Karnataka High Court
Gudde Ningappa Since Dead By His Lrs vs State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2025
-1-
WA No. 1131 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1131 OF 2025 (LR)
BETWEEN:
GUDDE NINGAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,
1. MANCHAPPA
S/O LATE GUDDE NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O. CHIKKAVALI VILLAGE
UDRI POST, SORAB TALUK
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 419.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
by PRABHAKAR
SWETHA BY ITS SECRETARY
KRISHNAN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Location: High VIDHANA SOUDHA
Court of BANGALORE - 560 001.
Karnataka
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL SORABA
BY ITS CHAIRMAN
ASSITANT COMMISSIONER, SAGAR
SORABA
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419.
P LASKHMOJI RAO
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
3. P.L. KUMAR RAO SINDHE
S/O LATE P LAKSHMOJI RAO
-2-
WA No. 1131 of 2025
MAJOR
R/O TOWN PANCHAYATH
SORABA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 577 419.
4. RAJASHEKAR GOWDA
S/O VEERASANGANA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/O. CHIKKAVALI VILLAGE
UDRI POST
SORABA TALUK
SHIVAOGGA DISTRICT - 577 419.
CHANDRAPPA GOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEEIRS
5. PREMAMMA
W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
HOMEMAKER
R/O CHIKAKBALLI VILLAGE
UDRI POST, SORABA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 419.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2
SRI VEERENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 17.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.No.30088/2018
THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2018 IN
CASE No.T.N.C.V.R 12/76-77, PASSED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT WHEREIN THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN
FAVOUR OF FATHER OF THE APPELLANT WAS CONFERRED
IN RESPECT OF THE LAND MEASURING 3 ACRES 11 GUNTAS
IN SY.No.1/2 CHIKKAVALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SORABA
TALUK BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
-3-
WA No. 1131 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the application-I.A.No.1/2025, the
same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 17.04.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.30088/2018 (LR) captioned, 'Rajashekar
Gowda and another v. State of Karnataka by its Secretary,
Department of Revenue and others'.
3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 [writ petitioners] had preferred the
said petition impugning an order dated 20.03.2018 passed by
respondent No.2 [the Land Tribunal] whereby, occupancy rights in
respect of the subject land was granted in favour of the appellant.
The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and set
aside the order dated 20.03.2018, rejecting the appellant's claim for
tenancy rights in respect of the land measuring 3 acres 11 guntas,
comprising part of the land falling in Survey No.1/2 located in
Chikkavali Village, Kasaba Hobli, Soraba Taluk, Shivamogga
District [the subject land].
4. The appellant claims that one Mr.P.Lakshmoji Rao, since
deceased - who is the father of respondent No.3 - had purchased
the subject land from its previous owner, Mr.Maheshwarappa
Gowda, on 10.02.1965. According to the appellant, his father was a
tenant of late Mr.P.Lakshmoji Rao in respect of the subject land.
5. On 24.09.1976, the father of the appellant (Mr.Gudde
Ningappa, S/o.Dyavappa) filed an application, in the prescribed
Form No.7, for registering himself as an occupant of the subject
land under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
He claimed that he had been cultivating the subject land for more
than ten years and sought occupancy rights in respect of the
subject land. Late Mr.P.Lakshmoji Rao contested the said
application and disputed that the applicant, Mr.Gudde Ningappa,
was a tenant in respect of the subject land. Both the contesting
parties examined witnesses in support of their stands.
6. By an order dated 06.10.1981, the Land Tribunal accepted
the application of Mr.Gudde Ningappa and declared him to be the
occupant of the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, respondent
No.4 (late Mr.Chandrappa Gowda, S/o.Veerasangana Gowda)
challenged the said order by filing a writ petition, being
W.P.No.29951/1981, which was allowed.
7. The learned Single Judge found merit in the said petition,
that the Land Tribunal had failed to consider the material
documents including the Record of Rights [ROR] as well as the oral
and documentary evidence led by the rival parties. Consequently,
by an order dated 30.05.1984, this Court remanded the matter to
the Land Tribunal for consideration afresh.
8. The Land Tribunal once again examined the application of
late Mr.Gudde Ningappa for declaring him as the occupant of the
subject land and passed an order on 20.03.2018 accepting the said
application and declared late Mr. Gudde Ningappa as a registered
occupant of the subject land.
9. Aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed a writ
petition being W.P.No.30088/2018, which was allowed in terms of
the impugned order.
10. Late Mr.P.Lakshmoji Rao sold the subject land to
Mr. Veera Sangana Gowda, the father of respondent Nos.4 and 5
and conveyed the same by a registered sale deed dated
24.11.1976. According to the appellant, the said sale is void as the
subject land vested with the State as on 01.03.1974 and it was held
under the tenancy of the appellant's father.
11. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that ROR did
not reflect the name of Shri Gudde Ningappa, as the tenant of the
subject land. The relevant extracts of the ROR for the years 1971-
72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 produced, clearly reflected the name of
Mr.P.Lakshmoji Rao both in Column 9 as well as Column 12. Thus,
the land records reflected that Mr.P.Lakshmoji Rao was the owner
as well as the cultivator of the subject land.
12. The name of Mr.P.Lakshmoji Rao continued to be reflected
in the ROR up to the year 1977-78. However, thereafter, the
subject land was mutated in favour of Mr.Veera Sangana Gowda.
He had purchased the subject land from Mr.P.Lakshmoji Rao and
his name was entered in the revenue records for the year 1978-79.
13. The learned Single Judge found that the Land Tribunal had
failed to consider the land records. The Court also noted that the
applicant had not produced any rent receipts or any other
document to establish that he was cultivating the subject land.
Before the Land Tribunal, it was contended that Mr. Veera
Sangana Gowda was cultivating the land and had agreed to
purchase the same from late Mr.P.Lakshmoji Rao. It was
contended that Mr. Gudde Ningappa, was never in possession of
the subject land, but had occupied the lands on the eastern side of
the subject land. It was contended that he had approached late
Mr.P.Lakshmoji Rao for purchasing the land, but by the time, the
same had already been sold to Mr.Veera Sangana Gowda. The
writ petitioner claimed that Mr. Gudde Ningappa with a fraudulent
intent to claim tenancy rights, had filed Form 7. However, neither
he nor his children had cultivated the subject land or paid any rent
for the same.
14. The learned Single Judge also examined the evidence led by
the parties and found that the evidence led on behalf of late
Mr. Gudde Ningappa did not establish that he was a tenant in
possession of the subject land. The relevant extract of the
impugned order, setting out the reasons and the conclusion that
the evidence led on behalf of late Mr. Gudde Ningappa was not
credible, is set out below:
"15. As far as reliance on the oral evidence by the
Land Tribunal is concerned, the evidence given by the
General Power of Attorney holder of the tenant i.e.,
Kendappa is noticed, it becomes clear that he has
stated that he was not even aware as to when
Lakshmoji Rao had purchased the property in the year
1965 and he had also admitted that there was no entry
in respect of the adjoining lands to show that his father
was in possession. He has also stated that there were
no rent receipts produced and has also conceded that
the entries in the RTCs did not reflect their
possession.
16. The evidence of another witness T.K. Kariyappa
has deposed that he was not aware as to the total
extent of Survey No.1/2 and he was also not aware of
its boundaries. He has stated that he is a resident of
Chikkavali village and has admitted that he does not
own any abutting properties and he was not also
aware as to what was the rent that was being paid. It
is therefore clear that the evidence of this witness
would also be of no value to come to the conclusion
that the tenant was in possession.
17. The other witness, Sanna Hanumantappa, has
deposed that he was a resident of Elavatta village
which was about three kilometers from the land in
question. He has also admitted that he had not seen
whether the landlord had raised paddy and he has
also stated that he is not able to narrate the
boundaries of survey No.1/2. He has also stated that
he was not aware as to what were the other lands
owned by the tenant.
18. This evidence would also therefore indicate that
the evidence of this witness would also be not helpful
to the tenant nor would it establish that the tenant was
in possession of the land in question.
19. The evidence of T.Basavantappa indicates that he
was also unaware of the boundaries of survey No.1/2
and he was also unaware of the other lands owned by
the applicant/tenant.
20. If a witness is unaware of the extent of the land in
respect of an application for tenancy has been filed
and he is unable even to state the boundaries of that
land, it would be improper to accept his evidence to
come to the conclusion that the tenant was in
possession.
21. Similar is the evidence of the other witness,
Kariyappa.
22. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses would
really have no credibility to justify the reasoning given
by the Land Tribunal."
15. Whilst there is no cavil that the entries in the ROR are not
dispositive as to the title or the rights of the parties, however, in
terms of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964,
entries made in the ROR are presumed to be correct until the
contrary is proved.
16. As noted above, in the present case, the entries in the ROR
did not reflect Mr. Gudde Ningappa as the tenant or the cultivator of
the subject property for the relevant years. The said entries are
presumed to be correct unless contrary is established.
17. According to the appellant, the Land Tribunal had evaluated
and accepted the evidence led on behalf of the applicant and it is
not open for a Court to evaluate or re-appreciate the evidence,
considered by the Land Tribunal. Ordinarily, this Court would not
embark on the exercise of re-evaluating or re-appreciating the
evidence in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of
- 10 -
India. However, there is no specific bar for a Court to do so if the
circumstances, so require. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is sufficiently wide to consider all facets of
challenge founded on arbitrariness or on violation of legal or
constitutional rights.
18. The presumption that the Court is precluded from looking into
the evidence on the basis of which the decision under challenge is
rendered, is unmerited. However, the scope of evaluation is
necessarily restricted and the Court would not supplant its decision
in place of that of the concerned authority merely because the
Court has a different view. The discretion vested with the authority
conferred with the power to render decision, if exercised properly,
cannot be interfered with. However, if the Court finds that the
decision is not based on relevant consideration and the discretion
vested has not been properly exercised, there is no reason for this
Court to refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
19. In the present case, the Land Tribunal has disregarded the
statutory presumption in favour of the entries in the ROR. The Land
Tribunal, has proceeded on the basis that the same are not
- 11 -
credible. However, the order passed by the Land Tribunal does not
indicate that the evidence led by the parties was evaluated.
20. In these circumstances, the decision of the learned Single
Judge to consider the entries in the ROR as well as the evidence
led by the parties, cannot be faulted.
21. The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that
even in cases where it is found that the appreciation of the
evidence is not proper, it is incumbent upon the Court to remand
the matter to the concerned authority but, the Court cannot
examine the evidence.
22. There is merit in the contention that the authority vested with
the power to decide the question must necessarily decide the
same. The Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India would ordinarily refrain from rendering a
decision in a dispute, which falls within the jurisdiction of a
particular tribunal. However, the said principle is not without
exceptions. It is also well settled that the superior Courts should not
repeatedly remand the matter for decision to the concerned
authorities, which would unduly burden the litigants. In the present
case, the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal on an earlier
- 12 -
occasion for considering afresh. This Court had found that the Land
Tribunal had neither examined the ROR nor discussed the
evidence. As noted above, even in the proceedings pursuant to the
remand, the Land Tribunal has not examined the import of the
entries in the ROR. In the circumstances, we find no fault with the
decision to not remand the matter to the Land Tribunal for the
second time.
23. In view of the above, we find no grounds to interfere with the
impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
24. Pending application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
KPS
