdiction and said report was already rejected
by the Assistant Commissioner.
39. Learned counsel for the petitioners would place
reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Thimmarasiah vs The Mysore Revenue
Appellate Tribunal & Others3
(ii) G.V.Subba Rao vs Tahsildar & Ors.4
(iii) Sri. Kempaiah vs Chikkaboramma and
others5
40. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would raise
the following contentions:
3
1967(1) Mys.L.J.41
4
ILR 1998 Kar 2371
5
AIR 1998 SC 3335
16
40.1 The original petitioner Kadari Narasamma has
made a statement in the year 2003, that her father has sold
the property in favour of first respondent-Thimmaiah. Thus,
Kadari Narasamma cannot claim any right over the property
which is sold by her father.
40.2 It is also urged that, husband of Kadari
Narasamma did not file application seeking re-grant. Even
Kadari Narasamma did not file application till 2003, though
law enabled application seeking grant since 1963.
40.3 Kadari Narasamma's father Narasimhaiah sold
the property on 09.09.1971, and Kadari Narasamma was
aware that her father has sold the property and did not make
any claim till 2003 as she was aware that she had no right
over the property. Only after escalation is value of the
property post 2000, the untenable claim is made.
40.4 The Full Bench of this Court in Syed Basheer
(supra), has held that sale deeds executed by the persons
eligible to claim grant, between 01.02.1963 to 07.08.1978,
even before the grant is made, would be valid and the
purchasers in the aforementioned period are also entitled to
17
the benefit of re-grant, in case, the re-grant in favour of the
seller.
41. Learned counsel for the first respondent also
urged that except the concocted barabaluti register extract
marked at Annexure-B, which is issued by the Tahsildar
North, Bengaluru, though the property is located in
Bengaluru South Taluk, no other document is produced to
hold that Kadari Narasamma or her ancestors had right over
the property. Since, the property in question is in Bengaluru
South Taluk, the concocted extract-Annexure B, of alleged
barabaluti register cannot be relied upon.
42. In addition, it is also urged that Annexure-B does
not refer to any Survey number in Column No.17 and does
not refer to any extent in Column No.18 as required. The
said extract refers to Vadarepura village and same is struck
off and later the village "Rachanamudu" is inserted and
No.73 is mentioned in the column pertaining to village and it
cannot be construed that the said number refers to survey
No.73.
43. Late Narasimhaiah did receive tastik amount from
the Government which would demonstrate that Narasimhaiah
18
was doing Thoti service, as such, is entitled to claim re-grant
is the further contention.
44. It is also urged that Kadari Narasamma's father
sold the property on 09.09.1971 to first respondent -
Thimmaiah and the petitioners cannot claim any right over
the property and there was no objection to the said sale
deed.
45. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would also
urge that the application filed by impleading applicants who
intend to come on record as respondents No. 7 and 8, is also
not maintainable as the sale deed dated 28.07.2014
executed by petitioner-Kadari Narasamma is not valid as the
transaction is hit by rule of lis pendes and also within 15
years' non-alienation period imposed under Section 5(3) of
Act, 1961.
46. In addition, is also urged that the original
petitioner Kadari Narasamma having sold the property
(without title) on 28.07.2014, cannot prosecute the petition
to challenge the order passed by the learned District Judge
which is rendered on 20.02.2016 after the aforementioned
sale deed dated 28.07.2014. It is also urged that the sale is
19
not brought to the notice of the Court when the matter was
pending before the learned District Judge.
47. In support of the contention learned counsel for
the Respondent No.1 has relied o the judgment of Apex
Court in H. Anjanappa and Others vs. A. Prabhakar and
Others6.
48. The Court has considered the contention raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
49. As far as the contention relating to the sale of the
property during the pendency of the proceeding before the
District Court and not bringing the same to the notice of the
District Court is concerned, the Court is of the view that the
sale during the pendency of the proceeding is not barred
unless there is any such prohibition in terms of the orders
passed by the court.
50. There is no mandate under law to disclose the
sale that has taken place during the pendency of the
proceeding. Not reporting the sale in the absence of any
court order restraining such sale, does not render the
6
2025 SCC OnLine SC 183
20
transaction invalid or the seller does not lose the locus to
prosecute or defend the proceeding. However, it would be
appropriate and fair on the part of the seller to bring to the
notice of the Court about the sale transaction. In any case
the transaction will be subject to the decision the Court.
51. It is also noticed that Section 5(3) of Act, 1961,
providing restriction on alienation for 15 years from the date
of the grant, is amended in 2003 and after the said
amendment, the 15 years' restriction has to be reckoned
from the date of re-grant after the amendment in 2003. Thus
the sale would be null and void. In such an event, proviso to
Section 5(4) of the Act, 1961 enables the heirs of transferors
to seek re-grant.
52. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to prosecute the
matter, notwithstanding the sale of the property as the
purchaser's right will be subject to the result of the
proceeding. The ratio laid down in H. Anjanappa and
Others (supra), has no application to the case on hand to
prevent Kadari Narasamma the respondent before the
District Court, from challenging the order passed by District
Judge who has set aside the order which was in favour of
21
Kadari Narasamma. Said Kadari Narasamma is not a
pendente lite purchaser. She is pendente lite seller. The ratio
in H. Anjanappa and others (supra), applies to the
pendente lite purchaser.
53. Now the questions that need consideration are;
(i) Whether the petitioner Kadari Narasamma
had made out a case for re-grant?
(ii) Whether respondent No.1-the purchaser from
late Narasimhaiah, has made out a case for
re-grant in his favour or in favour of heirs of
Narasimhaiah and can claim benefit of re-
grant order made in favour of heirs of
Narasimhaiah?
54. It is not in dispute that the Act, 1961 came into
force on 01.02.1963. Thus, both the parties to the
proceedings must establish that as on 01.02.1963 they were
eligible to seek re-grant.
55. The law relating to barabaluti register mandates
that two barabaluti registers should be maintained; one in
the Taluka office and another in the District office. The
correctness of Annexure-B, the alleged extract of barabaluti
22
register is disputed by 1st respondent, and doubted by the
District Court.
56. The Court is of the view that, the veracity of
Annexure-B has to be ascertained by comparing with original
register maintained by the revenue department.
57. In the light of the contentions raised, the Court
vide order dated 08.01.2026, directed the Government to
produce the original barabaluti register relating to the land in
question. The Tahasildar has filed a memo dated 01.07.2025
stating that, the barabaluti register is not maintained.
58. The Court brought to the notice of the learned
Government advocate that certified copy of the extract of
barabaluti register is produced at Annexure-B, and vide
order dated 14.01.2026, directed the Tahasildar to file an
affidavit explaining the basis for issuing extract of barabaluti
register issued as per Annexure-B
59. The Tahasildar Bengaluru South Taluk has filed
the affidavit dated 02.06.2026. The relevant portion of the
affidavit reads as under:
23
"3. I state and submit that after gone (sic) through
the Bala Baluthi copy issued by the Bengaluru North Taluk this
Office is (sic) verified the entire register of Shanabhogha
Inamti but there was (sic) not registered records in Sy.No.3 of
Rachanamadu Village, Bengaluru South Taluk Office. This
Office in (sic) only maintain (sic) Shanabhoghana Inamati Bala
Baluthi registered but not (sic) maintain the Bala Baluthi
registered of Thoti Inamti Registered.''
60. The document at Annexure-B produced by the
petitioner is said to be the copy of the barabaluti register
extract said to have been issued by Tahsildar, Bengaluru
North Taluk on 13.03.1975.
61. The column No.7 of the said register refers to
responsibility/obligation between original person and the
person whose name appears in the register. (The Court has
interpreted the Kannada word "bhadhyate" appearing in
column No.7 as responsibility/obligation)
Against the said column, the following entry is made:-
"SDO.No.Dis.B-24/37-38 16.8.37."
62. Apparently this entry in column No.7 does not
convey any meaning. And as observed by the learned District
24
Judge, in column No.2 the name of the village Vaderapura is
struck off and Rachanamudu is mentioned.
63. In column No.3 the person's name is mentioned
as Byla and in column No.8 father's name is mentioned as
Byla.
64. The column No.17 pertains to survey number and
column No.18 pertains to the extent. Both columns are left
blank.
65. It is to be noticed that admittedly the property is
located in Bengaluru South Taluk and the copy is issued by
the Bengaluru North Taluk on 13.03.1975.
66. The certified copy of barabaluti register could not
have been issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk
when the property is located in South Talulk is one of the
contentions of the respondent No.1. No explanation in this
behalf is furnished before the District Judge and the
Tahsildar.
67. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the
petitioners urged that Bengaluru South Taluk Tahsildar's
charge must have been with Bengaluru North Taluk
25
Tahasildar either on account of leave or transfer or some
kind of vacancy.
68. It is relevant to notice that Tahsildar, Bengaluru
South was arrayed as respondent No.4 before the learned
District Judge. The Tahsildar was not represented before the
learned District Judge.
69. In a proceeding like this, the barabaluti register is
an important piece of document to consider the claim related
to re-grant.
70. The extract of barabaluti register marked at
Annexure-B is doubted on the ground that it is issued by the
Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk though the property is
located in Bengaluru South Taluk. Opposing the objection, it
is pointed out that the occupancy price paid by the first
respondent is received by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North
Taluk. Merely because the Annexure-B is issued by the
Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, that may not by itself be a
ground to disbelieve the Annexure-B. It is a possibility that,
for certain period or on a given date the Tahsildar, Bengaluru
North might be holding charge of Tahsildar, Bengaluru
South. However, said contention is not established.
26
Assuming that Tahsildar Bengaluru South, was absent and
charge was with Tahasildar Bengaluru North, even then, said
document does not refer to the property in question. The
errors and infirmities in the said document as already noticed
above are considered by the District Judge. There is no
evidence to corroborate the entry in Annexure-B. The burden
is on the petitioners to explain the discrepancies in
Annexure-B. The petitioners have not produced another
certified copy of barabaluti register.
71. The view taken by the District Judge to disbelieve
said document cannot be said to be erroneous to interfere in
the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India as
no other document is available to hold that Sy.No.3 was
possessed by Byla as Holder of village office.
72. The view taken by the District Judge is
strengthened by the memo and the affidavit filed by the
Tahsildar, Bengaluru South where it is stated that the
barabaluti register is not maintained. The law mandates such
register to be maintained. However, it is stated that it is not
maintained. Hence, there has to be an appropriate direction
in this behalf.
27
73. However, in any case, the petitioners' claim is not
established through Annexure-B, as the said document does
not refer to the property involved in this petition.
74. In the order dated 20.07.2010, Tahsildar has held
that Kadari Narasamma's husband and husband's father and
grand-father were the occupants of the petition land.
However, the basis for rendering such a finding is not
forthcoming in the said order.
75. The Tahsildar in his order dated 20.07.2010 has
concluded that Byla was the Barwardar and thereafter, it is
inherited by his descendants and Kadari Narasamma being
the wife of great grand-son of Byla has discharged the duty
as Thoti and is entitled to re-grant. It is to be noticed that,
while recording the said finding, the Tahsildar has referred to
the order in M.A.No.139/2006.
76. The Tahsildar has also come to the conclusion
that, the purchaser-respondent No.1 is not entitled to re-
grant as he purchased the property from a person who is not
the member of the village office holder's family or authorized
holder.
28
77. The Tahsildar has recorded a finding that order
dated 28.01.2006 granting land to Chikka Narasimhaiah son
of Narasimhaiah and Raja son of Narayanappa is held to be
erroneous in terms of order dated 09.03.2007 in M.A.
No.139/2006 passed by the District Court. Though the order
passed by the Tahsildar on 28.01.2006 is set-aside by the
District Judge in M.A. No.139/2006, it is to be noticed in
W.A. Nos.1615/2008 and 2177/2008 this Court permitted
the appellant-Thimmaiah in the said appeal to raise all the
contentions available. However, it appears that Tahsildar
was carried away by the order in M.A. No.139/2006.
78. It appears from the observation in the Tahsildar's
order dated 20.07.2010 that, the Tahsildar has understood
the order in M.A. No.139/2006 as having upheld the contents
of Annexure-B, the alleged extract of barabaluti register.
79. Tahsildar has proceeded on the premise that
Narasimhaiah is not the member family of Barwardar. It is
to be noticed that Narasimhaiah did not claim to be the
member of family of Byla.
80. Learned District Judge in the impugned order has
opined that, the Tahsildar while passing the order dated
29
20.07.2010 has ignored the stay order granted by the High
Court in the pending Writ Appeals. It is stated that, the stay
order is granted in the Writ Appeals on 15.04.2011, and not
on 20.07.2010. The observation of the District Judge that
the Tahsildar has passed the order when the proceeding was
stayed is erroneous. However, District Judge has not set
aside the order dated 20.07.2010 passed by the Tahsildar on
the said ground alone.
81. The learned District Judge has also held that the
extract of barabaluti register does not refer to the property
in question. District Judge has noticed that no application is
filed by children of grandchildren of Byla seeking re-grant.
Thus, the District Judge has held that the claim of Kadari
Narasamma, that Byla was the village office holder is
doubtful. Those observations/findings are certainly plausible
based on records.
82. In the original record, there is a document which
records that Byla is Thoti of Rachanamudu village and he is
unable to discharge the duty and in his place Narasimhaiah is
appointed temporarily to discharge the duty. Based on the
30
said order, the petitioners contend that the status of Byla as
'Holder of village office' is established.
83. The Court has perused the original file submitted
by the learned Government Advocate. Said order relied on by
the petitioners is in page No. 34 of the original file. Said
order reads as under.
"ºÉÆç½ ªÀÄdPÀÆgÀÄ gÁd£ÀªÀÄqÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ vÉÆÃn ¨ÉʯÁ vÀ£Àß SÁ¬Ä¯É
¸À§Æ§Ä PÉ®ì £ÀªÀð»¸À¯ÁgÀ DV, CzÉà UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀĪÀ £ÀgÀ²AºÀå£À
ºÀAUÁ«Ä AiÀiÁV vÉÆÃn PÉ®ìPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄî ¸À¨ï r«d£ï £ÀA.952
vÁjÃRÄ 8-4-1930£Éà £ÀA§gï DqÀðgï §AzÀzÁÝVgÀÄvÉÛ. F CA±À
¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ w½¹ gÀÄdÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ C. ªÀiÁr."
84. Aforementioned order does not refer to any
survey number, or extent of the land. It is difficult to hold
that the said order is pertaining to petition property.
85. More important, the document at page No.34 in
the original file is neither the original order nor the certified
copy. It is said to be the "copy". It does not disclose as to
who prepared the said document/copy. It does not bear any
seal of the office.
86. Thus, this Court is not inclined to hold that said
document is a piece of acceptable evidence to conclude that
31
the Byla was Holder of village office based on said document.
Thus both the documents, namely Annexure-B, the alleged
extract of barabaluti register and alleged order handing over
the Thoti work to Narasimhaiah are not proved and cannot
be relied upon.
87. The learned District Judge has concluded that
Narsimhaiah was rendering Thoti service and he has received
salary for the service in the year 1972 in terms of orders
dated 08.04.1930 by paying the land revenue. The learned
District Judge has referred to Section 2(1)(f) of Act, 1961 to
hold that late Narasimhaiah was the person having interest
in the property in terms of order dated 08.04.1930.
88. Learned District Judge has also referred to
Section 2(1)(n) of Act, 1961 to hold that the tastik received
by Narasimhaiah is an emolument attached to the village
office.
89. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the
tastik paid in the year 1972 cannot be considered as proof of
Thoti service rendered.
32
90. It is indeed true that Narasimhaiah in his
application marked at Annexure-R1(1) has introduced
himself as interested to serve as Thoti. In the said
application, he has mentioned Venkatagiri as Barwardar.
Narasimhaiah did not claim that Byla was village office
holder.
91. The learned District Judge has referred to the
tastik payment made from 1987 to 2004. Said finding is
untenable as the right of the person claiming re-grant is to
be determined with reference to the rights possessed by the
applicant as on the appointed date i.e. on 01.02.1963.
92. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Deshaiah
(supra), has held that Officiator is not entitled to re-grant as
the Officiator is not recognized under Section 5 of Act, 1961.
In the said judgment, the Court has not considered the
scope of proviso to Section 7 of the Act, 1961 (before the
amendment of 1978), which provided for re-grant of land to
unauthorized occupant.
93. The learned District Judge has also held that
name of Narasimhaiah was found in the records for the year
1969-70 as Thoti and has also referred to the Tahsildar's
33
report dated 11.07.1972 to come to the conclusion that
Narasimhaiah was discharging duty as Thoti since 1930.
94. The Court does not agree with the finding of the
District Court that Narasimhaiah was in possession of the
property for more than 40 years by paying the land revenue.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the Tahsildar's report dated 11.07.1972 is not
accepted by the Assistant Commissioner as the Assistant
Commissioner has opined that the Revenue Inspector is not
a competent person to draw the report relating to the
possession of inam lands.
95. As already noticed, the Court has held the original
barabaluti register is not available. The Court has held that
Kadari Narasamma has failed to establish that the property
was assigned to her husband's ancestor Byla as Holder of
village office. Applying the same analogy, the Court has to
take a view that there are no records to hold that
Narasimhaiah was the Holder of village office.
96. The original file maintained by the Government
would disclose two certified copies. One document is said to
be the certified copy of a register maintained by the Revenue
34
Department. However, the nomenclature of the register is
not specifically mentioned. Said certified copy was issued to
Thoti Narasimhaiah on 16.11.1967. Said document would
disclose Venkatagiri as Thoti.
97. Another document is the certified copy of an
extract issued on 16.11.1967 to Thoti Narasimhaiah. The
nomenclature of the register from which said document is
issued is not forthcoming. Said document also reveals that a
Thoti Venkatagiri is in possession of the property. These two
documents do not disclose the name of Thoti Narasimhaiah.
98. This being the position, the Court has to hold
that, there are no records to show that Narasimhaiah was
holding the property as Holder of village office.
99. The certified copy of record of right for the years
1967-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 would disclose name of
Narasimhaiah in column No.9. However, the basis for such
entry is not forthcoming. Under these circumstances, the
finding of the District Court that Thoti Narasimhaiah was the
Barwardar of the land in question cannot be accepted.
35
100. It is noticed that, the property is sold to first
respondent by Narasimhaiah on 09.09.1971. Till today, the
State has not taken steps for resumption of land for itself.
There are no other claimants for the re-grant.
101. In the year 1979, the Assistant Commissioner
passed rejected the application of first respondent-
Thimmaiah who sought re-grant based on the sale deed. In
the said order the Assistant Commissioner has directed
eviction of first respondent-Thimmaiah and directed to
consider the claim of legal representatives of deceased
Narasimhaiah. However, no steps are taken to resume the
land from the first respondent.
102. In the peculiar facts of the case discussed above,
it is evident that the first respondent is in possession of the
property. It is noticed that heirs of Narasimhaiah (other
than Kadari Narasamma) have given up their claim by
entering into settlement with Kadari Narasamma. It is also
noticed that except Kadari Narasamma who made a claim in
2003 stating that her husband's ancestors were village
office holders, none from the family of Byla made a claim
over the said property.
36
103. The Court has also noticed that Narasimhaiah was
not the village office holder. Should the Court set aside the
re-grant order in favour of children of Narasimhaiah in a
situation where Narasimhaiah has sold the property in 1971
to 1st respondent?
104. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge
that the Division Bench of this Court in Thimmarasiah
(supra), has held that to make a claim as Holder of village
office, one has to be the officer and without being the officer
and merely by being in possession, a person cannot claim to
be a Holder of village office under the Act, 1908. It is indeed
true the Division Bench in the aforementioned case has held
that one who is merely performing the duties of a village
officer, is not a village officer within the meaning of the Act,
1908.
105. It is relevant to notice that Act, 1961, has
repealed the Act, 1908. The Act, 1961 has defined the
expression "Holder of village office" or "Holder" and also
defined the expression "Unauthorised Holder". The judgment
in Thimmarasiah (supra), does not deal with the provisions
of the Act, 1961.
37
106. It is also relevant to notice that, Act, 1961 was
amended in 1978 and till then, Section 7 of the Act, 1961
provided for grant of land to unauthorized holder. It is only
after the amendment in the year 1978, the law provided for
eviction of unauthorized person and re-grant of land to the
village office holder.
107. In the instant case, the claim for re-grant was
made on 29.11.1967 by Narasimhaiah and it is well before
the amendment to Section 7 of Act, 1961.
108. Whether the amendment to Section 7 of Act of
1961 is prospective or retrospective, is a matter that may
require consideration to consider the claim of first
respondent. No arguments are advanced with reference to
the amendment to Section 7 of the Act of 1961 which was
brought into effect in 1978.
109. Narasimhaiah was in unauthorized occupation of
the land. The reason is Assistant Commissioner in his order
dated 14.05.1979 has held that 1st respondent -purchaser
from Narasimhaiah is in unauthorized occupation. That would
mean his seller Narasimhaiah was in unauthorized
occupation. In that event heirs of Narasimhaiah including
38
Kadari Narasamma are eligible to re-grant if the amendment
to Section is held to be prospective. In that event the benefit
of re-grant would enure to the benefit of 1st respondent in
view of law declared in Syed Basheer (supra).
110. If the amendment to Section 7 is held to be
retrospective, then, Narasimhaiah is not entitled to seek re-
grant.
111. Though it is evident that the amendment to
Section 7 is by way of substitution, and in such situation
generally, the amendment is retrospective or retroactive, it
is also well settled position of law that, there is no such
absolute rule that the amendment by way of substitution is
always retrospective. In a given situation it may have
prospective application as well.
112. However, in this case the Court need not embark
upon the question which is not addressed, more so in a
situation where said question if answered in either way will
not come to the aid of the petitioners as the Court has
already come to the conclusion that the petitioners have
failed to establish that the Byla was the Holder of village
office or Holder. Apart from that, sons of Narasimhaiah have
39
given up their claim over the property. The claim is
prosecuted by Kadari Narasamma, not in her capacity as the
daughter of Narasimhaiah, but in her capacity as heir of her
husband. In that view of the matter the petition has to be
dismissed holding that the petitioners are not entitled to re-
grant.
113. The first respondent is in possession of the
property eversince he purchased in 1971, and the said sale
was facilitated because of entry in the record of right in the
name of Narasimhaiah, and State has not cancelled the sale,
(though the Assistant Commissioner has held that the
purchaser is not eligible to seek re-grant) and also
considering the fact that position of the purchaser has
changed in view of the law in Syed Basheer (supra), the
Court is of the view that the possession held by the
purchaser from Narasimhaiah since 1971 should not be
disturbed in a proceeding filed by Kadari Narasamma who
did not acquire any right over the property for the reasons
already discussed.
40
114. The Court has passed this order by taking into
consideration that the State never laid a claim over the over
the property all these years, and was adjudicating who
among the rival claimants is entitled to the property.
115. This Court has already noticed that the original
barabaluti registers are not available. The jurisdictional
Deputy Commissioner shall take steps to ascertain as to
whether the said registers are kept in any other office
coming under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner.
116. The steps taken in this regard and the outcome of
such exercise shall be reported to the Registry of this Court
within three months from today.
117. The Court has also noticed that some of the
documents referred to in the order which are found in the
original file submitted by the learned Government Advocate
are fragile. Thus, the scanned copies of those documents
are made part of the order by annexing the same as
documents No.1, 2 and 3.
118. Before concluding, it is to be recorded that on
18.03.2026, the case was listed for pronouncement of
41
orders. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought
adjournment on the premise that the original barabaluti
register is available and sought time to produce the copy of
the same. Accepting the request, the matter was adjourned
to 25.03.2026. On that day, the learned counsel for the
petitioners again sought time to produce the records. The
petitioners did not even produce any records to show that an
application is filed to obtain the copy of the Barabaluti
Register. When queried, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that, the application is filed before the District
Court where according to the petitioners, the certified copy
of the Barabaluti Register was produced. The Court declined
the request for adjournment. However, secured the records
from the District Court through telephonic communication.
The records sent from the District Court did not reveal any
certified copy of Barabaluti Register other than what is
marked as Annexure - B to the Writ Petition. The Court has
already analysed the said document.
42
43
44
45
119. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) Government Advocate to communicate this
order to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner
to carry out the exercise as directed in
paragraphs No.115 and 116.
SPONSORED
(iii) The steps to be taken by the jurisdictional
Deputy Commissioner to trace the original
barabaluti register, as directed in paragraphs
No.115 and 116 of this order and the outcome
of the steps shall be reported to the Registry of
this Court within three months from today.
(iv) The copy of the said report shall be served on
the counsel for the petitioners and respondents
by the Registry of this Court.
(v) Registry shall send back the records to the
District Court.
(vi) Registry shall also return the original records to
the learned Government Advocate.
(vii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
BRN/CHS/GVP
