Smt Jambanahalli Kanimevva vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 10032 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt Jambanahalli Kanimevva vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2025

Author: S G Pandit

Bench: S G Pandit

                                                 -1-
                                                            WA No.2492/2007




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                         PRESENT

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
                                           AND
                          THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

                              WRIT APPEAL NO.2492 OF 2007


                      BETWEEN:

                      1 . SMT. JAMBANAHALLI KANIMEVVA
                          W/O. LATE JAMBANAHALLI HANUMANTHAPPA
                          AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
                          R/O. WARD-18, OLD WARD-8,
                          HOSPET TALUK, HOSPET-583201,
                          BELLARY DISTRICT.

                      2. SRI. J. ANJANAPPA
                         S/O. LATE JAMBANAHALLI HANUMANTHAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
                         R/O. KURUBARA ONI, WARD-18,
                         OLD WARD-8, HOSPET TALUK,
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
                         HOSPET-583201, BELLARY DISTRICT.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.11.12
11:53:36 +0530        3. SRI. J. KANVIRAYA
                         S/O. LATE JAMBANAHALLI HANUMANTHAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                         R/O. HOSPET TALUK,
                         HOSPET-583201, BELLARY DISTRICT.
                                                                  ...APPELLANTS

                      (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANTH, ADVOCATE)
                             -2-
                                        WA No.2492/2007




AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ITS SECRETARIAL DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
       M.S.BUILDING,
       DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
       BANGALORE-560001.

2.     THE LAND TRIBUNAL
       HOSPET TALUK,
       HOSPET, BY ITS SECRETARY.

3.     SRI. H.L.N. ACHAR NORAYANACHAR
       S/O. LATE H. SUBBAMMA
       SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

3A)    SMT. H. PARIMALA BAI W/O. LATE HLN ACHAR
       A-503, ROHAN JHAROKA APARTMENT,
       BEHIND HAL AIRPORT,
       MARATHALI COLONY, YEMALUR,
       BENGALURU NORTH,
       BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560037.

3B)    SRI. H. GOVINDA RAJU S/O. LATE HLN ACHAR
       A-503, ROHAN JHAROKA APARTMENT,
       BEHIND HAL AIRPORT,
       MARATHALI COLONY, YEMALUR,
       BENGALURU NORTH,
       BENGALURU KARNATAKA.

4.     SRI. K. VASUDEVACHAR
       S/O. K. SRINIVASACHAR
       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
       R/O. BANGAR LANE
       HOSPET TALUK, BELLARY DIST.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY    SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
       NOTICE SERVED TO R3(A) AND R3(B);
       SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
                                 -3-
                                              WA No.2492/2007




     THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION-4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
20.11.2007 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.30897/2002 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HIGH COURT, AND
PARTICULARLY INSOFAR AS DIRECTION ISSUED DIRECTING
THE LAND TRIBUNAL TO REGISTER THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF HIS CLAIM, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
15.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
             AND
             THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

                         CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

Appellants-claimants are before this Court in this

appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court

Act, 1961 questioning the order passed in WP

No.30897/2002 dated 20.11.2007 by the learned Single

Judge in allowing the writ petition where under the order of

Land Tribunal (in short, Tribunal) dated 29.06.2002 was in

question.

2. The parties shall be referred to as per the rank

they hold before this Court in writ appeal.

3. The husband of first appellant and father of

appellants No.1, 2 and 3, one Jambanahalli Hanumanthappa

claims that he was tenant of Sy.No.277/A/1 measuring 2

acres 91 cents situated at Amaravathi village, Hospete

Taluk under respondent No.4 the owner of said property

and he was tenant since 30 years. Both the husband of first

appellant and respondent No.4 have filed rival applications

in Form No.1 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of said

property before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 claimed to

be the owner of the land in dispute and respondent No.4 is

the rival claimant whose application filed in Form No.1 was

rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 29.06.2002.

However, learned Single Judge set aside the same and

directed respondent No.2 to register him as occupant of the

land in dispute and said order is under challenge in this

appeal.

4. The appellants further stated that Jambanahalli

Hanumanthappa died on 17.03.2001 and after his death

appellants were impleaded in this appeal.

5. This is the second round of litigation.

6. The brief case of the parties before the Trial

Court are as follows:

7. The land in question in this case is situated at

Sy.No.277/A/1 measuring 2 acres 91 cents at Amaravathi

village, Hospete Taluk. The appellants and respondent No.4

being the rival claimants have submitted application under

Form No.1 of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977.

Initially, after enquiry, the Tribunal has passed the order in

favour of first applicant-Vasudevachar, (respondent No.4),

which was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition

No.8860/1989, which was allowed by order dated

02.11.1989 and matter was remitted back to the Tribunal

for further enquiry. Accordingly, further enquiry was

conducted and the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in

favour of Jambanahalli Hanumanthappa i.e., in favour of the

husband of first appellant by its order dated 29.06.2002.

Said order was challenged by respondent No.4-

Vasudevachar in Writ Petition No.30897/2002. In said writ

petition, the learned Single Judge has declared that

Vasudevachar is the tenant as on the fixed date based on

RTCs and allowed the writ petition. The said order is under

challenge in this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants,

Sri.V.M.Sheelvanth submitted his argument that respondent

No.4 has mislead the Court and has produced the

manipulated RTC and not produced the RTC of relevant year

and based on it the learned Single Judge has passed the

order, which is erroneous. He also submitted that he has

produced all the relevant RTCs and other documents. He

further contended that respondent No.4 is none other than

the son of original owner-Subbamma's brother and the

contention of respondent No.4 that his father was given in

adoption is not proved. Thus, respondent No.4 being the

family member cannot file claim petition claiming that he is

the tenant. Furthermore, respondent No.4 has taken

different stands in different forums at different times. At

once, he states that he is the owner of the property; at

another stretch, he states that he is the tenant and at

another stretch, he contended that there was partition and

this property has fallen to his share. However, these facts

were not brought to light before learned Single Judge.

These facts were clearly and categorically established before

the Tribunal and the Tribunal has passed a detailed and

reasoned order and granted occupancy rights to first

appellant's husband. Hence, the said order ought not to

have been interfered by the learned Single Judge.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants would further

submit that Jambanahalli Hanumanthappa was tenant for

30 years. Vasudevachar in his Form No.1 has stated that he

is tenant since 20 years. But if his age is considered then he

could not have been tenant since 20 years. He contends

that, always the sugarcane bills will be shown in the name

of owner and not in the name of tenant. Thus the sugarcane

bills produced by respondent No.4 would not prove his

possession as tenant over the property in dispute. On the

other hand, the appellants have produced the original

notebook and receipts i.e., identity tickets to prove their

possession as tenant over the property in question. The

learned counsel for appellants would further submit that

because of dispute between Jambanahalli Hanumanthappa

and respondent No.4, the Tahasildar has initiated

proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and called the report

from Revenue Inspector, which clearly indicates the

possession of Jambanahalli Hanumanthappa over the

disputed property. Said order was under challenge in

Criminal Revision Petition No.513/1989. Said Criminal

Revision Petition was allowed only on the ground that

Tahasildar had no jurisdiction to conduct enquiry. However,

the finding of Tahasidar that Jambanahalli Hanumanthappa

was in possession is intact. The learned Single Judge

erroneously comes to the wrong conclusion. Hence, prayed

for allowing the writ appeal.

10. Along with appeal, I.A.No.1/2007 under Order

XLI Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure was filed and prayed for

permission to adduce additional evidence by way of

production of five documents and also I.A.No.1/2025 is filed

under Order XLI Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure praying for

permission to adduce additional evidence by way of

production of two RTCs. Learned counsel for the appellants

would submit that those documents are important

documents and would throw light on the dispute and are

thus, necessary documents and prayed for allowing both

IAs.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 Sri.Dinesh

M Kulkarni submitted that this respondent No.4 is not the

family member of Subbamma. In this regard, he has

furnished the genealogical tree. He further took us to

Section 5 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act,

1977, Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,

1961 and Section 4(a) of the said Act and would submit

that, respondent No.3 cannot be considered as member of

the family of the owner. Jambanahalli Hanumanthappa has

furnished Form No.1 wherein his age is shown as 45 years

but he states that he is cultivating lands since 50 years,

- 10 -

which is impossible. The order passed by the Tahasildar is

quashed in the Criminal Revision Petition and hence that

cannot be considered.

12. Learned counsel for respondent would further

submit that in the suit filed by him on 02.11.1989,

respondent No.4 contended that he is the owner of the

property because, before that date i.e., on 29.06.1987 itself

Tahasildar has granted occupancy rights to him and

declared him as the owner. Thus, there is no discrepancy in

referring respondent No.4 as tenant at once and as owner

at another stretch. Furthermore, Jambanahalli

Hanumanthappa has not produced any iota of evidence to

show that he is the tenant of the property. The receipts and

bills produced by him are not pertaining to this land. But

the sugarcane bills produced by him are pertaining to some

other land situated at Mudlapura Village. Hence, the order

passed by the learned Single Judge is proper and in

accordance with law. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the

appeal by confirming the order passed in the writ petition.

- 11 -

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would further submit

that Jambanahalli Hanumanthappa himself has given his

affidavit and has withdrawn his tenancy application in Form

No.1.

13. During pendency of this appeal, respondent No.3

died and his legal representatives were brought on record.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and

on perusal of the appeal papers along with original records

of the Tribunal, the following points would arise for our

consideration in this appeal:

i. Whether the appellants have made out a case that Jambanahalli Hanumanthappa was the original tenant of the disputed property as on 01.03.1974 and learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating the material on record in proper perspective?

ii. Whether interference on said order is required?

iii. Whether appellants be permitted to adduce additional evidence?

- 12 -

iv. What order?

15. Answer to point No.3: This point is considered

first as it is pertaining to production of additional

documents. Along with IA No.1/2007 under Order XLI Rule

27 CPC, the appellants have produced 5 documents i.e., the

order passed by Tahasildar in MC No.193/1989 pertaining to

Section 145 proceedings; the order passed in the Criminal

Revision Petition against said order; the report of Revenue

Inspector before passing such order by the Tahasildar; the

order passed in Writ Petition No.8860/1989 wherein the

original appellant has preferred the writ petition against the

order of Tribunal and then it was remanded back to Trial

Court; and the certified copy of order sheet of

O.S.No.74/1989 which was withdrawn by respondent No.4.

16. All the above documents are pertaining to court

proceedings, they are not new documents and both parties

of this appeal were parties in those proceedings and there is

no serious objection from the respondents to produce these

documents.

- 13 -

17. Another I.A.No.1/2025 is filed under Order XLI

Rule 27 CPC along with two records of rights. They are the

relevant documents to decide the present appeal and there

is no serious objection to produce those documents. One of

them was already produced before the Tribunal.

18. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that

appellants be permitted to adduce additional evidence by

way of production of these documents and these documents

will be considered at the time of passing orders on merits.

Accordingly, point No.3 is answered in affirmative.

19. Answer to point Nos.1 and 2: These points are

considered together, as they require common discussion.

20. The admitted facts of the case are that disputed

property is situated at Survey No.277/A/1 measuring 2

acres 91 cents situated at Amaravathi Village, Hospete

Taluk and it is a personal Inam land. The respondent No.4

has filed application in Form No.1 on 31.12.1983 and the

husband of first appellant one Jambanahalli

Hanumanthappa has filed application in Form No.1 on

- 14 -

14.03.1984 in respect of the same property. Thus, there is

rival claim between the parties. Earlier, the Land Tribunal

has allowed the application filed by respondent No.4 and

occupancy rights were granted in his favour which was

challenged by husband of appellant No.1 in Writ Petition

No.8860/1989 and it was allowed and the matter was

remanded back to Tribunal for fresh enquiry.

21. Afterwards fresh enquiry was conducted and

appellant No.1 was examined on behalf of her and

appellants No.2 and 3 and appellant No.1 also examined

some witnesses and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.45. As already

noted at that time her husband the original appellant died

and on behalf of respondent No.4, respondent No.4 was

examined and also examined some witnesses and got

marked Exs.B.1 to B.34.

22. After recording evidence of both sides and

hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal has granted

occupancy rights in favour of Jambanahalli Hanumanthappa

i.e., in favour of appellant No.1 to 3 who were representing

- 15 -

the original tenant stating that he was the person who was

cultivating the land as on the cut off date 01.03.1974.

23. Aggrieved by said order of the Tribunal,

respondent No.4 has filed Writ Petition No.30897/2002 (LR)

which was allowed on 20.11.2007 and occupancy rights

were granted in favour of respondent No.4.

24. In the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has

considered only the RTC extract of land in question stating

that it was from 1967 onwards and name of respondent

No.4 is forthcoming in the cultivators' column and thus

allowed the writ petition.

25. It is to be noted here that said RTC extract is for

the year 1967-68 and in owner's column, name of

H.L.Narayanachar, Kamalapura was there, which is rounded

off and name of H.Subbamma was inserted as per orders

passed in RTR No.1/1981 dated 07.11.1971 and in

cultivators' column for the year 1967-1968 name of

H.L.Narayanachar was shown for the entire extent. In said

RTC, then, it continued from 1974-75 to 1977-78 and no

- 16 -

information for the years 1968-69 to 1973-74 is

forthcoming in this RTC extract. In said RTC, from 1974-75

to 1977-78 directly name of K.Srinivasachar S/o K.Srinivas

Achar is shown in cultivators' column. There is no mention

in this RTC that how name of this K.Srinivasachar, who is

the father of respondent No.4 is forthcoming and based on

it, learned Single Judge has passed the aforesaid order.

26. However, to decide the tenancy, the important

date is the cutoff date-01.03.1974 and the person who was

in possession of the land as on that date as tenant is

entitled to get occupancy rights and not any other person.

Only by relying on this document i.e., Annexure-R4, the

learned Single Judge has erroneously come to the

conclusion that the rival claimant respondent No.4 was in

possession of the property. Name of respondent No.4 is not

at all shown in the said RTC. His name is forthcoming only

from 1984-85 in cultivators' column based on M.No.158/84-

85. 1984-85 is not the cut-off date.

- 17 -