Karnataka High Court
Sakappa vs The Competent Authority Under on 2 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50436
WP No. 41183 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 41183 OF 2016 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SAKAPPA
DEAD BY LRS
1(A). RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
W/O LATE G. SAKAPPA
1(B). KRISHNAMURTHY S
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE G. SAKAPPA
1(C). SURESH S
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O LATE G. SAKAPPA
Digitally signed by 1(D). SRIDHAR
PANKAJA S AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
Location: HIGH S/O LATE G. SAKAPPA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1(E). NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O LATE G. SAKAPPA
1(F). SUMITHRA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
W/O DASHARATH
1(G). MURALI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O LATE G. SAKAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50436
WP No. 41183 of 2016
HC-KAR
ALL ARE R/O BENGANUR
INDIRA NAGAR, KASABA HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER
THE LAND REFORMS
BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER
SECTION 77A OF KARNATAKA LAND
REFORMS ACT,
KOLAR SUB DIVISION
KOLAR - 563 101
3. SMT. HASEENA BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
W/O LATE MOHAMMED NAYEEMUDDIN
D/O LATE ALI KHAN
4. AZEEZ AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
S/O LATE ALI KHAN
5. RAHAMATHULLA KHAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O LATE ALI KHAN
6. SMT. KURSHEED BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
W/O SATHAR KHAN
D/O LATE ALI KHAN
7. SMT ABIDA BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50436
WP No. 41183 of 2016
HC-KAR
W/O DR RAHAMATHULLA KHAN
D/O LATE ALI KHAN
8. SMT. SHAHAZADI BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
W/O DR RAHAMATHULLA KHAN
D/O LATE ALI KHAN
9. SMT. ZAREENA BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O MOHAMMED AHMED
D/O LATE ALI KHAN
10. SMT. RAHANA BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O NIZAR AHMED
D/O LATE ALI KHAN
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 10
ARE RESIDING AT NO. 2463,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, BANGARPET,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. N. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R10)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DTD.02.04.2016 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.82/2010 VIDE ANNEX-
R AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:50436
WP No. 41183 of 2016
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 02.04.2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) in Appeal No.82/2010 as per Annexure-R.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their grandfather one Gullappa and his brothers namely Muniswamappa and Dharmappa had constituted a joint Hindu family and they were cultivating the land bearing Sy.Nos.31/2, 53/1, 59, 62/2, 54/1 and 89/2 in total measuring 4 acres situated in Benganuru Village, Bangarpete Taluk (for brevity, "subject land"). They were the lawful tenants of the land and were cultivating since from the year 1970-71 as tenants under one Allahsab i.e., grandfather of respondent Nos.3 to 10. The said Gullappa died on 20.12.1993 and thereafter, the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:50436 WP No. 41183 of 2016 HC-KAR petitioners continued in cultivation and possession of the subject land.
3. Things stood thus, the father of the petitioners' i.e., Sakappa (son of late Gullappa) filed Form No.7A under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for brevity "the KLR Act") before the Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights on 24.09.1999. Respondent No.2-the Competent Authority, after conducting an enquiry and by examining the documents i.e., reports from the Tahsildar and also the RTC entries, came to the conclusion that petitioners' grandfather was a tenant under the grandfather of respondent Nos.3 to 10 ever since from 1970-71 and accordingly, granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners' father vide order dated 07.12.2009 as per Annexure-Q. The said order has been challenged by respondent Nos.3 to 10 before the KAT in Appeal No.82/2010.
4. The KAT has allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Competent Authority i.e., -6- NC: 2025:KHC:50436 WP No. 41183 of 2016 HC-KAR respondent No.2 on the ground that, father of the petitioners has filed the original suit in O.S.No.34/2004 in respect of the subject land against respondent Nos.3 to 10 for declaration and injunction and the said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 31.03.2005. As such, petitioners are not entitled for tenancy under Section 77-A of the KLR Act. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition by the petitioners.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the KAT has erred while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Competent Authority only on the ground that the suit filed by the petitioners for declaration was dismissed. However, the KAT has not examined the documents placed by the petitioners to prove that they were in possession and cultivation of the subject land as on the relevant date as provided under Section 77-A and 77-E of the KLR Act. As such, he prays to allow the Writ Petition. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:50436 WP No. 41183 of 2016 HC-KAR
7. Per contra, the learned AGA opposes the Writ Petition by supporting the impugned order.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also perused the records made available before this Court.
9. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute that the grandfather of the petitioners one Gullapppa was in possession and cultivation of the subject land ever since from the year 1970-71 till his death and thereafter the father of the petitioners and the petitioners are continued in possession of the subject land. The order passed by the Competent Authority clearly depicts that the said Gullappa had placed the relevant RTC extracts, which clearly reveals he was in cultivation of the subject land as on 01.03.1974. Accordingly, the land vested with the Government and thereafter, the petitioners' father had filed Form No.7A. Further, the competent authority has obtained the report and survey sketch from the Tahsildar -8- NC: 2025:KHC:50436 WP No. 41183 of 2016 HC-KAR and the same also depicts that the petitioners' father is in possession of the subject land. Accordingly, the competent authority granted the subject land in favour of the petitioners' father. However, the appellate authority has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Tribunal only on the ground that petitioners' father had filed a suit in respect of the subject land for declaration and injunction, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2005. The said reasoning of the appellate authority cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the petitioners being the tenants of the subject land and before granting the land in their favour, they were unable to produce documents to prove their title. Further, under the Land Reforms Act, the competent authority is empowered to grant land for the occupants as provided under Section 77-A of the KLR Act. It is also relevant to notice that the Tribunal while rejecting the order, had observed that in Column No.12(2A) of the RTC, it is stated that type of cultivation is mentioned as "self" (swantha). -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:50436 WP No. 41183 of 2016 HC-KAR However, in the owner's Column No.9 of RTC of the relevant year clearly depicts that father of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is the owner of the subject land. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that KAT has misread the factual aspects and materials on record and passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii. The order passed by the KAT dated 02.04.2016 in Appeal No.82/2010 as per Annexure-R is quashed. Consequently, the order passed by the Competent Authority dated 07.12.2009 in TRB No.117/99-00 as per Annexure-Q is affirmed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23