Karnataka High Court
Smt. C Papamma vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50493
WP No. 35391 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 35391 OF 2016 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. C PAPAMMA
W/O LATE CHANNAPPA
(DIED LEAVING BEHIND THE
2ND PETITIONER AS HER LRS)
2. SMT JAYAMMA
W/O LATE CHANNAPPA
(DIED LEAVING BEHIND THE
PETITINER NO.3 AND 4 AS HER LRS)
3. SRI T N GAJENDRA
S/O LATE C JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT YEARS
R/AT NO.1967/73, 8TH MAIN ROAD
Digitally signed by 2ND STAGE, 'E' BLOCK
PANKAJA S RAJAJINAGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE-560 010
KARNATAKA
4. SRI T N VENKATESH
S/O LATE C JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT YEARS
R/AT NO.42, R.T NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 028
(THE PETITIONER NO.3 AND 4 ARE
REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER AND
PETITIONER NO.5 SRI KRISHNAPPA)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50493
WP No. 35391 of 2016
HC-KAR
3. SRI V KRISHNAPPA
S/O VEERAPPA
NO.42, JAVARAYA GARDEN
3RD BLOCK, R.T NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 028
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 009
3. SRI BHARATHA BHUVANESHWARI TEMPLE
DOOR NO.3,
GANNAPPA GARDEN
COCONUT AVENUE ROAD
8TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
4. SMT SAVITHRAMMA
W/O LATE K S SOMASHEKARA SHETTY
DOOR NO.13,
GANNAPPA GARDEN
COCONUT AVENUE ROAD
8TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
5. SRI S LAXMINARAYANA SASTRY
S/O SOORA SASTRY
R/A DOOR NO.13,
GANAPPA GARDEN
COCONUT AVENUE ROAD
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50493
WP No. 35391 of 2016
HC-KAR
8TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. SANGAMESH G PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3,
R4 & R5 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 IN
L.R.F./INA/NO.128,19/1983-84. QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED
BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE DTD.14.10.2014 VIDE ANNEX-F AND TO GRANT
OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER NO.3
AND 4 BY ALLOWING THE FORM NO.7 FILED BY THE LATE
CHANNAPPA BEFORE THE R-2 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND
BEARING SY.NO.34/4, MEASURING 0-2 3/4 GUNTAS OF
JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH
TALUK, NOW COMING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF BBMP.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:50493
WP No. 35391 of 2016
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by respondent No.2-the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North Taluk as per Annexure-F.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the land bearing Sy.No.34/4, measuring 0-2 ¾ guntas situated in Jakkasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk (for brevity, 'subject land') originally belongs to one K.V.Ramanuja Iyengar, who was jodidar of Jakkasandra Village. During the lifetime of said K.V.Ramanuja Iyengar, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 and grandfather of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 i.e., one Channappa was cultivating the said land as a tenant under K.V.Ramanuja Iyengar. Accordingly, RTC entries mutated in Channappa's name in column No.12(2) and by -5- NC: 2025:KHC:50493 WP No. 35391 of 2016 HC-KAR mentioning the name of K.V.Ramanuja Iyengar in Column No.9 of the RTC.
3. Subsequently, late Channappa has filed an application before respondent No.2 registering himself as occupant of the land. The said application was allowed by the Tribunal and Channappa was registered as a tenant in respect of the subject land and ever since, he continued in possession of the subject land. However, after death of said Channappa, the petitioners, being his legal heirs continued possession in the subject land. Subsequently, on 29.02.1996, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 sold the subject land in favour of one V.Muruli Krishna and H. Chandrappa.
5. Later the grant order made in favour of Channappa was challenged by respondent Nos.3 to 5 before this Court in W.P.No.28006/2002 on the ground that the subject land belongs to the Temple by virtue of Gift Deed dated 29.10.1953. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2007 by setting aside the grant made in favour of late Channappa -6- NC: 2025:KHC:50493 WP No. 35391 of 2016 HC-KAR and remitted the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.
6. Thereafter, fresh proceedings has been initiated before respondent No.2 and notice has been issued to the petitioners to place relevant documents. Despite serving notice, the petitioners remained absent and they have not led any evidence in support of their claim.
7. As such, the Tribunal after considering the evidence and documents placed by respondent Nos.3 to 5 and also the survey report of the concerned authority, rejected the claim made by Channappa in respect of subject land vide order dated 14.10.2014. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for contesting respondent No.3.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:50493 WP No. 35391 of 2016 HC-KAR
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that after remand of the matter by this Court to the Land Tribunal in the year 2007, petitioner No.1 i.e., Papamma wife of late Channappa died on 26.07.2006 and her legal heirs i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are unable to appear before the Land Tribunal because of lack of legal knowledge. As such, the Tribunal unilaterally passed the order by rejecting the claim of late Channappa. He also contended that respondent Nos.3 to 5 have failed to produce any documents to substantiate their claim that one Ganna Muniswamappa, who gifted the property in favour of the Temple, had purchased the same from the original owner late K.V.Ramanuja Iyengar. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim of late Channappa.
10. He further contended that the RTC entries for the relevant year 1972-73 upto 1983-84 clearly reveals that late Channappa was in cultivation of the subject land under K.V.Ramanuja Iyengar, who was the original owner. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:50493 WP No. 35391 of 2016 HC-KAR In such circumstance, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim of Channappa. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.3 submits that the land in question is not an inam land and the petitioners were not at all in possession and cultivation of the subject land and the land is not vested with the Government. In such circumstances, there is no question of granting tenancy right in favour of late Channappa. He also contended that the original owner of the subject land one Muniswamappa, executed a Gift Deed in the year 1953 by gifting the land in favour of the temple i.e., respondent No.3 and ever since, the subject land is in possession of the temple. The said aspect was further clarified in the mahazar conducted by the Land Tribunal on 22.08.1982. As such, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of late Channappa. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:50493 WP No. 35391 of 2016 HC-KAR
12. Learned Additional Government Advocate by supporting the impugned order, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
13. I have given my anxious consideration on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents made available before me.
14. As could be gathered from records, on 05.05.1987, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right of the subject land in favour of late Channappa. The said order was challenged by respondent Nos.3 to 5 in the year 2002 before this Court by relying on the Gift Deed of the year 1953. Though this Court remitted the matter back for fresh consideration to the Tribunal, it could be seen from the order passed by the Tribunal that the petitioners have not appeared before the Tribunal.
15. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, due to death of petitioner No.1 and by lack of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50493 WP No. 35391 of 2016 HC-KAR legal knowledge, petitioner Nos.2 to 4, had not appeared before the Tribunal. To substantiate the claim of late Channappa, the RTC entries for the year 1972-73 to 1983- 84, clearly depicts the name of late Channappa in the cultivator's column No.12(2) and name of K.V.Ramanuja Iyengar in column No.9. This itself proves that the late Channappa was in cultivation and possession of the subject land as on 01.03.1974 and accordingly, the Tribunal has granted the occupancy right in favour of late Channappa in the year 1987. However, respondent Nos.3 to 5 claim that presently they are in possession of the subject land by virtue of the Gift Deed of the year 1953.
16. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my considered view, an opportunity has to be extended to the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 5 before the Tribunal to put forth their claim by placing all the relevant documents. Hence, the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50493 WP No. 35391 of 2016 HC-KAR Tribunal by extending an opportunity to the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 5.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed on 14.10.2014 by the Land Tribunal as per Annexure- F is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration by extending an opportunity to both the parties to put forth their claim by placing relevant documents. Till the disposal of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the parties shall maintain status-quo in respect of possession of subject land.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG,CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20