Karnataka High Court
Smt Maryselina A vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.1156 OF 2023 (LR)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.25020 OF 2022
IN WP No. 1156/2023
BETWEEN:
MUNISHAMAPPA @ MUNISWAMAIAH
S/O PILLAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1. SRI. MUNIPILLAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
@ MUNISWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKKABANAVARA POST
Digitally signed by HESARGHATTA HOBLI
SHARMA ANAND BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
CHAYA
Location: HIGH BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 090.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
@ MUNISWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT GOLLARAHATTI
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
VISVANEEDUM POST
BENGALURU - 560 091.
4. SMT. PADMA
D/O SRI. MUNIPILLAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
W/O SRI. CHALAPATHI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RA/T KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKKABANAVARA POST
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 090.
5. SMT. MANASA
D/O SRI MUNIPILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RA/T KUMBARAHALLI VILALGE
CHIKKABANAVARA POST
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560090.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. H.S. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561201
RERPESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
DODDABALLALPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561201.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
SANJEEVAIAH
S/O PILLAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
4. SRI. KEMPANNA
S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MAJARA KODIHALLI
BEERAIAHNAPALYA VILALGE
KONGADIYAPPA ROAD POST
MADURE HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 561201.
PUTTAIAH
S/O NANJUNDAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
5. SRI.H.B. NANJUNDAPA
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.285,
KUSUMA NILAYA
HALAGEVADERAHALLI
RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 098.
6. SRI. P. RANGAPPA
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RA/T NO. 285,
KUSUMA NILAYA
HALAGEVADERAHALLI
RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA
BENGALURU 560 098.
7. SMT. MARY CELINE .A
W/O SRI. SADHU KOKILA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RA/T NO.638,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
7TH BLOCK
2ND PHASE
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
HOSAKEREHALLI CROSS,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. S. HIMA KIRANA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6;
SRI. MUNIRAJA M., ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.11.2022 IN CASE NO. LRF
1201/1674-75 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - LAND
TRIBUNAL WITH RESPECT TO LAND IN SY.NO.91, NEW NO.91/2,
MEASURING 6 ACRES 20 GUNTAS, SY.NO.161/9 MEASURING 6
GUNTAS , SY. NO.161/10 MEASURING 5 GUNTAS AND
SY.NO.159 MEASURING 4 ACRE 7 GUNTAS , SITUATED AT
KODIHALLI VILLAGE, MADURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
AS PER ANNEXURE -A.
IN WP NO.25020/2022
BETWEEN
SMT. MARYSELINA A.
W/O SRI. SADHU KOKILA
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.638, 7TH BLOCK
2ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
HOSAKEREHALLI CROSS
BENGALURU - 560 085.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MUNIRAJA M., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
DODDABALLAPURA
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561201.
SANJEEVAIAH
S/O PILLAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
4. SRI. KEMPANNA
S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MAJARA KODIHALLI
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
BEERAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE
KONGADIYAPPA ROAD POST
MADURE HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALRUU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 201.
MUNISHAMAPPA @ MUNISWAMAIAH
S/O PILLAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
5(a). SRI. MUNIPILLAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA @ MUNISWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKKABANAVARA POST
HESARUGHTTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560090.
5(b). SRI. CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA @ MUNISWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT GOLLARAHATTI
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
VISVANEEDUM POST
BENGALURU - 560091.
5(c). SMT. JAYAMMA
D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA @ MUNISWAMAIAH
W/O SRI HOBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT HENNEGERE VILLAGE
SOLUR HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 560007.
6. SMT. PADMA
D/O SRI MUNIPILLAPPA
W/O SRI CHALAPATHI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
R/AT KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKKABANAVARA POST
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560090.
7. SMT. MANASA
D/O SRI MUNIPILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKKABANAVARA POST
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560090.
8. PUTTAIAH
S/O NANJUNDAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
8(a). SRI H P NANJUNDAPPA
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.285, KUSUMA NILAYA
HALAGEVADERAHALLI
RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA
BENGALURU - 560098.
8(b). SRI. P. RANGAPPA
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED 51 YEARS
R/AT NO. 285 KUSUMA NILAYA
HALAGEVADERAHALLI
RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA
BENGALURU - 560098.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNEL FOR
SRI. M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. H.S. SANTOSH, ADVOCATE FOR R5(a-c), R6 AND R7
SRI. S. HIMA KIRANA, ADVOCATE FOR R8(a TO b))
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.11.2022 IN CASE NO. LRF
1201/1974-75 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 LAND
TRIBUNAL WITH RESPECT TO LAND IN SO FAR AS SY.NO. 91,
NEW NO.91/2, MEASURING 6 ACRES 20 GUNTAS SITUATED AT
KODIHALLI VILLAGE, MADURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
AS PER ANNEXURE- A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
In these writ petitions, the petitioners are assailing the
order dated 16.11.2022 in Case No. LRF 1201 of 1974-75
passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal in respect of land
in question (Annexure-A).
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
2. Relevant facts in W.P.No.1156 of 2023 are that,
land bearing Sy.No.91 (new Sy.No. 91/2) measuring 06
acres, 20 guntas; Sy.No.161/9, measuring 06 guntas;
Sy.No.161/10 measuring 05 guntas and Sy.No.159
measuring 04 acres 07 guntas situate at Kodihalli Village,
Madure Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk has been acquired by
the predecessors of the petitioners-Munishamappa @
Muniswamaiah, son of Pillappa as per the registered Sale
Deeds during the year 1950. It is further stated that,
brother of the said Munishamappa-Sanjeevaiah, made an
application in the Form No.7, seeking occupancy rights in
respect of subject land under Section 45 of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act (for short the 'Act') by contending that
the said Sanjeevaiah is a tenant under his brother-
Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah. Thereafter, the Land
Tribunal by order dated 17.08.1976 in LRF No.1201 of
1974-75 granted occupancy rights in favour of the
applicant-Sanjeevaiah, in respect of the land in question.
Being aggrieved by the same, Munishamappa @
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
Muniswamaiah has filed W.P.No.10613 of 1976 before this
court and this court vide order dated 25.03.1983 set aside
the order of Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to the
Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand made
by this court, the Land Tribunal recorded the deposition of
said Sanjeevaiah and by order dated 21.10.1986, granted
occupancy rights in favour of said Sanjeevaiah. Being
aggrieved by the same, father of respondent No.5, who is
original purchaser-Puttaiah claims to be the purchaser of
the land in Sy.No.159 measuring 04 acres, 16 guntas,
approached the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.ALRA 782
of 1987. On account of the amendment to the said
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the CP No.3230 of 1991
was filed before this Court and same was converted into
W.P.No.2113 of 1997. This court after considering the
material on record vide order 15.06.2005 allowed the writ
petition and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal to
pass fresh orders, after providing an opportunity to all the
parties concerned as per Annexure-C. Thereafter, the Land
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
Tribunal issued notice to the legal representatives of
Munishamppa @ Muniswamaiah, and legal representatives
of Puttaiah, (Respondent No.5) and one Kempanna, son of
original applicant -Sanjeevaiah, (respondent No.4). It is
further averred in the writ petition that, legal representative
of Sanjeevaiah has not produced any material evidence to
substantiate as tenant under Munishamappa @
Muniswamaiah and the petitioners are in possession of land
in question. The Land Tribunal, after considering material
on record by order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure-A), allowed
the Form No.7, filed in respect of the land in question in
favour of Sanjeevaiah and his legal representatives. Being
aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed
before this Court.
3. In W.P.No.25020 of 2022, it is the case of the
petitioner that, the petitioner claims to be purchaser of the
portion of the land in question from one Munipillappa son of
Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah, and his family members
as per registered Sale Deed dated 15.02.2014 (Annexure-
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
D), and the Rectification Deed dated 17.11.2014
(Annexure-E). The petitioner has challenged the impugned
order passed by Land Tribunal on similar grounds urged in
W.P.No.1156 of 2022.
4. I have heard Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ
petitions; Sri. K. N. Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri. M. A. Subrarmani, for respondent No.4 in
both writ petitions; Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State;
Smt. S. Hima Kirana, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.5 and 6 in W.P.No.1156 of 2023 and respondent Nos.
8(a) and (b) in W.P.No.25020 of 2022; Sri. Muniraja M.,
learned counsel for appearing for the respondent No.7 in
W.P.No.1156 of 2023 and Sri. H.S. Santhosh, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.5 (a to c), 6 and 7 in
W.P.No.25020 of 2022.
5. Sri. D. R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioners contended that, originally the land in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
question is belonged to Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah.
His brother-Sanjeevaiah, filed Form No.7, seeking
occupancy rights in respect of schedule land before the
Land Tribunal, and same was granted in favour of
Sanjeevaiah, which came to be set aside by this Court in
W.P.No.10613 of 1976 dated 25.03.1983. Referring to the
observation made by this Court, wherein, matter was
remanded to the Land Tribunal, it is contended by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that strict
compliance of Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules,
1974 has been considered by this Court. He further
contended that, despite the same, the Land Tribunal
conferred occupancy rights in favour of said Sanjeevaiah, as
per order dated 21.10.1986 and the said order was
questioned in W.P.No.2113 of 1997 and this court vide
order dated 15.06.2005, set aside the order of Land
Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal and
in this regard, learned Senior Counsel emphasised on
paragraph 06 in the said order.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
6. Referring to these orders, it is contended by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the
Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah was cultivating the land in
question and land was not tenanted, and no gutta was
received from the Sanjeevaiah, who is none other than
brother of Munishamppa @ Muniswamaiah and therefore,
finding recorded by the Land Tribunal requires interference
in these writ petitions. Learned Senior Counsel further
contended that, the Land Tribunal had taken into
consideration the deposition made by the witnesses prior to
the order of remand made by this Court in W.P.No.2113 of
1997 dated 15.06.2005 (Annexure-C) and therefore, the
said deposition requires to be discarded. It is further
contended that, as there is no material produced by said
Sanjeevaiah and his legal heirs, no need to remand the
matter and accordingly, sought for interference of this
court.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
7. Per contra, Sri. K.N. Phanindra learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 in both writ
petitions submitted by referring to deposition of
Sanjeevaiah, (Annexure-R2), wherein it is clearly stated
that the Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah was residing at
Edluru Dinne, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar and Sanjeevaiah was
cultivating the land in question as tenant. It is also
contended by the learned Senior Counsel by referring to the
deposition of Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah, (Annexure-
R3) wherein, the said Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah
admits the tenancy of the land in question made in favour
of Sajneevaiah and this document would demonstrates that
land in question has been leased in favour of Sanjeevaiah
by Munishamppa @ Muniswamaiah. It is also submitted by
learned Senior Counsel that, there is no impediment for
granting occupancy rights in favour of the tenant, wherein,
the landlord may be the brother of the tenant. In this
regard, learned Senior Counsel refers to the judgment of
this Court in the case of Gopal Rao vs. Land Reforms
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
Tribunal and another reported in 1978 SCC OnLine Kar
285. He further argued by referring to judgment of this
court in the case of H. R. Ramasingh vs. D. Nageshrao
and another reported in ILR 1977 KAR 1350 that, the
Land Tribunal having taken note of the material on record
arrived at a conclusion that, Sanjeevaiah was personally
cultivating the land in question. Therefore, sought for
dismissal of these writ petitions.
8. Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent -State
made available original records pertaining to the writ
petitions.
9. Learned counsel representing the remaining
contesting respondents adopted the arguments of learned
Senior Counsel, Sri. K. N. Phanindra appearing for
respondent No.4 in both writ petitions.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
10. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that, Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah had
purchased the land in question and the revenue records
stand in the name of said Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah.
It is also not in dispute that, Munishamappa @
Muniswamaiah has a brother by name Sanjeevaiah. It is
also forthcoming from the writ petitions that, the said
Sajeevaiah has filed Form No.7, seeking occupancy rights in
respect of the land bearing Sy.No.91, (new No.91/2)
measuring 06 acres, 20 guntas; Sy.No.161/9 measuring 06
guntas; Sy.No.161/10 measuring 5 guntas and Sy.No.159
measuring 4 acres 16 guntas situated at Kodihalli village,
Madure Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk. The Land Tribunal, by
its order dated 17.08.1976, conferred occupancy rights in
favour of Sanjeevaiah and same was questioned before this
Court in W.P.No.10613 of 1976 and this court vide order
25.03.1983, allowed the writ petition and remanded the
matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal, after holding
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
an enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of Karnataka
Land Reforms Rules, 1974. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal
recorded the proceedings and by its order dated
21.10.1986, granted occupancy rights in favour of
Sanjeevaiah and same was questioned before this court in
W.P.No.2113 of 1997. This court vide order dated
15.06.2005 vide Annexure-C set aside the order passed by
the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Land
Tribunal to secure the presence of the parties, by issuing
notice and to conduct enquiry and thereafter, disposed of
the case in accordance with law. The said order passed by
this Court reached finality. It is to be noted that, the said
writ petition was filed by Puttaiah, (father of respondent
No.5) who claims to be a purchaser of portion of the land
from Munishamappa @ Munishamaiah. After remand made
by this Court, the Land Tribunal conducted the enquiry and
by its order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure-A), conferred the
occupancy rights in favour of the original tenant-
Sanjeevaiah, which is impugned in these writ petitions. On
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
careful examination of the RTC extracts would indicate that,
the name of Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah and
Sanjeevaiah shown as cultivators in RTC extracts as they
were cultivating the land personally, (Swanta) from 1969-
70. It is also to be noted that, the legal representatives of
the said Sanjeevaiah, nor the Sanjeevaiah himself has not
produced any gutta receipt nor examined any independent
witness to establish that Sanjeevaiah was cultivating the
land in question as tenant under Munishamappa @
Muniswamaiah, by paying gutta or rent in respect of the
land in question. It is also to be noted that, this court in
W.P.No.10613 of 1976 dated 25.03.1983 remanded the
matter for fresh enquiry in compliance of Rule 17 of
Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. Again this court in
W.P.No.2113 of 1997 dated 15.06.2005 (Annexure-C)
remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal with a direction
to issue notice to all the parties concerned and to hold an
enquiry. Paragraph 6 of the said order makes it clear about
conduct fresh enquiry in the matter. In that view of the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners as to the fact that, the
Land Tribunal has misdirected itself by considering the
evidence of the parties as per Annexures-R2 and R3,
deposed by the parties prior to the remand made by this
court. It is to be noted that, on two occasions this court has
remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal and though, I
find that, this court would remand the matter to the Land
Tribunal for fresh consideration, again, however, I have
carefully examined the original records produced by the
learned Additional Government Advocate and perusal of the
same would indicate that, names of Munishamappa @
Muniswamaiah and Sanjeevaiah was found in the RTC
extract for the relevant period from 1969-70. It is also to be
noted that, there is no impediment for the Sanjeevaiah
being a brother of Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah - land
lord, to cultivate the land as tenant under the Act, however,
no documents has been produced to establish that, the said
Sanjeevaiah was cultivating the land personally as tenant
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
and the RTC extracts shows the name of Munishamappa @
Muniswamaiah along with Sanjeevaiah in the cultivators
column. No independence witness has been examined by
the tenant-Sanjeevaiah, to demonstrate that, he was
cultivating the land alone as tenant. No gutta receipt has
been produced before the Land Tribunal to establish the
tenancy of the land in question. In that view of the matter,
I am of the opinion that, since, no acceptable document
has been produced by Sanjeevaiah or his legal
representatives before the Land Tribunal on earlier
occasions, where the order of remand has been made by
this court in W.P.No.10613 of 1976, and W.P.No.2113 of
1997, I am of the opinion that, repeated remand order
cannot be made by this Court by exercising the power
under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.
Following the declaration made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Nadakerappa since deceased by
LR's and others vs. Pillamma since deceased by LR's
and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 387, I am
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
of the opinion that, as no acceptable document has been
produced by the Sanjeevaiah or his legal representatives to
establish that, they were in cultivation of the land as a
tenant under Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah, the writ
petitions deserve to be allowed by setting aside the order
passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-A. It is also to be
noted that, though the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent No. 4, refers to the above judgment, however,
the facts in the present case is altogether different from the
facts referred to in the above case and further as the
Sanjeevaiah and his legal representatives failed to establish
their tenancy by producing documents, with Munishamappa
@ Muniswamaiah, the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel respondent No.4 cannot be accepted.
11. At this juncture, it is relevant to cite the judgment
of this court in the case of P.Manjunath Shenoy vs. Smt.
Vishalakshi Pai and others reported in 1996 (5) KLJ 499
wherein this court at paragraph 8 held as follows:
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
"8. In Bhamy Panduranga Shenoy v. B.H.
Ravindra [KLJ 1980 (2) p. 129.] this Court has laid
down as to what are the points to be proved by a
person who is claiming occupancy rights in a particular
land. This Court has held as follows:--
"The Act does not apply to all kinds of lands in the
State and to all categories of tenants. If the
relationship of landlord and tenant does not rest on
agrarian relations, the tenant who is in possession of
the land, even if the land is an agricultural land within
the meaning of the Act, cannot avail himself of any
benefit under the Act. The governing factor to bring the
case within the fold of the Act will be the relationship of
landlord and tenant based on agrarian relations. The
tenancy must relate to agriculture in order to bring the
relationship of landlord and tenant within the ambit of
agrarian relations."
The Court in that ruling has further held as follows:--
"Indisputably, the Act primarily deals with matters
relating to agrarian relations, conferment of ownership
on tenants and ceiling on land-holding etc. The matter
relating to agrarian relations is one essentially between
the landlord and the tenant relating to agriculture. In
other words the tenancy must relate to agriculture in
order to bring the relationship of landlord and tenant
within the ambit of agrarian relations. The relationship
of landlord and tenant is essentially one arising out of a
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
contract between the lessor and the lesee; in other
words, under a tenancy agreement, oral or written."
Therefore, in order to show that a person is entitled to
the occupancy rights in a land he must prove that the
land is used for agricultural purpose and that there is a
relationship of landlord and tenant between him and
the owner of the land. In other words if the land is an
agricultural land and even if a person is in possession
of the same, but if he has failed to prove that there is a
relationship of landlord and tenant between him and
the owner of the land, by virtue of either oral
agreement or written agreement, such a person cannot
be a tenant notwithstanding the fact that he might be
in possession of the land and cultivating the same. In
this case it is proved that the father of respondent No.
1 Vishalakshi was the moolgeni tenant of this land by
virtue of a registered document executed by
respondent No. 3 in his favour on 22.9.1916. But it was
for the petitioner to prove that his father became the
chalageni tenant as Narasimha Bandarkar the grand-
father of respondent No. 1 leased the land to him in the
year 1953. The burden of proving that there was such
an agreement of lease either oral or written between
his father and the grand-father of the respondent No. 1
was on the petitioner. But the petitioner has not
produced any documents to show that there was any
such agreement between his father and the grand-
father of respondent No. 1. He has not produced any
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
documents for payment of chalageni either by him or
by his father to the grand-father of respondent No. 1 or
to respondent No. 1. Even he has not produced any
documents to show that he was in possession of the
land as a tenant except a mahazar that came to be
drawn up in a complaint filed by him. Therefore, it will
have to be held that the petitioner has failed to prove
that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant
between his father and the grandfather of respondent
No. 1. When a person fails to prove that he is
cultivating the land as a tenant, he cannot be granted
occupancy rights notwithstanding the fact that he
might be in possession of the land and cultivating the
same. In view of the fact that the petitioner has failed
to prove the basic foundation of his case that he is and
prior to him his father has been in possession of the
land as a tenant by virtue of granting of lease by the
grand-father of respondent No. 1, the petitioner could
not have been granted occupancy rights in this land."
12. Following the declaration of law to the facts on
record would indicate that the respondent No.4/tenant of
the land in question has not proved that, he was cultivating
the land with his bother Munishamappa as a tenant under
Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the
issue between the parties is only relating to the family
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29746
WP No. 1156 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022
HC-KAR
dispute and therefore, I find force in the submission made
by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
13. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petitions are allowed.
ii) Order dated 16.11.2022 in LRF No.1201 of 1974-75 passed by the Land Tribunal-respondent No.2 (Annexure-A) is hereby set aside in both writ petitions.
iii) Application in Form No.7, filed by the Sanjeevaiah is hereby rejected.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52