Karnataka High Court
Smt. Muniyamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11295
WP No. 6890 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 6890 OF 2020 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKA THATTA MANGALA VILLAGE
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 135.
2. SMT LALITHAMMA @ AKKAYAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKA THATTA MANGALA VILLAGE
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
Digitally
signed by
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 135.
KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location: 3. SRI THIMMARAYAPPA
HIGH
COURT OF S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
KARNATAKA
R/AT CHIKKA THATTA MANGALA VILLAGE
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 135.
4. SRI. LAGUMAPPA.,
S/O LATE RAMMAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKA THATTA MANGALA VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562135.
...PETITIONERS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11295
WP No. 6890 of 2020
(BY SRI. VIKHAR AHMED.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPURA-561 203
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
3. THE TAHSILDAR
THE TAHSILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
DEVANAHALLI-562 110
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
4. SMT V C GOWRAMMA
W/O Y C BAJJAPPA
D/O CHIKKAVEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
R/AT NO.1027/136
71ST A CROSS, 20TH MAIN
5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA
BENGALURU-560 010
5. SRI S MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O RAMAMURTHYNAGAR
YARAPPANAPALYA
BENGALURU-560 016
6. SMT RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAPPA
AGEDA BOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT JARAMANDAHALLI VILLAGE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:11295
WP No. 6890 of 2020
MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101
7. SRI RAJANNA
S/O LATE RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT YEARS
R/O RAMAMURTHYNAGAR
YARAPPANAPALYA
BENGALURU-560 016
8. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA.,
W/O C.ASHWATHANARAYANA.,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT No.639, SULIBELE MAIN ROAD,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK AND TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. CHANDINI.S., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 12.03.2025, NOTICE TO R-4 TO R-7
IS DISPENSED WITH;
SRI. T.SHESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R-8)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 04.04.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN REVENUE
APPEAL NO.571/2005 VIDE ANNX-T, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:11295
WP No. 6890 of 2020
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is by the petitioners - tenant challenging
the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by
which, the Tribunal reversed the order of the
Assistant Commissioner, who had granted the land to
the tenant by holding that land had vested in the
State and the petitioners were cultivating the land.
2. In the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the
Assistant Commissioner has placed reliance on a spot
inspection, statement of the villagers and also a
recommendation of the Tahsildar to come to the
conclusion that the land was vested in the State and
proceeded to grant the land to the tenant.
3. However, the Tribunal has taken the view on the
basis of the documents produced by the landlord that
the RTC stood in the name of the landlord and,
therefore, there was no material to indicate that the
land in question was a tenanted land and had stood
vested in the State.
NC: 2025:KHC:11295
4. Importantly, after considering the contention of the
landlord, the Tribunal has also recorded a finding
that the Assistant Commissioner had passed the
impugned order in favour of the tenant without
serving the notice of the proceedings on the landlord.
5. If the Tribunal were to conclude that the order that
had been passed by the Assistant Commissioner was
without hearing the landlord, the Tribunal ought to
have merely remanded the matter to the Assistant
Commissioner and issued a direction to the Assistant
Commissioner to record a finding as to whether the
land had stood vested in the State and, whether the
applicant had proved that he was in possession as on
the date of vesting and continued in possession.
6. The Tribunal, in my view, could not have come to the
conclusion that the RTCs, which had not been
considered by the Assistant Commissioner, could be
the basis for rejection of the petitioners' claim.
NC: 2025:KHC:11295
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the landlord places
reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in
Lokayya Poojary's case1 and contends that the
factum of vesting should be an undisputed fact and,
an enquiry cannot be gone into as to whether the
land in question was tenanted or not.
8. It must be stated here that, in this very judgment
the Full Bench has stated that, there is no need for
an order of vesting to be passed and, the question of
vesting of the land was by operation of law. The Full
Bench has also said that, there must be a
Government record, which indicated that the land in
question was vested.
9. This, by itself indicates that the Assistant
Commissioner was required to record a finding as to
whether the land vested in the State or not and, this
Lokayya Poojary and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others - ILR
2012 KAR 4345
NC: 2025:KHC:11295
would obviously depend on the documents produced
by the tenant as well as by the landlord.
10. In the present case, the Assistant Commissioner had
placed reliance on a spot inspection and a
recommendation of the Tahsildar to conclude that
the land in question had vested. Unless this finding
was found to be incorrect, the Tribunal could not
have disturbed the said order.
11. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would indicate
that, the Tribunal has not even considered the
correctness or otherwise of the spot inspection,
statement of the villages and also the
recommendation of the Tahsildar.
12. In my view, therefore, the order the Tribunal cannot
be sustained.
13. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and
the matter shall now stand remanded to the
Assistant Commissioner, who shall consider the
NC: 2025:KHC:11295
matter afresh and, record a clear finding as to
whether the land in question had vested in the State
as on 01.03.1974, and whether the tenant was in
possession as on that date and continued to be in
possession till the date of his application.
14. The Assistant Commissioner shall complete this
exercise within a period of six months from the date
of receipt of the copy of this order.
15. This petition is accordingly allowed.
16. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
GSR
