Karnataka High Court
Smt Puttamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
WA No. 1505 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1505 OF 2025 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT PUTTAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKASONNE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT ARAVI KOTHANUR VILLAGE
VAKKALERI HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563133
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK S HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRASANNA B.R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S BUILDING
BENGALURU 560 001
2. THE CHAIRMAN
LAND TRIBUNAL
KOLAR-563 101
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
WA No. 1505 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SRI A SAMPATH KUMAR
S/O LATE T ASWATHNARAYANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO.43, 6TH CROSS
B.F.W LAYOUT
NEAR MANJUNATHSWAMY TEMPLE
LAGGERE
BENGALURU-560 058
4. SMT B VASUNDARAMMA
W/O LATE RANGANATHASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT DODDA AYYUR VILLAGE
THYAVANAHALLI
VAKKALAERI HOBLI
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 01/08/2025 IN WP NO.16643/2021 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT
AND TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
WA No. 1505 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) Respondent No.3 in the writ petition has preferred this intra Court appeal challenging the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16643/2021, whereby the learned Single Judge has passed 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."
2. The brief facts of the case are that: -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB WA No. 1505 of 2025 HC-KAR One Thiruvengadaiah (grandfather of respondent No.3 herein) had purchased the subject land vide registered Sale Deeds dated 05.04.1945 and 12.05.1945 and was in possession of the same. However, it reveals that Chikkasonne Gowda, father of the appellant herein was in possession of the said land as a tenant. As such, Thiruvengadaiah filed eviction petition against Chikkasonne Gowda, which came to be allowed on 31.07.1956. Aggrieved by the same, Chikkasonne Gowda preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was also dismissed in the year 1956-57, which has attained finality and as such, the tenancy of Chikkasonne Gowda was terminated. Subsequently, the father of the appellant Chikkasonne Gowda had filed O.S.No.379/1959 seeking permanent injunction against the legal heir of Thiruvengadaiah, which was dismissed on 02.11.1959 and the appeal preferred against the same in Misc.A.No.42/1959 was also dismissed on 30.01.1960. In the year 1981, the father of respondent No.3 herein i.e., Ashwathanarayanaiah (s/o Thiruvengadaiah) filed -5- NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB WA No. 1505 of 2025 HC-KAR O.S.No.53/1981 against Some Gowda, son of Sonne Gowda, seeking declaration as owner in possession of the subject land, which was decreed on 16.10.1985. In the meanwhile, father of the appellant-Chikkasonne Gowda had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of subject land, which was allowed on 10.10.1981. Against the said order, father of respondent No.3 herein filed WP.No.2080/1982, which was allowed and remanded to the Land Tribunal vide order dated 08.10.1985. However, the Tahsildar, Kolar on 04.03.1997 changed the mutation in favour of Chikkasonnegowda, which was questioned by respondent No.3 herein before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.250/2006-07, which came to be disposed of on 06.09.2016 with a direction to the Land Tribunal to dispose of the proceeding before it at the earliest.
Thereafter, the Land Tribunal accepted Form No.7 filed by Chikkasonne Gowda in respect of subject land vide order dated 06.04.2021. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.3 herein preferred W.P.No.16643/2021, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge as aforesaid. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB WA No. 1505 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. We have heard Sri Ashok S.Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4.
4. The primary contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Land Tribunal, after meticulously examining 13 witnesses, who are the adjacent landowners and others and whose evidence clearly established the tenancy of the appellant's father over the subject land, has rightly granted Form No.7 in favour of Chikkasonnegowda. However, the learned Single Judge without appreciating said aspect, has allowed the writ petition only relying on the revenue entries, which is unsustainable.
5. He also contended that the fact that Thiruvengadaiah initiated eviction proceedings and the further fact that the father of respondent No.3 herein (son of Thiruvengadaiah) has initiated proceedings against Chikkasonne Gowda for -7- NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB WA No. 1505 of 2025 HC-KAR recovery of arrears of rent itself clearly substantiates the tenancy right of Chikkasonne Gowda in respect of subject land. Further, no material whatsoever has been placed by Thirvuvengadaiah to substantiate that possession has been taken from Chikkasonne Gowda even after confirmation of eviction order by the Deputy Commissioner. As such, it clearly establishes that Chikkasonne Gowda was in possession of subject land.
6. He also contended that as per the provisions contemplated under Sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for brevity, "the 1961 Act", the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit when the claim of tenancy over the subject land is pending before the Land Tribunal. As such, the judgment and decree does not bar the claim of Chikkasonne Gowda over subject land.
7. To buttress his arguments, he has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MOHAN BALAKU PATIL & OTHERS VS. KRISHNOJI BHAURAO -8- NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB WA No. 1505 of 2025 HC-KAR HUNDRE (DEAD) BY LRS. - AIR 1999 SC 1114 and in R.RAVINDRA REDDY & OTHERS VS. RAMAIAH REDDY & OTHERS - (2010) 3 SCC 214.
8. Without appreciating the aforesaid aspects, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order, which is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 contended that the tenancy of Chikkasonne Gowda was under the Mysore Tenancy Act and the initiation of eviction proceedings was in the year 1956 in T.A.No.25/1955-56 which has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in A1 T.A.6/1956-57 and the same has attained finality. As such, as on 01.03.1974 the father of the appellant was not the tenant in cultivation and possession of subject land. Even no gutta receipt was produced to establish the tenancy of Chikkasonne Gowda in respect of subject land.
10. Further Thiruvengadaiah and his legal heirs were declared as owner in possession of the property in -9- NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB WA No. 1505 of 2025 HC-KAR O.S.No.53/1981 vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.1985. The said judgment has also attained finality.
11. He also contended that after confirmation of eviction order by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkasonne Gowda has filed Form No.7 only in the year 1981 without questioning the order of the Deputy Commissioner that too after nearly two decades. Though the appellant claims that her father was in possession of land even after the order of Deputy Commissioner, no materials were produced to substantiate the same. Even the RTC extracts stood in the name of Thiruvengadaiah and his legal heirs as on the relevant date i.e., 01.03.1974. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order after meticulously examining the documents on record, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. We have carefully considered the contentions of the respective parties and perused the records produced before us, so also the order of the learned Single Judge.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB WA No. 1505 of 2025 HC-KAR
13. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute that Thiruvengadaiah purchased the subject land in the year 1945 under two Sale Deeds and thereafter, the eviction was sought by Thiruvengadaiah against Chikkasonne Gowda in the year 1956 under the Mysore Tenancy Act before the Assistant Commissioner in T.A.No.25/1955-56, which has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in A1 T.A.6/1956-57 in the year 1956-57 itself and the said order has attained finality. As such, it could be presumed that Chikkasonne Gowda was not in possession of land ever since from the said order. Interestingly, the father of the appellant - Chikkasonne Gowda had also filed O.S.No.379/1959 seeking permanent injunction against the legal heirs of Thirvengadaiah, which was dismissed on 02.11.1959 and the appeal preferred against the same in Misc.A.No.42/1959 was also dismissed on 30.01.1960. However, O.S.No.53/1981 filed by the legal heirs of Thiruvengadaiah against Chikkasonne Gowda seeking declaration was decreed declaring them as owners.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB WA No. 1505 of 2025 HC-KAR
14. It is vehemently contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that respondent No.4 herein in her evidence before the Land Tribunal has categorically admitted that Chikkasonne Gowda was cultivating the subject land. However, on perusal of her entire evidence, it is seen that she has nowhere stated the period during which Chikkasonne Gowda was cultivating the subject land.
15. As could be gathered from records, for the first time the appellant has claimed tenancy right in Form No.7 in the year 1981 stating that he was in cultivation and possession of subject land. However, no such documents including gutta receipt were placed by the appellant to substantiate that he was in possession and cultivation of subject land as on the relevant date i.e., 01.03.1974. As such, in view of aforesaid facts, it is clear that Chikkasonne Gowda was not in possession as on 01.03.1974 and thus, granting Form No.7 in favour of Chikkasonne Gowda by the Land Tribunal even after
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB WA No. 1505 of 2025 HC-KAR remand is untenable. On the other hand, the records reveal that the RTC were standing in the name of Thiruvengadaiah and his legal heirs as on the relevant date i.e., 01.03.1974.
16. Further, insofar as the contention of learned Senior Counsel as per Sections 132 and 133 of the 1961 Act that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit when the claim of tenancy over the subject land is pending before the Land Tribunal is concerned, it is to be stated that the tenancy was under the Mysore Tenancy Act and the same was terminated by the order of eviction, which has attained finality by the order of the Deputy Commissioner in the year 1956-57 itself and Chikkasonne Gowda was not in possession and cultivation of land ever since 1956, the Civil Court, after examining the revenue records and evidence, has declared Thiruvengadaiah and his legal heirs as owners in possession and cultivation of subject land and as such, the said order is not hit under the provisions of Sections 132 and 133 of the 1961 Act. In
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB WA No. 1505 of 2025 HC-KAR the facts and circumstances of this case, the judgments cited supra by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant are not apposite to the present case. Thus, we find that the learned Single Judge has correctly considered the materials on record and passed the impugned judgment and order, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12