Karnataka High Court
V Ranganath vs D V Narayana Reddy on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47316
WP No. 44618 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 44618 OF 2012 (LR-SEC 48A)
BETWEEN:
V RANGANATH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
a) R.PRABHAKAR,
S/O LATE V.RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
b) R VENKATESH
S/O LATE V.RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
c) R VIJAY KUMAR
S/O LATE V.RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH d) R CHANDRASHEKAR
COURT OF S/O LATE V.RANGANATH,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
e) R KOUSALYA
D/O LATE V.RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
f) R SRIDHAR
S/O LATE V.RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
g) R ULAGANATHAN
S/O LATE V.RANGANATH,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47316
WP No. 44618 of 2012
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
h) R SMT YASHODHA
W/O LATE V.RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
PETITIONERS(a) TO (h) R/AT NO.2,
4TH "A" CROSS, BTM LAYOUT,
TANK SHORE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560076.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.N. RAJESWARA ALONG WITH
SRI. R. NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. D V NARAYANA REDDY
S/O.VENKATARAMA REDDY,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
a) GOWRAMMA
D.V.NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
b) SMT NAGARATHNAMMA
D.V.NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
c) VENUGOPALA REDDY
S/O LATE D.V.NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
c(i) SMT. ANASUYAMMA
W/O LATE VENUGOPALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
c(ii) SRI D.V. DHANAPAL REDDY
S/O LATE VENUGOPALA REDDY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47316
WP No. 44618 of 2012
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
c(iii) SRI D.V. VISHWANATHA REDDY
S/O LATE VENUGOPALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESPONDENTS c(i) TO c(iii) ARE ALL
RESIDING AT NO.3/1, CHIKKA BELLANDUR VILLAGE SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 035.
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE ORDER DATED 15/09/2016)
d) SMT BHAGYALAKSMI D/O. D.V.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
e) SRINIVASA REDDY S/O.LATE D.V.NARAYANA REDDY,
f) SMT SUDHA D/O.LATE D.V.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
g) CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY S/O.LATE D.V.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
h) SMT JALA D/O D.V.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
i) VENKATAREDDY S/O.LATE D.V.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
j) SMT SHILPA D/O.LATE D.V.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
k) SMT GIRIJA W/O LATE. ANANDA REDDY, -4- NC: 2025:KHC:47316 WP No. 44618 of 2012 HC-KAR D/O LTE D.V.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKABELLANDUR VILLAGE, BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
12. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE.
BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.M. MANJUNATH AND SRI. H.M KISHOR KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A, B, D TO F, H, I, J & K) SRI. THARANATH SHETTY K, ADVOCATE FOR R1(c)(I TO III) SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1(G) SRI. NIKIL K.N, ADVOCATE FOR R1(F) SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS & QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.9.10.12, AS PER ANN-A, PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE EAST TQ.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV ORDER
1. The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 09.10.2012 passed in No.LRF.CR.3172/1974-75(Annexure-A) by respondent No.2- -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:47316 WP No. 44618 of 2012 HC-KAR Land Tribunal, whereby the Land Tribunal granted 'occupancy right' to respondent No.1-D.V.Narayanreddy in respect of Sy.No.24/2 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas and in Sy. No.24/3 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas (totally measuring 6 acres 20 guntas) situated at Chikka Bellandur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk (for brevity, "the subject lands").
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their father late V Ranganath-petitioner No.1 purchased the subject lands from one Rama Reddy vide registered Sale Deed dated 28.07.1971 and the mutation record was also changed in the name of V. Ranganath as khatedar and ever since they were in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. Respondent No.1, being fully aware about the purchase of the subject lands as an attesting witness to the said Sale Deed, he filed an application under Form 7 for grant of occupancy right under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for brevity, "the Act"). The Land Tribunal passed an order dated 31.01.1981 in favour of respondent No.1 by registering and confirming the occupancy rights in respect of subject lands. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner No.1 preferred WP.No.28635/1991 before this Court and this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:47316 WP No. 44618 of 2012 HC-KAR remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand of the matter, the Land Tribunal conducted fresh proceedings and rejected the claim of respondent No.1 vide its order dated 10.01.2003. Challenging the same, respondent No.1 filed WP.No.17898/2003 and this court vide its order dated 05.02.2009 quashed the said order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly, the fresh proceedings were initiated and the Land Tribunal once again conferred occupancy right of subject lands in favour of respondent No.1- D.V.Narayan Reddy vide impugned order dated 09.10.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court in the present Writ Petition.
3. Heard Sri P.N. Rajeswara a/w Sri Narayan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.M. Manjunath and H.M. Kishor Kumar learned counsel for respondent No.1 (A, B, D to F, H, I, J, and K), Sri Tharanath Shetty K learned counsel for respondent No.1 (C) (I to III), Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty learned counsel for respondent No.1(G), Sri Nikhil K.N learned counsel for respondent No.1 (F) and Sri Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned HCGP for respondent No.2.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:47316 WP No. 44618 of 2012 HC-KAR
4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the father of petitioners late V.Ranganath purchased the subject lands from one Rama Reddy vide registered Sale Deed dated 28.07.1971 and respondent No.1 was a attesting witness to the said Sale Deed, since then they were in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. Respondent No.1 has filed frivolous application seeking occupancy right though the subject lands were not being cultivated and when the casuarina trees have been grown on the subject lands, the question of cultivation does not arise at all and as such, the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy right in respect of subject lands to respondent No.1. Further it is contended that the petitioners' vendor Rama Reddy has stated in his evidence that he sold the land to the petitioners' father along with casuarina trees and respondent No.1 was not a tenant under him and the subject lands were never vested in the Government. It is also contended that the name of Rama Reddy was shown in Column No.12 of RTC as 'Own/swanta', as such, entering the name of respondent No.1 in column No.12(2) of RTCs no way creates any right to him to file an application for grant of occupancy right and at no point -8- NC: 2025:KHC:47316 WP No. 44618 of 2012 HC-KAR of time, he was paying wara/revenue to the petitioners or their vendor.
5. Further, it is contended that respondent No.1 has made contradictory statements that he was a tenant under Rama Reddy and also he admitted that he attempted to purchase the subject lands from one Rama Reddy under a Sale Agreement and paid Rs.5000/- and due to shortage of money, he borrowed Rs.8000/- from petitioners and registered a nominal Sale Deed in respect of subject lands in his favour. As such, if at all the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and respondent No.1, the same ceases. According to the learned counsel, this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Land Tribunal, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 (A, B, D to F, H, I, J, and K), submits that the Land Tribunal, after considering the aspect that as on 01.03.1974 i.e., the date on which the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 came into force, respondent No. 1 was a tenant under the petitioners and prior to that, he was a tenant under one Rama Reddy, who was a -9- NC: 2025:KHC:47316 WP No. 44618 of 2012 HC-KAR vendor of petitioner No.1, as per the RTC entries for the years 1970-71 to 1974-75 granted occupancy right. Further, it is also contended that the subject lands were agricultural land and respondent No.1 was cultivating ragi, maize and jowar in one portion and casuarina trees in other portion and also the RTC entries for the relevant period reflects the same.
7. He also contended that mere purchase of subject land by the petitioners in the year 1971 itself does not take away the right of respondent No.1 to file Form No.7 since the tenancy of respondent No.1 under one Rama Reddy had not been surrendered as per Section 25 of the Act. According to him, there is a presumptive value in respect of revenue entries as per Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the same has not been rebutted under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. He also contended that as per Section 2(18) of the Act "land" means agricultural land, which also includes plantation and 'casuarina trees' are included in the definition of 'agricultural land' and also as per the law laid down by this court in BYALAPPA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - ILR 1981 KAR 1017. He further contended that the RTC entries clearly depicts that respondent No.1 was
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47316 WP No. 44618 of 2012 HC-KAR cultivating the land as a tenant under one Rama Reddy and the petitioner No.1 was on lease/wara basis. According to him these aspects of the matter has been properly appreciated by the Land Tribunal and accordingly passed the impugned order.
8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 (C) (I to III), respondent No.1(G), and, learned HCGP for respondent No.2 supported the impugned order and prayed to reject the petitioners' claim in respect of subject lands. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the writ petition.
9. In order to maintain Form No.7, the application for grant of occupancy right under Section 45 of the Act, the primary conditions to be complied by a declarant as on 01.03.1974 are:
(i) The subject land must be an agricultural land.
(ii) He must be a tenant and cultivating personally under the land owner.
10. In the instant case, in order to prove the subject land was an agricultural land as on the date of filing Form No.7, respondent No.1 relied on the entries made in Records of Tenancy Rights/RTCs for the period 1970-71 till 1974-75 as per
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47316 WP No. 44618 of 2012 HC-KAR Annexure-F which depicts that one Rama Reddy was the original owner and subsequently, V.Ranganath-petitioner No.1 purchased the subject lands. Nevertheless, Rama Reddy, the vendor of petitioner No.1 examined as PW-2 before the Land Tribunal, who categorically admitted in his evidence that respondent No.1 - D.V.Narayan Reddy was a tenant under him and he was cultivating the subject lands and paying revenue/wara. Further, PW-3, the adjoining landowner also deposed in his evidence that respondent No.1 was cultivating the subject lands and paying land revenue/wara to the land owner for the relevant period.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Sale Deed executed in favour of petitioner No.1 by his earlier owner Rama Reddy shows that the subject lands were not cultivating and casuarina trees were grown in the said lands and as such, the same cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in the RTC in column No.13 for the relevant period 1970-71 to 1974-75 in respect of said lands, there was a mention of cultivation of ragi, maize and jowar.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47316 WP No. 44618 of 2012 HC-KAR
12. Nonetheless, as per Section 2(18) of the Act "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 and also as per law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Byalappa's case stated supra, the casuarina plantation comes within the purview of "land" under Section 2(18) of the Act. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the subject lands were agricultural lands as on the date of filing of an application for occupancy right.
13. As regards next contention/question that respondent No.1 was a tenant under the petitioner in respect of subject lands as on 01.03.1974, respondent No.1 primarily relied on the RTC entries for the period 1970-71 to 1974-75 which clearly depicts the name of respondent No.1 in the cultivator's column No. 12(2) of RTC and the name of petitioner No.1 and his vendor Rama Reddy as owners. Further, PW.2 and PW.3 in their evidence categorically admitted that respondent No.1 was a tenant under petitioner No.1 for the relevant period. As rightly
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47316 WP No. 44618 of 2012 HC-KAR contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, the entries in the RTC has presumptive value under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, unless if not rebutted under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act.
14. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of purchase of subject lands by petitioner No.1, the landlord-tenant relationship ceases and thereafter, petitioner No.1 himself was cultivating the land. It cannot be accepted that respondent No.1 was tenant under petitioner because of the reason that respondent No.1 has not surrendered the tenancy by executing any document or by admitting the same before Tahsildar as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act.
15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the landlord-tenant relationship ceased when respondent No.1 got executed the Sale Agreement for the subject lands with the earlier owner, Rama Reddy cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down in the case of MALLAPPA BHIMAPPA KATTI VS LAND TRIBUNAL, SINDAGI - 1979 2 KLJ 218, wherein this Court has held that mere Agreement of Sale by
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47316 WP No. 44618 of 2012 HC-KAR tenant does not merge with tenancy and even after, the tenant is entitled to claim occupancy right.
16. In the case on hand, as the RTC entries for the relevant period undisputedly shows the name of respondent No.1 in the cultivator's column and name of petitioner No.1 in the owner's column, it clearly establishes that respondent No.1 continued as a tenant in respect of subject lands as on the date of filing of application for occupancy right. Such being the case, I am of the considered view that the Land Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence and materials on record and granted occupancy right in favour of respondent No.1. As such, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order and the Writ Petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the order passed by Land Tribunal granting occupancy right in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of subject land is confirmed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3