Karnataka High Court
Sri C Krishna vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23987
WP NO.57168 OF 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.57168 OF 2016 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C. KRISHNA
S/O LATE CHANDRAM BHATTA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.204,
J.J. RESIDENCY, 1ST FLOOR,
MARANAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
REPRESENTED BY THE S.P.A. HOLDER
SMT. CHANDRAKALA
W/O LATE H. SRINIVASA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT DURGAPURA,
KHASBAG, 7TH DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
Digitally signed by BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA
Location: HIGH ....PETITIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
BY ITS SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23987
WP NO.57168 OF 2016
HC-KAR
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
DODDABALLAPURA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN .
3. NARAYANA REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
3(a). SMT. PRAMILA DEVI N.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
D/O LATE A. NARAYANA REDDY.
3(b). SMT. SURYAPRABHA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
3(b)(i). SRI. GANESH REDDY
H/O LATE SURYAPRABHA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
3(b)(ii). SHWETHA
D/O LATE SURYAPRABHA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.3(b)(i) AND 3(b)(ii) ARE
R/AT CAR STREET,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
DODDABALLAPURA,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a) AND
R3(b)(i) & R3(b)(ii))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07TH OCTOBER, 2016 AND
RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 14TH OCTOBER, 2016 PASSED
BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
DODDABALLAPURA IN L.R.F. NO.319/1974-75 VIDE
ANNEXURES 'P' AND 'Q' RESPECTIVELY; AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23987
WP NO.57168 OF 2016
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order
dated 07th October, 2016 (Annexure-P) and Rectification order
dated 14th October, 2016 (Annexure-Q) passed by the
respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Doddaballapura Taluk in Case
No.LRF:319/1974-75.
2. The facts in nutshell as averred in the petition are
that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey
No.14/1 of Dhargapura Village, Doddaballapura Taluk
measuring to an extent of 2 acres and in this regard RTC
extracts are produced at Annexures A1 to A10. The petitioner
and his father Chandram Bhatta had mortgaged the scheduled
land in favour of H. Muniyappa Reddy as per registered
Mortgage deed dated 03rd August, 1965 (Annexure-B). The
father of the petitioner Chandram Bhatta died during the year-
1980. It is also stated in the petition that the mortgagee-H.
Muniyappa Reddy and his brothers partitioned their joint family
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:23987
WP NO.57168 OF 2016
HC-KAR
properties as per registered partition deed dated 06th March,
1970 (Annexure-C) and the scheduled land was included in the
partition Deed. The Schedule land was allotted to the share of
H. Anjanappa Reddy, who is the brother of said H. Muniyappa
Reddy. Thereafter, the said H. Anjanappa Reddy and his
children got partitioned their shares in the joint family as per
registered partition deed dated 12th June, 1972 and the
schedule land was allotted in favour of A. Narayanareddy and
same is reflected in the RTC extracts.
3. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioner
herein had instituted Original Suit No.52 of 2000 before the
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Doddaballapura seeking decree of
redemption of mortgage and the said suit came to be decreed
on 21st July, 2008 (Annexure-F1). Thereafter, respondent
No.3-A. Narayana Reddy filed Regular Appeal No.52 of 2008
before the First Appellate Court and the said appeal came to be
allowed as per judgment and decree dated 07th November,
2009 (Annexure-G1) and the matter was remanded to Trial
Court for fresh disposal. Being aggrieved by the same the
petitioner has preferred Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.10 of
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:23987
WP NO.57168 OF 2016
HC-KAR
2010 before this Court, and this Court, by order dated 26th
November, 2013 (Annexure-H), allowed the appeal and directed
the First Appellate Court to adjudicate the Regular Appeal No.52
of 2008 on merits. After the remand made by this Court, the
respondent No.3-A. Narayana Reddy died and steps were not
taken and as such, the appeal was dismissed as abated on 18th
August, 2014 (Annexure-J). Hence, the judgment and decree
dated 21st July, 2008 (Annexure-F1) passed by the Trial Court
in Original Suit No.52 of 2000 has attained finality. Thereafter,
the petitioner has filed F.D.P. No.11 of 2008, seeking
redemption of the mortgage and accordingly, sought for
appointment of Court Commissioner to execute a redemption
deed. In the meanwhile the deceased respondent No.3 filed
application seeking occupancy right in respect of the subject
land in Case No.LRF:319/1974-75 and the respondent No.2-
Land Tribunal has erroneously granted occupancy right in
favour of the respondent No.3 as per order dated 27th January,
1976 and same was questioned before this Court in Writ
Petition No.23112 of 2000. This Court, by order dated 03rd
September, 2007 (Annexure-L), quashed the order dated 27th
January, 1976 passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:23987
WP NO.57168 OF 2016
HC-KAR
and remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh
disposal. After remand, two daughters of the deceased
respondent No.3 came on record and prosecuted the case
before the Land Tribunal.
4. It is also stated that in the petition that, one of the
daughters of the deceased respondent No.3 i.e., respondent
No.3(b) represented her father as power of attorney holder in
Original Suit No.52 of 2000. The deposition of the respondent
No.3(b) in Original Suit No.52 of 2000 is produced at
Annexure-N. It is the case of the petitioner that, in view of the
existence of the mortgage deed as stated above, the Land
Tribunal has committed an error in granting occupancy right in
favour of the daughters of A. Narayana Reddy as per impugned
order dated 07th October, 2016 (Annexure-P) and rectification
order dated 14th October, 2016 (Annexure-Q). Hence, this writ
petition is filed by the petitioner.
5. Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of Sri. Rajesh Gowda, appearing for the petitioner; Sri.
K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri. V.B. Shivakumar,
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:23987
WP NO.57168 OF 2016
HC-KAR
learned counsel appearing for respondents 3(a), 3(b)(i) and
3(b)(ii).
6. Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner contended that, there is no dispute
with regard to execution of the registered mortgage deed dated
03rd August, 1965 by the petitioner and his father in favour of
H. Muniyappa Reddy, who is ancestor of the respondent No.3.
The said registration of mortgage was reflected in the partition
deeds executed between the joint family members. The land in
question was never tenanted in favour of the ancestors of the
respondent No.3. The respondent No.3(b) has admitted in her
evidence in Original Suit No.52 of 2000 regarding the mortgage
transaction and in that view of the matter, the finding recorded
by the Land Tribunal in the impugned order dated 07th October,
2016 (Annexure-P), granting occupancy right in favour of the
respondent No.3 is contrary to law. Accordingly, learned Senior
Counsel sought for interference of this Court.
7. In order to buttress his arguments, Sri. D.R.
Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:23987
WP NO.57168 OF 2016
HC-KAR
case of THIMMAIAH AND OTHERS vs. SMT. KHATUMBI
AND OTHER reported in 1987 SCC OnLine KAR 89 and in the
case of SRI. NI PRA CHANNABASAVA DESHIKENDRA
SWAMIGALU AND ANOTHER vs. C.P. KAVEERAMMA AND
OTHERS reported in ILR 2009 KAR 4429.
8. Per contra, Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel
appearing for respondents 3(a), 3(b)(i) and 3(b)(ii) submitted
that, A. Narayana Reddy had filed Form No.7 in respect of the
subject land claiming occupancy right as he was cultivating the
land in question as tenant. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal
of the writ petition.
9. Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondents sought to justify the
impugned orders passed by the Land Tribunal by producing the
original records secured from the Land Tribunal.
10. In the light of submission made by learned counsel
appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner
and his father have mortgaged the land in question in favour of
H. Muniyappa Reddy as per registered mortgage deed dated
03rd August, 1965 (Annexure-B). The said aspect is reflected in
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:23987
WP NO.57168 OF 2016
HC-KAR
the registered partition deed dated 06th March, 1970
(Annexure-C) executed between the joint family of H.
Muniyappa Reddy and his brothers. It is also not in dispute that
the said aspect was reflected in the registered partition deed
dated 12th June, 1972 (Annexure-D). It is also forthcoming
from the writ papers that the Trial Court, by its judgment and
decree dated 21st July, 2008 (Annexure-F1) passed in Original
Suit No.52 of 2000, decreed for executing the deed of
redemption in favour of the petitioner. The said judgment and
decree has reached finality in view of the order dated 26th
November, 2013 (Annexure-H) passed by this Court in
Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.10 of 2010. The proceedings
in Regular Appeal No.52 of 2008 came to be abated and in
F.D.P. No.11/2008 (Annexure-K), the petitioner has sought for
execution of redemption deed by the Court Commissioner. In
that view of the matter, there is no dispute that the land in
question was handed over to the H. Muniyappa Reddy, who is
the ancestors of the private respondents as per mortgage deed
and not as tenant. In view of the same, the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of THIMMAIAH (supra) at paragraph 4
and 10 held as follows:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23987
WP NO.57168 OF 2016
HC-KAR
"4. In order to appreciate the first contention of
the appellants it is necessary to set-out Section 4 of the
Act, which reads:
"4-PERSONS TO BE DEEMED TENANTS-A
person lawfully cultivating any land belonging
to another person shall be deemed to be
tenant if such land is not cultivated
personally by the owner and if such person is
not-
(a) a member of the owner''s family, or
(b) a servant or a hired labourer on wages
payable in cash or kind but not in crop share
cultivating the land under the personal
supervision of the owner or any member of
the owner''s family, or
(c) a mortgagee in possession:
Provided that if upon an application made by
the owner within one year from the
appointed day, (i) if the Tribunal declares
that such person is not a tenant and its
decision is not reversed on appeal, or (ii) the
Tribunal refuses to make such declaration
but its decision is reversed on appeal. Such
person shall not be deemed to be a tenant.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that paragraph 17 of the judgement of the Supreme
Court indicates that this case also would be similar to
the one coming under Section 2A of the Bombay
Tenancy Act, 1939. We are unable to agree for the
reason that what would be the effect of Section 4 of the
BT & AL Act which incorporated ''Mortgagees'' as the
third exception to the fiction of deemed tenancy had
been clearly and expressly stated by the Supreme Court
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23987
WP NO.57168 OF 2016
HC-KAR
at paragraph 8, extracted above and Section 4 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act is identically worded. The
appellants therefore cannot claim to be deemed tenants
as they being mortgagees fall under one of the excepted
categories. Therefore, we find no substance in the first
contention of the appellants."
11. The Division Bench of this Court in SRI. NI PRA
CHANNABASAVA DESHIKENDRA SWAMIGALU (supra) at
paragraph 2 held as follows:
"2. Basically, the question which arise for our
consideration in these appeals is the application of
Sections 41 and 130 of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act to the facts of this case. In other words, whether
the application filed in Form No.5 by the appellants for
recovery of possession for the respondents is
maintainable. If it is maintainable, whether the order
passed by the Tahsildar is in accordance with law.
Whether the Learned Single Judge was right in setting
aside the order and remanding the matter back to the
Tahsildar for fresh consideration. In order to decide
these two questions, it is necessary to set out in brief
the facts leading to these proceedings."
12. In that view of the matter, since the land in question
has been mortgaged as per registered mortgage deed dated
03rd August, 1965 and same is admitted in Original Suit No.52
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23987
WP NO.57168 OF 2016
HC-KAR
of 2000 by the respondent No.3(b), the finding recorded by the
Land Tribunal that the land in question is tenanted land, is
contrary to records and same has to be set-aside in view of the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of
THIMMAIAH (supra). Even, if the arguments of Sri. V.B.
Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3(a),
3(b)(i) and 3(b)(ii) is accepted as to filing of Form No.7 by H.
Muniyappa Reddy and same is to be ignored as the said H.
Muniyappa Reddy was mortgagee under the registered
mortgage deed dated 03rd August, 1965. Therefore, I pass the
following:
ORDER
1) Writ Petition is allowed;
2) Order dated 07th October, 2016 (Annexure-
P) and order dated 14th October, 2016
(Annexure-Q) passed by the respondent
No.2-Land Tribunal in Case
No.LRF:319/1974-75 are hereby set-aside.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
