Karnataka High Court
Sri Chikkirappa vs The Assistant Commissioner on 3 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24306
WP No. 49391 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 49391 OF 2017 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHIKKIRAPPA,
S/O BYRANNA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
SMT. HONAMMA,
1. W/O LATE CHIKKIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
2. SRI. BAIRANNA,
S/O LATE CHIKKIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. SRI. NAGARA,
S/O LATE CHIKKIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHAYA BIDADI HOBLI,
Location: HIGH RAMANAGAR TALUK ,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 101.
4. SMT. KOUSALYA,
D/O LATE CHIKKIRAPPA,
W/O CHIKKAKADARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KARADIGOWDA DODDI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGAR TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24306
WP No. 49391 of 2017
HC-KAR
5. SMT. KAVITHA,
D/O LATE CHIKKIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SANGA BASAVA
DODDI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CUM REGULARIZATION OFFICER,
RAMANAGAR SUB - DIVISION,
RAMANAGAR,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 101.
2. SRI. PRAKASH,
S/O LATE PUTTARAJ,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S
2(a) SMT.TEJAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O LATE PRAKASH,
2(b) SRI.C.P.KARTHIK,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O LATE PRAKASH,
2(c) SRI.C.P.SHIVANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O LATE PRAKASH,
3. SRI. PRASHANTH,
S/O LATE PUTTARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24306
WP No. 49391 of 2017
HC-KAR
4. SRI. SUBRAMANYA,
S/O LATE PUTTARAJ,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
4(a) SMT. PRATHIMA,
W/O LATE SUBRAMANYA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
4(b) SRI. AKASH,
S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.2(a) TO 2(c), 3,
4, 4(a) TO 4(b) ARE
RESIDING AT GARUDAGAMBA BEEDI,
CHANNAPATANA TOWN,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 160.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.M.S.MANJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (a TO c), R3
AND R4 (a & b))
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN APPEAL NO.677/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU; QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 21.08.2017 IN APPEAL NO.677/2006 PASSED
BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE
ANNEXURE - Q AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:24306
WP No. 49391 of 2017
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 21.08.2017 in Appeal No.677 of 2006 (Annexure-Q) on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5 , viz., late Chikkirappa claim to be the tenant under one Puttaraj, father of the private respondent Nos.2 to 4 in respect of the subject land. It is further stated that the said Chikkirappa was owner of the land in question and he has sold the subject land in favour of the said Puttaraju as per the registered sale deed dated 16.10.1970. Thereafter, the said Chikkirappa continued to be in possession and cultivation of the land in question even after the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the said Puttaraj. Thereafter, in terms of the amendment made to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act -5- NC: 2025:KHC:24306 WP No. 49391 of 2017 HC-KAR dated 01.03.1974, Chikkirappa continued to be in cultivation of the land in question. Therefore, the said Chikkirappa has made an application in Form No.7-A seeking occupancy rights in respect of the subject land. Since he has filed Form No.7-A before the Land Tribunal at Ramanagara, the Assistant Commissioner, after considering the material on record at Annexure-E dated 13.03.2006, granted occupancy right in favour of the father of the petitioners herein - Chikkirappa. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of the Puttaraj (appellants in Appeal No.677 of 2006) have preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru and the Appellate Tribunal, by the order dated 21.08.2017 (Annexure-Q) allowed the appeal, consequently, set aside the order dated 13.03.2006 passed by Respondent No.1. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
3. Heard Shri.Abhinav.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri.K.P.Yoganna, learned -6- NC: 2025:KHC:24306 WP No. 49391 of 2017 HC-KAR counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Shri.M.S.Manjanna, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(c); Respondent No.3 & Respondent Nos.4(a) & (b).
4. Shri.Abhinav.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at para No.24 and submitted that the finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal that no material has been produced before the authorities with regard to the vesting of the land is incorrect, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of BASAVVA VS. SMT.TANGEVVA1 and as such, refers to para No.16, and submitted that the vesting of the land is only through an operation of law and the said aspect of the matter is ignored by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
1 LAWS (KAR)-2013-8-288 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:24306 WP No. 49391 of 2017 HC-KAR
5. Per contra, Shri.Manjanna learned counsel appearing for private respondents refers to the finding recorded by the Tribunal at para Nos.17 and 18, submitted that the father of the petitioner herein has sold the land in question as per the registered Sale Deed dated 16.10.1970 and therefore, there is no relationship as the owner of the land or even as a tenant under the purchaser of the land, i.e., the father of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and therefore, the claim made by the father of the petitioner herein - Chikkirappa, is inconsequential in so far as the ingredients to be complied with under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. Shri.K.P.Yoganna, learned AGA appearing for Respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is well settled principle in law by Full Bench of this Court in the case of -8- NC: 2025:KHC:24306 WP No. 49391 of 2017 HC-KAR LOKAYYA POOJARY & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS2 wherein this Court, has laid down the law requires to be followed to decide the application filed under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The relevant portion at paragraph Nos.16, 17 and 18:
16. Interestingly, as in the case of Rule 17, for conducting enquiry, the procedure prescribed u/s 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is not made applicable to enquiry u/s 77-A of the Act. In an enquiry u/s 77-A read with Section 26-
C, the question of the authority going into the question whether the land in question is a tenanted land or not, would not arise, which question, the Tribunal constituted under the Act alone is competent to go into u/s 48 of the Act. No such power or jurisdiction has been conferred u/s 77-A on the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner. The enquiry contemplated u/s 77-A is to be confined only to the following:
(1) Whether the person who has made an application u/s 77-A was in actual possession 2 ILR 2012 KAR 4345 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:24306 WP No. 49391 of 2017 HC-KAR and cultivation of any land before the first day of March, 1974;
(2) Being entitled to be registered as occupants of such land u/s 45 or 49, has failed to apply for registration of occupancy rights in respect of such land under sub-Section (1) of Section 48-A within the period specified therein.
In other words, if such an application had been filed, which claim is adjudicated upon by the Tribunal and if it is negatived, then such a person is not entitled to file an application u/s 77-A;
(3) Whether such a person is continued to be in actual possession and cultivation of such land on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1977.
17. Proviso makes it clear that the land so granted together with the land already held by such person shall not exceed 2 Hectares of ''D'' class of land or its equivalent thereto. In other words, if the applicant held land in excess of 2 Hectares of ''D'' Class of land or its equivalent thereto, he was not entitled to grant of land u/s 77-A of the Act, even if he was a tenant of the land in question prior to 01.03.1974 and continued to be in possession of the land and cultivating the land till the introduction of Section 77-A of the Act. Though such land vested with the Government as on 01.03.1974, he was not entitled to grant of land.
18. If we keep the above principle and the Legislative intent in mind, what emerges is while
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24306 WP No. 49391 of 2017 HC-KAR amending the Act and introducing Section 77-A, the Legislature was very clear in its mind that by the said amendment, they were not intending to have one more forum for registration of occupancy rights u/s 45 of the Act. These two provisions were intended to cover two independent fields. Similarly, if a person has availed the benefit of Section 45-A and lost the battle, Section 77-A was not meant to give him one more opportunity, a second innings. The power to grant occupancy rights u/s 45 was vested with a quasi-judicial authority like a Tribunal. On the day the amendment introducing Section 77-A came into force, the Tribunals were in existence and functioning. The intention of the Legislature was not to give them jurisdiction to decide the claims u/s 77-A. A separate machinery is now contemplated u/s 77-A. The enquiry that was contemplated u/s 45 is totally different from the enquiry u/s 77-A, as is clear from the fact that corresponding to Section 77-A Rule 26(c) was enacted and the claim u/s 77-A had to be adjudicated in terms of the procedure prescribed u/s 26(c). A reading of Section 77-A makes it very clear this provision has a limited application. It applies to only certain cases. It is necessary to bear in mind the context in which Section 77-A is introduced. This provision finds a place in
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24306 WP No. 49391 of 2017 HC-KAR Chapter IV, whereunder as per Section 77 a provision is made for disposal of surplus lands on such land being vested with the Government and also other lands which are vested in the State. Therefore, in a proceeding u/s 77-A, the enquiry that was contemplated u/s 48-A is excluded. This is a provision that enables a person who is in occupation of a land, of which he was a tenant and continues to be in possession as a tenant to apply for grant of such land, if he had failed to make an application for grant of occupancy rights within the time stipulated. Such a person is given an opportunity to make an application for grant of land provided he continues to cultivate the land and he was not holding land in excess of 2 Hectares of land. Therefore, in the said proceedings the question whether the said land is a tenanted land or not, cannot be gone into, as is clear from the language used in Section 77-A. The entire enquiry contemplated u/s 77-A is in respect of a land, which is vested in the State Government u/s 44, as on 01.03.1974. It should be an undisputed fact. If the said fact is disputed, then Section 77-A has no application. The jurisdiction u/s 77-A is attracted only in respect of undisputed tenanted lands. Vesting of the land as on 01.03.1974 with the Government, which
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24306 WP No. 49391 of 2017 HC-KAR fact is not in dispute, is a condition precedent for application of Section 77-A.
8. In the backdrop of these aspects, in the case of Basavva (supra), this Court, by following the declaration of law made by this Court in the case of Lokayya Poojary, has held that the production of order of vesting is not a requirement of law and it is not possible and it cannot be insisted by the respondent authorities since the vesting of land is only by operation of law. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has not considered the ingredients to be followed while considering the application under Section 77A of the Act as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Lokayya Poojary. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as the declaration of law made by this Court in the case of Lokayya Poojary is to be followed. Apart from this, the finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at paragraph No.24 wherein it is stated with
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24306 WP No. 49391 of 2017 HC-KAR regard to the vesting of the land as well as to consider the question relating to the cultivation of land has to be made only based on the RTC extract and the relevant revenue records as on the date of 01.03.1974. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal requires to be interfered with in this writ petition as the same is contrary to the declaration of law made in the case of Lokayya Poojary. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 21.08.2017 in Appeal No.677 of 2006 (Annexure-Q) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru to re-consider the case of the parties afresh after affording fair opportunity to all the parties concerned, and in the light of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24306 WP No. 49391 of 2017 HC-KAR judgment of this Court in the case of Lokayya Poojary (supra).
iii) In order to avoid further delay in the matter, since the parties are represented through their learned counsels, the parties are directed to appear before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 04th August, 2025 at 11.00 am without awaiting any further notice from the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and on their appearance, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal at the earliest, in accordance with law.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46