[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ravi Kumar N vs K. N. Narayana Reddy on 9 December, 2025
-1-
WA No. 1103 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1103 OF 2025 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAVI KUMAR N
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.114/2
SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE
VIRGO NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 049
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SKANDA R.V. RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally K. N. NARAYANA REDDY
signed by SINCE DECEASED REP BY LR:
PRABHAKAR
SWETHA
KRISHNAN 1(a). SRI N. UMESH
Location: S/O LATE K.N. NANJAPPA REDDY
High Court AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
of Karnataka
RESIDING AT No.5
NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE
KUMBENA AGRAHARA, KADUGODI POST
BANGALORE - 560 066
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
HOSAKOTE TALUK
HOSAKOTE - 562 114
-2-
WA No. 1103 of 2025
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION
KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009
4. THE TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036
5. SRI Y.A. SOMADUNAR
S/O LATE Y. APPAJI
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
R/AT NO.1605, 18TH MAIN ROAD
JAYANAGAR 4TH 'T' BLOCK
BENGALURU - 560 041
6. SRI Y.A. GANGADHAR
S/O LATE Y. APPAJI
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R./AT NO.189, BHEL LAYOUT
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 098
7. SRI Y.A. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE Y. APPAJI
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
R/AT NO.27, 10TH CROSS
'A' CROSS, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BEML 5TH STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 041
8. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a),
SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R2 - 4 & 8,
SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAKESH B. BHATT, ADVOCATE FOR R5 - 7)
-3-
WA No. 1103 of 2025
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.10441/2020
(LR) DATED 16.06.2025 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION No.10441
OF 2020.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present intra-court appeal
impugning an order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.10441/2020 (LR).
2. Respondent No.1 (hereafter, referred to as 'the respondent')
had filed the aforementioned writ petition assailing an order dated
24.08.1981 [hereafter referred to as 'Order A'] passed by
respondent No.2 [the Land Tribunal] in case
No.LRF(B)1796/1974-75.
3. In terms of the impugned order- Order A -the Land Tribunal
had rejected the application of the respondent's father to register
him as Adhibhogadar in respect of land measuring 2 acres and 4
guntas falling in Survey No.69 and 14 guntas falling in Survey
No.64 in Dommasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East
Taluk [subject land]. The Land Tribunal held that the subject land
was covered under the Inams Abolition Act, 1977 and an order was
passed in Case No.4043/67.
4. It is the respondent's case that he was cultivating the subject
land as a tenant under the Jodidhar namely, late Y.Thimmaiah, Y.
Appaji and others. He had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy
rights, which was allowed by the Land Tribunal in terms of an order
24.08.1981 in proceedings bearing No.LRF(B)1796/1974-75. The
respondent claimed that the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy
rights in respect of land falling in Survey No.69 to the extent of 1
acre 32 guntas and in Survey No.64 to the extent of 6 guntas, in his
favour. Thus, the controversy essentially revolves around two
orders dated 24.08.1981: Order A, which was annexed as
Annexure-A to the petition, and another order of the same date
(annexed as Annexure-B to the petition) [hereafter, referred to as
'Order B']. Whereas in terms of Order A, the respondent's
application was accepted in terms of Order B.
5. The learned Single Judge had observed that Order B (order
dated 24.08.1981 annexed as Annexure B to the writ petition) is
part of the original records and the grant of occupancy rights were
also reflected in the RTC extracts. On the aforesaid basis, the writ
petition was allowed.
The Context
6. The appellant claims that one Sri Yele Narayanappa was the
original Jodidhar. The appellant relies on an order dated
03.01.1964 passed by the court of the Special Deputy
Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Kolar, under Section 10 of the
Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 in
Case No.4043/63-64. In terms of the said order Sri Yele
Narayanappa, was registered as an occupant in respect of lands
falling in Survey No.69 to the extent of 1 acre and 17 guntas, which
included 13 guntas of Kharab land. Copy of the said order dated
03.01.1964 has been produced and indicates that Sri Yele
Narayanappa was registered as an occupant of certain lands,
which included the lands to the extent of 2 acres and 4 guntas
falling in Survey No.69 of the village in question. The appellant
claimed his rights through Sri Yele Narayanappa. He states that Sri
Yele Narayanappa expired intestate and was survived by his six
sons: Y. Appaji, Y. Thammaiah, Y. Shivappa, Y. Rajshekhar, Y.
Chandrasekhar and Y. Puttaiah.
7. It is the appellant's case that the application filed by the
respondent in Form No.7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961 [the Land Reforms Act] was rejected by the Land Tribunal in
terms of Order A (order dated 24.08.1981). However, it appears
that the name of the respondent was entered in the RTC records.
The sons of Sri Y.Appaji, that is, the grandsons of Sri Yele
Narayanappa, filed an appeal before respondent No.3 - the
Assistant Commissioner - being Appeal No.RRT-(BE) 929/2018-19
under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964 [KLR
Act] seeking rectification of the revenue entries in respect of land
measuring 1 acre 32 guntas falling in Survey No.69/1 of
Dommassandra Village. According to the said applicants, the
change in the land records to reflect the name of the respondent,
was erroneous.
8. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the said appeal by an
order dated 21.01.2019 and directed the deletion of the
respondent's name and for entering the name of respondent Nos.5
to 7 (sons of Late Sri. Y.Appaji and grand sons of late Sri Yele
Narayanappa) in the land records in respect of land measuring 1
acre 32 guntas falling in Survey No.69/1 of Dommasandra Village.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed a revision
petition before the Deputy Commissioner, being R.P.No.78/2019.
However, the same was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner by
an order dated 07.02.2020. It is material to note that the
respondent did not assail the decision of the Deputy
Commissioner.
10. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.5 to 7 (sold 12 guntas of
land falling in Survey No.69 (New Survey No.69/2) to one
Sri Narendra Babu) in terms of a registered sale deed dated
24.11.2014. The respondent filed a suit being O.S.No.1149/2015
inter alia praying that the respondent be declared as an absolute
owner of the scheduled property. It is material to note that the
scheduled property was described as under:
"All that piece and parcel of land measuring 1
acre 32 guntas in Sy.No.69, New Sy. No.69/2 of
Dommasandra village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru
East Taluk, and bounded on:-
East by : Land in Sy.No.65 belongs to Jayaram,
West by : Land in Sy. No.76,
North by : Yellamallappa Water Channel,
South by : 80 feet Road in Sy. No.69."
11. The Court returned the plaint and the same was not
represented by the respondent (plaintiff therein).
12. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 sold the subject land measuring 1
acre 32 guntas along with accompanying Kharab land in favour of
the appellant by a registered sale deed dated 13.02.2020. Pursuant
to the said sale deed, the subject land was mutated in the name of
the appellant.
13. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the respondent filed
the impugned writ petition assailing Order A whereby, the
respondent's application for seeking occupancy rights in respect of
the subject land was rejected. The respondent claimed that he was
in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and had been
notified as a registered occupant in terms of Order B - order dated
24.08.1981 under Sections 45 and 48(A) of the Land Reforms Act.
The respondent claimed that Order A had been disclosed recently
and the same had been created by respondent Nos.5 to 7 in
collusion with the authorities.
Submissions
14. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
also called for the original records.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that there was no dispute that the subject land was a part of the
Inam land. He contended that although the learned Single Judge
had referred to Order B, the original files do not contain the original
of the said order. He submitted that the file also does not contain
the proceedings of the Land Tribunal. He contended that although
the learned Single Judge had allowed the petition on the strength
of Order B, there is no adjudication whether the lands in question
were Inam lands. There is no cavil that the order dated 03.01.1964
accepting the lands falling under Survey No.69 as Inam land, was
issued under Section 10 of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. He contended that in
view of the said order, the application filed by the respondent to be
declared as a registered occupant of the subject land under the
KLR Act would not be maintainable. Thus, in any event, the
respondent could not have succeeded in claiming any occupancy
rights in respect to the subject land. He also contented that the
- 10 -
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.P. No.78/2019 had
become final as the respondent had not challenged the same.
16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5
to 7 supported the contention advanced by the learned counsel for
the appellant and contented that Order B was not in existence.
17. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is
evident that Order A did not exist at the material time, as the land
records clearly reflected that the occupancy rights were granted to
the respondent in terms of Order B. He submitted that Order B is
part of the records and the fact that it not only reflected in the
records but was also acted upon by the concerned authorities at
the material time. He also referred to the sale deed 24.11.2014
executed by respondent Nos.5 to 7 in favour of Sri Narendra Babu
in respect of 12 guntas of land. He submitted that the schedule to
the said sale deed described the 12 guntas of land sold pursuant to
the said deed described that it was bounded on the east by the
remaining portion of the said survey number belonging to the
respondent. He submitted that since the said deed was the clear
admission on the part of respondent Nos.5 to 7 that the subject
land belonged to the respondent.
- 11 -
Reasons and Conclusion:
18. As is apparent from the rival contentions as noted above, the
controversy essentially relates to whether Order A was fabricated
and Order B was a genuine copy of the order passed at the
material time.
19. The learned Single Judge had proceeded on the basis that
the original Order B existed in the original file and that the entries in
the land records reflected the same. However, we find that the
original document of Order B does not exist in the original file and
the learned Single Judge's finding in this regard is erroneous. We
have examined the original file and we find that it contains the copy
of Order B. The said order does not bear the signatures of the
Chairman or the Members of the Land Tribunal. Since, it is a copy,
it merely reflects as "Sd:-"1
20. Since, the impugned order is based on the said erroneous
premise, it liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
21. The learned Single Judge had proceeded to hold that the
mutation entries deleting the name of the respondent had been
made without considering the grant made in favour of the
Translated from Kannada
- 12 -
respondent in terms of Order B. However, if the existence of Order
B is itself in doubt and therefore, no order could have been passed
without establishing its authenticity. The learned Single Judge also
observed that Order A is handwritten and does not reflect the
signatures of the members of the Land Tribunal.
22. This finding is also contrary to the record, the original
document of the impugned order, as is available on the original file,
does indicate that it has been signed by the Chairman and a
member of the Land Tribunal. The learned Single Judge faulted
the respondent-concerned authorities for not producing the order
sheets of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and had noted
that the learned Additional Government Advocate reported the
same to be missing. The fact that order sheets are missing does
not support the case of the respondent.
23. We are of the view that interference in the impugned order is
called for several reasons:
23.1 First, there is no serious disputes regarding the genuineness
of the order dated 03.01.1964 which reflects that the lands falling in
Survey No. 69 of Dommasandra Village, measuring 2 acres and 4
guntas were Inam land. In terms of the said order, Sri Yele
- 13 -
Narayanappa was declared as the occupant of the said land. There
is no dispute that in view of the said lands being inam lands, the
respondent's application for grant of occupancy rights under the
KLR Act, could not be entertained.
23.2 Second, that the respondent had filed a suit being
O.S.No.1149/2015 against respondent Nos.5 to 7, inter alia,
seeking a declaration that he was the owner of the subject land.
However, the said proceedings were abandoned. As noted earlier,
the plaint was returned and was not represented. Having
abandoned his claim for declaration of ownership of the subject
land, the respondent's writ petition premised on the said claim
ought not to have been entertained in absence of any explanation
as to why the suit was abandoned.
23.3 Third, that the respondent had filed an appeal against the
order dated 21.01.2019 of the Assistant Commissioner being
Appeal No.R.R.T.(B.E.)929/2018-19. However, the same was
dismissed. The respondent had accepted the same and had not
challenged the said order in any proceedings. It would be relevant
to note that the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated
21.01.2019 was premised on the finding that the respondent's
application for grant of occupancy rights had been dismissed in
- 14 -
terms of Order A. The relevant extract of the said is reproduced
below:
"The above appeal has been registered and notice
has been issued to the respondent who has sent the
entire original file pertaining to case No.BRF(B)
1796/1974-75. Heard arguments addressed
on behalf of the appellants and perused all the
records filed before this Court. It is crystal clear that
the case in LRF (B) 1796/1974-75 has been
dismissed by the Land Tribunal. By virtue of a
registered partition father of the appellants have
derived title to the said land and naturally on his
death the appellants herein have derived title to the
said land."
23.4 Whilst the respondent was not a party to the said
proceedings, yet he had filed an appeal against the said order
before the Deputy Commissioner. The said appeal was dismissed
on the ground that the respondent had not produced the order of
the Land Tribunal in original. The respondent had only produced a
xerox copy of the order (Order B) whereas, the contesting
respondents (respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein) had produced the
certified copy of the order (Order A) passed by the Land Tribunal.
23.5 This Court had pointedly asked the learned counsel for the
respondent as to why the challenge to the impugned order should
not be rejected since the respondent had accepted that the order
dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner dismissing
- 15 -
his appeal. In response, the learned counsel contented that the
respondent had not challenged the order of the Deputy
Commissioner as it was premised on Order A. The respondent had
decided to prefer the writ petition challenging the same.
23.6 The aforesaid contention is unpersuasive for the reason
that the respondent had taken no immediate steps to challenge
Order A after the Deputy Commissioner had dismissed
R.P.No.78/2019 by accepting Order B.
23.7 It is also material to note that the findings of the Assistant
Commissioner were based on the verification of the original record.
Therefore, if the respondent desired to pursue his claim that the
original records contain Order B and Order A was fabricated, it
would have been apposite to assail the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner at the
material time. However, as noted above that the said orders are
final as they were not assailed.
24. The original file has been produced and it contains the
original document of the Order A. The same also bears the original
signatures of the Chairperson of the Land Tribunal as well as the
- 16 -
signature of one Sri H.V.Nanjaiah, presumably, one of the
members of the Land Tribunal.
25. We are also of the view that the writ petition was filed at a
highly belated stage. Indisputably, the respondent was aware of
Order A as the same was on the basis of the Assistant
Commissioner's order dated 21.01.2019. But the respondent had
not taken any steps to challenge the same at the material time.
26. The sale deed dated 24.11.2014 whereby, 12 guntas of the
land falling in Survey No.69 was sold by respondent Nos.5 to 7 to
Sri Narendra Babu reflected that 12 guntas of land were bounded
on the east that is, the land belonging to the respondent. The same
has been sought to be explained on the ground that the land
records so reflected the same and therefore, the same was entered
in the sale deed.
27. We are sceptical about this explanation. However, the same
at best, indicates that the controversy raised involves certain
disputes regarding questions of facts. However, as noted above,
the respondent had not taken any steps to challenge the same.
The writ petition was also filed on 05.08.2020 after a considerable
delay, which in the given facts ought not be countenanced.
- 17 -
28. In view of the above, we cannot concur with the view of the
learned Single Judge that the writ petition ought to have been
entertained and the relief as sought for ought to have been granted
to the respondent.
29. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is
set aside.
30. The Pending application is also disposed of.
31. The original file furnished by the learned Additional
Government Advocate be returned.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KPS
