Karnataka High Court
K.V. Venkataramanappa vs State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
WP No. 18745 of 2021
C/W WP No. 16343 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 18745 OF 2021 (LR)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 16343 OF 2021
IN WP NO.18745 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI C. SHANKARAPPA
S/O CHANNAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT AJJAPPANAHALLI
HUTURU HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563137.
2. NARASIMHA MURTHY T R
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS
2a. SRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO
Digitally signed by
ARUN KUMAR M S S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY T R
Location: High AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
Court of Karnataka
2b. SRI SUDHEENDRA
S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY T R
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2c. SRI VAJAYENDRA
S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY T R
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2d. SRI MANJUNATH C.
S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY T R
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
WP No. 18745 of 2021
C/W WP No. 16343 of 2021
PETITIONER NO.2a. TO 2d ARE
RESIDING AT THAMBALLI VILLAGE
HUTTURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563160.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA S.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DISTRICT WAKF BOARD
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563101
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. BASHA SAB
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
2a. SRI ALLA BAKASH
S/O BASHA SAB
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
2b. SRI. ATHAULLA
S/O BASHA SAB
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
2c SRI HIDAYUTH
S/O BASHA SAB
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2d. SRI. AHMED
S/O BASHA SAB
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2e. SRI. SHAFI ULLA
S/O BASHA SAB
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
RAHAMATH NAGAR,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
WP No. 18745 of 2021
C/W WP No. 16343 of 2021
3. K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
3a. SMT. RADHAMMA
3b. SMT. POORNIMA
3c. SMT. PRATHIMA
3d. SMT. BHARGAVI
3e. SRI GANGADHAR
3f. LAKSHMINARAYANAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS
3f(i) SMT. AMARAVATHAMMA
W/O LATE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
3f(ii) MRS. SUSHMA
D/O LATE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
BOTH 3f(i) AND 3F(ii) ARE R/AT NO.368
BANGARPET ROAD
MASTI EXTENSION
KOLAR-563 101.
3g. SRI. GOVINDARAJU
3h. SRI. NAGARAJ K V
3i. SMT. SHYLAJA K V
3j. SMT. USHA K V
3k. SMT. GEETHA K V
3l. SMT RANGAMMA K V
R3a. TO R3l. ARE SONS AND
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
WP No. 18745 of 2021
C/W WP No. 16343 of 2021
DAUGHTER OF LATE K VENKATARAMANAPPA ARE
RESIDING AT MASTHI LAYOUT
KOLAR TOWN
KOLAR - 563101.
4. LAND TRIBUNAL
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563101
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R6;
SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SOMASHEKHARA K.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2(a TO e);
SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P. RAHUL, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a TO f AND g TO l);
SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R4 AND R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.7.2021 PASSED IN LFR NO.185-
295/1985 BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR AS
PER ANNEXURE-A.
IN WP NO.16343 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
K V. VENKATARAMANAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1. SMT. K.V. RADHAMMA
W/O LATE K V. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
WP No. 18745 of 2021
C/W WP No. 16343 of 2021
2. SMT. K.V. POORNIMA
W/O LATE K V. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
3. SMT. K.V. PRATHIMA
D/O LATE K V. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
4. SMT. K.V. BHARGAVI
D/O LATE K.V. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
5 SRI K.V. GANGADHAR
S/O LATE K.V. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
6 LAKSHMINARAYANAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
6a. SMT. AMARAVATHAMMA
W/O LATE K.V. LAKSHMINARAYANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
6b. MRS. SUSHMA
D/O LATE K. V. LAKSHMINARAYANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
BOTH 6a & 6b ARE R/AT NO.368
BANGARPET ROAD
MASTI EXTENSION
KOLAR-563 101.
7. K.V. GOVINDARAJU
S/O LATE K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
8. K V NAGARAJU
S/O LATE K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
9. K.V. SHYLAJA
D/O LATE K.VENKATARAMANAPPA
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
WP No. 18745 of 2021
C/W WP No. 16343 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
10. K.V. USHA
D/O LATE K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
11. K.V. GEETHA
D/O LATE K.VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
12. SMT. K.V. RANGAMMA
D/O LATE K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 6 AND 7 TO 12 ARE
RESIDING AT MASTHI LAYOUT
KOLAR TOWN KOLAR - 563101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PAPEGOWDA B. AND
SRI. P. RAHUL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
KOLAR,
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
3. DISTRICT WAKF BOARD
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
LATE BASHA SABH
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
WP No. 18745 of 2021
C/W WP No. 16343 of 2021
4. ALLA BAKASH
S/O BASHA SAB
MAJOR
5. ATTAULLAH
S/O LATE BASHA SAB
MAJOR
6. IDHAYTH
S/O LATE BASHA SAB
MAJOR
7. AHMED
S/O LATE BASHA SAB
MAJOR
8. SHAFI ULLA
S/O LATE BASHA SAB
MAJOR
R3 TO R8 ARE RESIDING AT
RAHAMATH NAGAR
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101.
9. SRI C. SHANKARAPPA
S/O CHENNAKRISHNAPPA
MAJOR
LATE K. RAMACHANDRA RAO
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
LATE NARASHIMHA MURTHY T.R.
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
10. KRISHNAVENAMMA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
11. RAGHAVENDRA RAO
S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY T.R.
MAJOR
12. SUDHINDRA
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
WP No. 18745 of 2021
C/W WP No. 16343 of 2021
S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY T.R.
MAJOR
13. VAJEENDRA
S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY T.R.
MAJOR
14. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY T.R.
MAJOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 9 TO 14
ARE R/AT MASTI BADAWANE
KOLAR TOWN AND
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SOMASEKHARA K.H., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8;
SRI. P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. S.V. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R12 TO R14;
R10 DECEASED; R11 TO R14 ARE TREATED AS LRS. OF R10;
R9 AND R10 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND
TRIBUNAL -2ND RESPONDENT NO.LRF NO.185-295/1984-85
DATED 13.07.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging
order dated 13.07.2021 in LRF No.185-295/1984-85
passed by the Land Tribunal, Kolar Taluk, Kolar and
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
therefore, these writ petitions are clubbed, heard
together and disposed of by common order.
2. The petitioners in these two writ petitions
claims to be the tenants and stated that they have
filed an application seeking occupancy rights in
respect of the land bearing Survey No.86, measuring
5 acre, 15 guntas including Karab and also in Survey
No.95 to an extent of 6 acres, situate at Kolar Kasaba
Hobli, Kolar Taluk and District.
3. The facts narrated by the petitioners in Writ
petition No.18745 of 2021 are that, the petitioner-
Shankarappa and Narasimhamurthy have filed
application seeking occupancy right in respect of land
bearing Survey No.86 of Kolar Kasaba Hobli, Kolar
Taluk and District, to an extent of 5 acre, 15 guntas.
It is contended by the petitioners that the said
schedule land belongs to Mastana Alisha/Wakf Board.
It is claimed by the petitioner that, petitioner No.1-
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
Shankarappa was the tenant under the Babajan during
his life and after his death, was tenant under Sri.
Basha Sabi to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. It is the
contention of legal representatives of-T.R. Narasimha
Murthy that their father (T.R.Narasimha Murthy) was
tenant for remaining 1 acre, 20 guntas. It is the case
of the petitioners that, they were in possession of the
land in question and were paying 'Vaara' to the
landlord every year. It is also stated that their names
were entered in Column No.12(2) of R.T.C Extract for
the relevant period and as such, made an application
seeking occupancy right in respect of land bearing
Survey No.86 before the Land Tribunal, Kolar and the
Land Tribunal as per Annexure-A rejected the said
application made by the petitioners and feeling
aggrieved by the same, the petitioners presented this
writ petition.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
4. In Writ Petition No.16343/2021 the
petitioners are wife and children of late K.V.
Venkataramanappa, claims to be the tenant in respect
of the land bearing Sy No.86 and portion of land
bearing Sy No.95 of Kolar Kasaba Holbi, Kolar Taluk
and District. It is contended by the petitioners that the
aforementioned land was belonged to Makhan Inamthi
and the lands were under the control of Babasabi,
Chotesabi and Azizsaab as per the Lease Deed
produced at Annexures B and C respectively. It is
contended by the petitioners that, late
K.V.Venkataramanappa was cultivating the land in
question and as such, filed application under Form
No.7 under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act')
and was paying 'Vaara' to the landlords. It is
contended by the petitioners that, the Land Tribunal,
without considering the factual aspect on record has
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
passed the impugned order dated 13.07.2021
(Annexure-A) and feeling aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners have presented this writ petition.
5. I have heard Sri S.V.Manjunath, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.18745
and contesting respondents 12 to 14 in W.P.No.16343
of 2021; Sri P.S.Malipatil learned counsel appearing
for respondents 1 and 6 in W.P.No.18745 of 2021 and
for contesting respondent No.3 in W.P.No.16343 of
2021; Jayakumar S. Patil learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri Somashekara K.H. for
respondent Nos.2(A to E) in W.P.No18745 of 2021 and
contesting respondents 4 to 8 in W.P.No.16343 of
2021; Sri Ashok Haranahalli learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri P. Rahul for respondent
No.3 (A to F and G to L) in W.P.No.18745 of 2021 and
for the petitioners in W.P.No.16343 of 2021 and Sri
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent-Government.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions
that, the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal is not
correct as the petitioners have filed applications in
Form No.7, seeking occupancy right under the
provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
and the petitioners are in possession of the lands in
question as tenants and therefore, sought for
interference of this Court. It is further submitted by
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the
finding recorded by the Land Tribunal that the subject
land is belonging to the Wakf Board is incorrect and
accordingly, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners sought for interference of this Court. Sri
Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel places
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
Court in the case of Gowtham Tendulkar and
another vs. State of Karnataka and Another
reported in ILR 2000 KAR 1343 and in the case of
Kalagondadha Basavannappa and others vs.
State of Karnataka and others of this Court in
W.P.No.29314 of 2002 and contended that, the
impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal requires
to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent/landlord argued that, the applicants
namely, Sri C. Shankarappa, K. Ramachandra Rao and
K. Venkataramanappa have stated that they are in
cultivation of entire land in question and such an
event will not happen as three claimants cannot
cultivate the land simultaneously. It is further
contended that, as on the date of making application
by Sri. C. Shankarappa, age of the said claimant was
16 years and submitted that, the Educational Transfer
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
Certificate of C. Shankarappa shows that, the date of
birth of C. Shanakarappa is 28.06.1958 and therefore,
the said contention was rightly rejected by the Land
Tribunal. It is further contended by the learned
counsel for the respondents that another claimant K.
Venkataramanappa was working as Government
School Teacher, and therefore, at any stretch of
imagination, he wfas cultivating the land personally or
supervising the same and occupancy right is rightly
rejected and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ
petitions.
8. Sri. P.S. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing
for the Wakf Board contended that the entire land to
an extent of 1 acre, 15 guntas in Sy. Nos.86 and 95
of Kolar Town was notified as Wakf property as per
Notification dated 21.07.1965 and as such, sought to
justify the impugned order passed by the Land
Tribunal.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
9. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful
examination of the writ papers would indicate that,
guntas, out of which 1 acre 11 guntas is kharab kunte.
In Sy. No.95 consisting of 5 acres 39 guntas, stands in
the name of one Mastan Ali Shah and perusal of the
record would indicate that, the petitioners namely,
C.Shankarappa, T.R. Narasimha Murthy and the
husband of petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.16343/2021
(Sri. K. Venkataramanappa) had filed application
seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of the
lands in question. It is also not disputed by the parties
that, the spot inspection was made by the Land
Tribunal. It is the case of the claimants that, they
were working as tenants under Babajan, wherein,
originally land belong to Mastan Ali Shah / Wakf
Board, and also it is stated by K. Venkataramanappa
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
that, he has not filed Form No.7 in respect of Sy No.
86, and filed application under the provisions of
Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition
Act, 1906 and further admits that he was working as
Government School Teacher. In that view of the
matter, though assuming that, the said
K.Venkataramappa was not cultivating the land
personally but supervising the cultivation, but the said
aspect cannot be accepted that no evidence is
adduced in this regard and therefore, the said
claimant K. Venkataramanappa cannot be considered
as a permanent tenant, under the Act, despite being a
Government Servant. It is also established that, the
said K. Venkataramanappa was not cultivating the
land personally and therefore, judgment referred by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
cannot be accepted. It is also forthcoming from the
records that, another claimant C. Shankarappa was
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
born on 28.06.1958 and was minor as on 01.03.1974
and therefore, the said C.Shankarappa cannot be
considered as a tenant, in respect of the land in
question. Insofar as another claimant-T. R. Narasimha
Murthy is concerned, it is forthcoming from the finding
recorded by the Land Tribunal that, both
C.Shankarappa and T.R.Narasimha Murthy have filed
application seeking occupancy rights in respect of the
subject land by contending that, both of them are
cultivating the land in question together. The said fact,
cannot be accepted as both the claimants were
cultivating the land simultaneously. I have also
noticed from the affidavit filed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Kolar District, pursuant to the direction
issued by this court, wherein it is noticed regarding
the discrepancy and over-writing in the RTC extracts,
produced by the claimants and same is not tallying
with the original records at Tahsildar office, Kolar. In
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46876
that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the
Land Tribunal rejecting the applications made by the
claimants is just and proper and I do not find any
merit in the writ petitions as this court by exercising
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution
of India cannot sit in appeal over the finding recorded
by the Land Tribunal unless the appreciation of the
material is based on no evidence. In that view of the
matter, the writ petitions are rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE
SB
