Karnataka High Court
Sri A Sampath Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29911
WP NO.16643 OF 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.16643 OF 2021 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. A. SAMPATH KUMAR
S/O LATE T. ASHWATHNARAYANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
NO.43, 6TH CROSS, B.F.W. LAYOUT,
NEAR MANJUNATHASWAMY TEMPLE,
LAGGERE,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
2. SMT. B. VASUNDARAMMA
W/O LATE RANGANATHASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
DODDA AYYUR VILLAGE,
THYAVANAHALLI,
VAKKLAERI HOBLI,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE CHARIMAN
LAND TRIBUNAL,
KOLAR - 563101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29911
WP NO.16643 OF 2021
HC-KAR
3. SMT. PUTTAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKASONNE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
ARABI KOTHANUR VILLAGE,
VAKKALERI HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT- 563 133.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
TH
THE ORDER DATED 06 APRIL, 2021 PASSED IN CASE
NO.LRF.1490/79-80 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-P; REJECT FORM NO.7 FILED IN CASE NO.LRF.
1490/79-80 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 06th April, 2021 (Annexure-P) passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Kolar in Case No.LRF.1490/79-80; inter alia sought for rejection Form No.7 (Annexure-D) filed the father of the respondent No.3 viz., Chikkasonne Gowda before the respondent No.2.
-3-NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR
2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are that, one Tiruvengadaiah had two sons namely T. Ashwathanarayanaiah (father of the petitioner No.1) and Ranganathaswamy (husband of the petitioner No.2). The said Tiruvengadaiah had purchased the land in question as per registered Sale Deed dated 05th April, 1945 (Annexure-A) and Sale Deed dated 12th May, 1945 (Annexure-B). Thereafter, the said Tiruvengadaiah was in cultivation and possession of the land in question. It is further stated that, father of the respondent No.3 viz., Chikkasonne Gowda had filed Original Suit No.379 of 1959 on the file of the Munsiff, Kolar against T. Ashwathanarayanaiah, which came to be dismissed on 02nd November, 1959 and the appeal was preferred in Miscellaneous Appeal No.42 of 1959 before the Civil Judge, Kolar, which came to be dismissed on 30th January, 1960. It is also stated that the grandfather of the petitioner No.1 viz., Thiruvengadaiah filed eviction petition against the father of the respondent No.3 under the Mysore Tenancy Act in T.A. No.25/1955-56 and order of eviction was passed on 31st July, 1956. Thereafter, the said Chikkasonne Gowda preferred appeal in A1 T.A.6/1956-57 before the Deputy Commissioner, which came to be dismissed -4- NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR and accordingly, the said Tiruvengadaiah got the possession of the land in question and continued to be in cultivation of the same.
3. It is also averred in the petition that, T. Ashwathanarayanaiah, father of the petitioner No.1 filed Original Suit No.53 of 1981 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Kolar, seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant-Some Gowda S/o Sonne Gowda and the said suit came to be decreed on 16th October, 1985. It is further stated that the father of the respondent No.3 had filed Form No.7, claiming occupancy right in respect of the subject land as per Annexure-D and the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, allowed the claim petition on 10th October, 1981 and same was questioned by the father of the petitioner No.1 before this Court in Writ Petition No.2080 of 1982 and this Court, by order dated 08th October, 1985 (Annexure-E), allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR
4. It is further stated in the writ petition that the land in question was in the possession of petitioners. In the meanwhile, the Tahisildar, Kolar has changed the mutation in favour of the said Chikkasonnegowda on 04th March, 1997 and same was questioned by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar in Case No.R.A 250/2006-07 and the said appeal came to be disposed of on 06th September, 2016 (Annexure-M) and direction was issued to the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal to dispose of the proceedings at the earliest. It is the further case of the petitioners that the evidence was recorded before the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal and thereafter, the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, accepted the Form No.7 filed by Chikkasonne Gowda in respect of the subject land as per the impugned order dated 06th April, 2021 (Annexure-P). Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners presented this writ petition.
5. Heard Sri. Chandranath Ariga K., learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Manjunath K., High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR Sri. Vijaya Kumar S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.
6. Sri. Chandranath Ariga K., learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the respondent No.2- Land Tribunal has committed grave error in conferring occupancy right in favour of Chikkasonnegowda, who was not a tenant under the father of the petitioner No.1 or his grandfather viz. Thiruvengadaiah. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners also contended that the suit filed by the said Chikkasonnegowda, seeking declaration was dismissed before the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, however, the said aspect was ignored by the respondent No.2- Land Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners further argued that the RTC Extracts preceding 01st March, 1974 and thereafter, stands in the name of Thiruvengadaiah and T. Ashwathanarayanaiah and further, the said Chikkasonnegowda has not produced any material to establish that he was in cultivation of the land in question. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners further argued that the said Chikkasonnegowda -7- NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR was not a tenant of the land in question as on the date of the filing of Form No.7 and that apart, the grandfather of the petitioner No.1 Thiruvengadaiah had filed suit for eviction against the said Chikkasonnegowda, which was decreed in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioners are in the possession of the land in question.
Accordingly, he sought for setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2.
8. Per contra, Sri. Vijaya Kumar S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 argued in favour for the impugned order dated 06th April, 2021 produced at Annexure-P and submitted that the respondent No.3 and her predecessors in the family were in cultivation of the land in question and same has been deposed by the independent witnesses.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 produced the original records secured from the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal.
10. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of -8- NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR the original records, the same would indicate that the land in question has been purchased by one Thiruvengadaiah as per the registered Sale Deeds dated 05th April, 1945 and 12th May, 1945 (Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively). The petitioner No.1 is a grandson and the petitioner No.2 is the daughter-in-law of Thiruvengadaiah. It is also forthcoming from the records that the said Chikkasonnegowda, father of the respondent No.3 was in cultivation of the land in question and eviction proceedings was initiated under Mysore Tenancy Act in T.A. No.25/1955-56 and order of eviction was passed on 31st July, 1956 against the said Chikkasonnegowda. Thereafter, appeal in A1-T.A 6/1956- 57 was filed by Chikkasonnegowda, which came to be dismissed and same has reached finality. It is also forthcoming from the records that the Original Suit No.379 of 1959 was filed by Chikkasonne Gowda (father of the respondent No.3) on the file of the Minsiff, Kolar which came to be dismissed on 02nd November, 1959 and confirmed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.42 of 1959 dated 30th January, 1960. It is also not in dispute that the father of the petitioner No.1 T. Ashwathanarayanaiah filed original Suit No.53 of 1981 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Kolar, seeking relief of declaration with consequential -9- NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR relief of injunction which came to be decreed on 16th October, 1985 (Annexure-C) and the decree in the said suit reached finality.
11. In the backdrop of these aspects, I have carefully examined the Form No.7 (Annexure-D) filed by Chikkasonne Gowda, claiming occupancy right in respect of various lands belonging to T. Ashwathanarayanaiah. The respondent No.2- Land Tribunal, by order dated 10th October, 1981, granted occupancy right in favour of Chikkasonne Gowda and same was questioned by T. Ashwathanarayanaiah before this Court in Writ Petition No.2080 of 1982. This Court, by order dated 08th October, 1985 (Annexure-E) allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Perusal of the records would indicate that the RTC Extracts stand in the name of T. Ashwathanarayanaiah and in the column No.12 of the RTC Extracts, it is stated that the said T. Ashwathanarayanaiah is in cultivation of the land in question. Even on the relevant date, on 01st March, 1974, RTC extracts stand in the name of the Thiruvengadaiah and his son T. Ashwathanarayanaiah. No acceptable evidence has been
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR adduced by the respondent No.3 to demonstrate that, her father Chikkasonne Gowda was in cultivation of the land in question as a tenant under the landlord-T. Ashwathanarayanaiah. No Gutta receipt is produced to establish the tenancy in respect of the land in question. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that the eviction proceedings have been initiated against the Chikkasonne Gowda and order of eviction was passed in T.A. No.25/1955-56 which has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in A1 T.A.6/1956-57. It is also forthcoming that, T. Ashwathanarayanaiah was declared as owner in possession of the land in question in Original Suit No.53 of 1981 dated 16th October, 1985 (Annexure-C). At this juncture, it is relevant to follow the law declared by this Court in the case of KRISHNA BHAT vs. LAND TRIBUNAL, BANTWAL reported in ILR 1986 KAR 1574. Paragraphs 11 and 18 reads as under:
"11. Section 2 is the definition section. Sub-section (18) defines 'land' means agricultural land that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house site, or land used exclusively for non agricultural purposes. Sub-
section (32A) stipulates that 'Tahsildar' includes a Special
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR Tahsildar empowered by the State Government to exercise all or any of the powers of the Tahsildar under the Act. Sub-section (33) defines 'tenancy' means the relationship of landlord and tenant. Sub-section (34) defines 'tenant' means an agriculturist who cultivates personally the land he holds on lease from a landlord and includes (i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 4; (ii) a parson who was protected from eviction from any land by the Karnataka Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961; (iia) a person who cultivates personally any land on lease under a lease created contrary to the provisions of Section 5 and before the date of the commencement of the amendment Act; (iii) a person who is a permanent tenant and (iv) a person who is a protected tenant. Sub-section (35) defines 'Tribunal' means the tribunal constituted under Section 48 of the Act.
Section 44 provides for vesting of all lands held by or in the possession of tenants immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act with effect on and from the said date in the State Government.
Section 45 provides for registering tenants as occupants of lands on certain conditions. It stipulates that every person who was a tenant in respect of the land before the date of vesting and which he has been cultivating personally is entitled to be registered as an occupant subject to the provisions of the other Section in Chapter III.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR Section 48 provides for constitution of the Tribunals Sub-section (1) stipulates that there shall be a Tribunal for each Taluk consisting of the Assistant Commissioner of the Revenue Sub-Division having jurisdiction over the Taluk or an Assistant Commissioner specially appointed for the purpose by the State Government and four other members to be nominated by the State Government of whom at least one shall be a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Provision is also made for constituting additional Tribunals for any Taluk. Sub-section (2) stipulates that the Assistant Commissioner shall be the Chairman of the Tribunal. Sub-section (7) provides that the Tahsildar or any officer specially appointed for the purpose by the State Government shall be the Secretary of the Tribunal.
Section 48A deals with enquiry by the Tribunal. Sub- section (1) provides that every person entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 45 may make an application to the Tribunal within the period stipulated therein. Sub-section (2) stipulates publication of the public notice calling upon the landlord and all other persons having an interest in the land to appear before it on the date specified in the notice. It further provides that the tribunal shall also issue individual notices to the persons mentioned in the application and also to such others as may appear to it to be interested in the land. Sub-section (3) contemplates that the form of the application, the form of the notices, the manner of publishing or serving the notices and all other matters connected therewith shall be
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR such as may be prescribed. It further provides that the Tribunal may for valid and sufficient reasons permit the tenant to amend the application. Sub-section (4) provides that the Tribunal may after such verification as it considers necessary by order either grant or reject the application, where no objection is filed to the claim. Sub-section (5) stipulates that where an objection is filed disputing the claim or setting up a rival claim, the Tribunal shall hold an enquiry and determine by order the person entitled to be registered as occupant and pass orders accordingly. Sub- section (5A) provides that where there is no objection in respect of any part of the claim, the Tribunal may at once pass orders granting the application as regards that part and proceed separately in respect of the other part objected to. Sub-section (6) stipulates that the order of the Tribunal shall be final and it shall send a copy of every order passed by it to the Tahsildar and parties concerned. Sub-section (8) stipulates that whore no application is made within the time allowed under sub-section (1), the right of any person to be registered as an occupant shall have no effect.
Section 48B deals with the powers of the Tahsildar to determine the amount payable under Section 47, whereas Section 50 deals with his power in determining the encumbrances and payment of the amount while determining the amount payble under Section 48B.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR Section 55 empowers the Tahsildar to issue certificate of registration in favour of the tenant subject to such rules as may be prescribed.
Section 112(A) lays down the duties of the Tahsildar and Section 112(B) lays down the duties of the Tribunal. Section 133 confers exclusive jurisdiction to the Tribunal to decide whether the land is or is not agricultural land and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said land from prior to 1st March 1974 and when such questions arise in any suit, case or proceedings concerning a land before a Civil or Criminal Court or Officer or Authority, the question shall be referred to the Land Tribunal and the Tribunal shall decide the question so referred to it and communicate its decision to such Court, Officer or Authority.
Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 (for short the 'Rules') prescribes the form of application under Section 48A and the notice. Rule 19(1) lays down that the application under sub-section (1) of Section 48A shall be in Form-7. It further stipulates that the application shall furnish particulars of all the lands held under each separate tenancy in one or more than one Taluk in respect of which the applicant claims to be entitled to be registered as an occupant and where the lands are situated in more than one Taluk, the application shall be filed before the Tribunal of the Taluk where the greater part of the lands are situated and on receipt of such application, the Tahsildar shall send the extracts of the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR application to the Tribunals concerned and in so far as the lands in his Taluk are concerned, he shall verify the particulars mentioned in the application with reference to the revenue records, including the record of rights wherever they are prepared and also note the same on the application. It further stipulates that the public notice and the individual notice referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 48A shall be in Form-8 and Form-9 respectively.
Rule 17 provides the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal. Sub-rule (1) contemplates that the procedure to be followed in respect of the applications made to the Tribunal is as specified for a summary enquiry under Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Sub-rule (4) stipulates that the progress in the enquiry of each case shall be noted by the Chairman immediately after hearing or the holding of the spot inspection by the Tribunal. Sub-rule (5) provides that the opposite party shall be allowed to cross-examine the witness and if he does not wish to cross-examine, a note shall be made accordingly and further a brief summary of the evidence given by such witness shall be recorded by the Chairman.
Rule 21 provides that the Certificate of Registration of a tenant as an occupant of land shall be in Form-10 and Rule 21C provides that immediately on receipt of the final orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 48A conferring occupancy right to a tenant, the Tahsildar shall issue a certificate to such tenant that he has been registered as an occupant.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR Rule 24 provides for enquiry by Tahsildar and it lays down that on receipt of a declaration under Section 66, the Tahsildar shall verify the correctness of the particulars furnished therein with reference to the entries in the record of rights, other documents if any produced and by making such local enquiry and inspection as he considers necessary either by himself or through any officer of the Revenue Department not lower in rank than of a Revenue Inspector.
Rule 44 stipulates that Tahsildar shall maintain certain registers. Sub-rules (1C) and (1D) proscribe the registers to be maintained in connection with the proceedings under Section 48A. These sub-rules cams into effect from 12-6- 1980.
Form-7 is the form prescribed for making an application under Section 48A(1) for registration of occupancy right. Among other things, the applicant is required to furnish the name of the landlord and his address, the survey number, sub-division number and the extent of the land in respect of which occupancy right is claimed, together with the assessment, the village and taluk in which the land in question is situated and the period for which the applicant has been cultivating the said land as tenant.
Public notice in Form-8 and the individual notice in Form-9 shall be issued by the Secretary of the Tribunal in
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR which among other things, the description of the lands in respect of which claim was made shall also be given.
12. xxxxx
13. xxxxx
14. xxxxx
15. xxxxx
16. xxxxx
17. xxxxx
18. The two conditions laid down in Section 45 for registration of occupancy right are that the person claiming registration was a tenant of the land before the date of vesting and which he has been cultivating personally. The precondition for the operation of Section 45 is that the land in question was vested in the State Government under Section 44 of the Act. In Balesharam v. Land Tribunal, Chikodi [1978 (1) K.L.J.
116.] the Full Bench of this Court, while explaining the scope of Sections 44 & 45 observed that the land held by a person in his capacity as a tenant immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, 1974, which was not in his actual possession before the said date, also stood transferred to and vested in the State Government under Section 44(1) if the land is not held by him under a lease permitted by Section 5 of the Act, that the land must have been tenanted immediately prior to 1st March 1974 and not at any time in the past and that the person claiming occupancy right must have been a tenant of any of the classes stipulated in sub-section 1 of Section 45 and such person must have been personally cultivating the land immediately before 1st March 1974 and that the primary requirement for registration of
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR occupancy rights therefore is that the person claiming such right must have been cultivating the land personally immediately prior to 1st March 1974 and if he was then out of possession by wrongful or illegal Act of others, he cannot be registered as an occupant merely on proof that the land was tenanted and so vested in the State Government. However, it was emphasized that if the tenant who was lawfully entitled to cultivate the land personally immediately prior to 1st March 1974 but was wrongfully or illegally prevented from doing so, he may take recourse to any one of the remedies provided under the Act to recover possession from the unauthorised occupant and request the Tribunal to defer consideration of his application till the possession of the land is restored to him and if he recovers possession in accordance with law, he may then ask the Tribunal to proceed with his application on the merits and when possession is so recovered, the Tribunal has to proceed on the basis that the tenant must fee deemed to have been personally cultivating the land from the date of his dispossession till the date of restoration of possession."
12. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of this Court in the case of GAJANAN MAHADEV HEGDE vs. RAMAKRISHNA JATTI NAIK reported in ILR 1985 KAR 3490, wherein, at paragraph 13, it is held as under:
"13. Then both the advocates Vinod Prasad and Sri C.N. Naik, appearing for the judgment debtors, relied on
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR Section 44 of the Land Reforms Act and contended that the lands had become vested in the State Government and thus the permanent injunction decree passed in O.S. 245 of 1957 had become ineffective, null and void and inexecutable and thus unenforceable. Section 44 of the Land Reforms Act reads, as:
"Vesting of land in the State Government.--(1) All lands held by or in the possession of tenants (including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption is made or issued) immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, other than lands held by them under leases permitted under Section 5, shall, with effect on and from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in the State Government.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate issued by any Court or authority directing or specifying the lands which may be resumed or in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the following consequences shall ensue, namely:--
(a) all rights, title and interest vesting in the owners of such lands and other persons interested in such lands shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances;
(b) amounts in respect of such lands which become due on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State Government and not to the land owner, landlord, or any other person and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid:
(c) all arrears of the land revenue, cessess, water rate or other dues remaining lawfully due on the date of vesting in
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR respect of such lands shall after such date continue to be recoverable from the land-owner, landlord or other person by whom they were payable and may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be realised by the deduction of the amount of such arrears from the amount payable to any person under this Chapter;
(d) no such lands shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or other process of any Court and any attachment existing on the date of vesting and any order for attachment passed before such date in respect of such lands shall cease to be in force;
(e) the State Government may, after removing any obstruction which may be offered, forthwith take possession of such lands:
Provided that the State Government shall not dispossess any person of any land in respect of which it considers, after such enquiry as may be prescribed, that he is prima facie entitled to be registered as an occupant under this Chapter;
(f) the land-owner, landlord and every person interested in the land whose rights have vested in the State Government under Clause (a), shall be entitled only to receive the amount from the State Government as provided in this Chapter;
(g) permanent tenants, protected tenants and other tenants holding such lands shall, as against the State Government, be entitled only to such rights or privileges and shall be subject to such conditions as are provided by or under this Act; and any other rights and privileges which may have accrued to them in such lands before the date of vesting against the landlord or other person shall cease and determine and shall not be enforceable against the State Government."
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR Therefore, a reading of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that if the tenants have continued to be in possession of the property notwithstanding the order for eviction or Certificate for resumption having been issued, still the lands would vest in the State Government. If the tenant, by virtue of a decree or order for eviction or by virtue of a certificate for resumption, has been dispossessed and if the landlord has been put in possession of the property, prior to the coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Section 44 will not come into picture at all. Section 44 would come into picture only if the tenant, notwithstanding the decree or order for eviction or issue of a certificate for resumption, has continued to be in possession of the land in question. It is not even the case of the present judgment-debtors that they have become tenants of the properties after the decree-holders took possession of the lands through the Tahsildar in pursuance of the order in the tenancy case."
13. On careful examination of the dictum of this Court referred to above and applying the same to the facts of the case on hand, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal in the impugned order dated 06th April, 2021 (Annexure-P) passed in Case No.LRF.1490/79- 80 is incorrect and the Land Tribunal has totally ignored the requisites for conferment of occupancy right under Section 48A
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. It is also to be noted that the earlier civil proceedings between the parties, makes it clear that, Chikkasonne Gowda and the respondent No.3 herein claimed to be tenants under the landlord were evicted from the land in question as per the proceeding in T.A. No.25/1955-56 dated 31st July, 1956 under the Mysore Tenancy Act and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in A1-T.A.6/1956-57.
The RTC extracts do not reflect the name of Chikkasonne Gowda or the respondent No.3 herein in the column No.12. Perusal of the records also indicate that, as on the relevant date i.e. on 01st March, 1974, the RTC extracts stand in the name of the landlord.
14. Be that as it may, the suit in Original Suit No.53 of 1981 filed by T. Ashwathanarayanaiah came to be decreed on 16th October, 1985 (Annexure-C), which has reached finality.
In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal in the impugned order dated 06th April, 2021 (Annexure-P) in Case No.LRF 1490/79-80 is totally incorrect and without considering the material on record.
Therefore, the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal ought to have
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR rejected the Form No.7 (Annexure-D) filed by the Chikkasonne Gowda, father of the respondent No.3. The entire discussion made by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal in the impugned order is devoid of factual aspects of the matter and not considering the revenue documents including the civil proceedings and as such, the impugned order is totally perverse and requires to be interfered with in the present petition. It is to be noted that, this Court had already remanded the matter to the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal for reconsideration and also the proceedings in Original Suit No.53 of 1981 (Annexure-C) adjudicated between the parties before the Trial Court, and despite the same, the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal has not considered the material on record in right perspective. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. AND OTHERS vs. PILLAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 387, I am of the view that, further remand to the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal is not required as the litigation is of more than three decades old and such, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29911 WP NO.16643 OF 2021 HC-KAR petitioners to decided the lis between the parties in the present petition. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Writ Petition is allowed;
2) Order dated 06th April, 2021 (Annexure-P) passed in Case No.LRF.1490/79-80 by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal is hereby set-
aside, consequently, Form No.7 (Annexure-D) said to have been filed by Chikkasonne Gowda, father of the respondent No.3 is hereby rejected.
3) The Revenue Authorities viz., Tahsildar, Kolar Taluk is directed to enter the name of the petitioners herein in the revenue records pertaining to land in question, forthwith.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53