Karnataka High Court
Smt Puttamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
WA No. 1505 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1505 OF 2025 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT PUTTAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKASONNE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT ARAVI KOTHANUR VILLAGE
VAKKALERI HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563133
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK S HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRASANNA B.R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S BUILDING
BENGALURU 560 001
2. THE CHAIRMAN
LAND TRIBUNAL
KOLAR-563 101
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
WA No. 1505 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SRI A SAMPATH KUMAR
S/O LATE T ASWATHNARAYANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO.43, 6TH CROSS
B.F.W LAYOUT
NEAR MANJUNATHSWAMY TEMPLE
LAGGERE
BENGALURU-560 058
4. SMT B VASUNDARAMMA
W/O LATE RANGANATHASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT DODDA AYYUR VILLAGE
THYAVANAHALLI
VAKKALAERI HOBLI
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 01/08/2025 IN WP NO.16643/2021 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT
AND TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
WA No. 1505 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
Respondent No.3 in the writ petition has preferred
this intra Court appeal challenging the order dated
01.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.16643/2021, whereby the learned Single Judge
has passed the following order:
"1) Writ Petition is allowed.
2) Order dated 06th April, 2021
(Annexure-P) passed in Case
No.LRF.1490/79-80 by the respondent
No.2-Land Tribunal is hereby set aside,
consequently, Form No.7 (Annexure-D)
said to have been filed by Chikkasonne
Gowda, father of the respondent No.3 is
hereby rejected.
3) The Revenue Authorities viz.,
Tahsildar, Kolar Taluk is directed to enter
the name of the petitioners herein in the
revenue records pertaining to land in
question, forthwith."
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
HC-KAR
One Thiruvengadaiah (grandfather of respondent
No.3 herein) had purchased the subject land vide
registered Sale Deeds dated 05.04.1945 and 12.05.1945
and was in possession of the same. However, it reveals
that Chikkasonne Gowda, father of the appellant herein
was in possession of the said land as a tenant. As such,
Thiruvengadaiah filed eviction petition against
Chikkasonne Gowda, which came to be allowed on
31.07.1956. Aggrieved by the same, Chikkasonne Gowda
preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner,
which was also dismissed in the year 1956-57, which has
attained finality and as such, the tenancy of Chikkasonne
Gowda was terminated. Subsequently, the father of the
appellant Chikkasonne Gowda had filed O.S.No.379/1959
seeking permanent injunction against the legal heir of
Thiruvengadaiah, which was dismissed on 02.11.1959 and
the appeal preferred against the same in
Misc.A.No.42/1959 was also dismissed on 30.01.1960. In
the year 1981, the father of respondent No.3 herein i.e.,
Ashwathanarayanaiah (s/o Thiruvengadaiah) filed
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
HC-KAR
O.S.No.53/1981 against Some Gowda, son of Sonne
Gowda, seeking declaration as owner in possession of the
subject land, which was decreed on 16.10.1985. In the
meanwhile, father of the appellant-Chikkasonne Gowda
had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect
of subject land, which was allowed on 10.10.1981. Against
the said order, father of respondent No.3 herein filed
WP.No.2080/1982, which was allowed and remanded to
the Land Tribunal vide order dated 08.10.1985. However,
the Tahsildar, Kolar on 04.03.1997 changed the mutation
in favour of Chikkasonnegowda, which was questioned by
respondent No.3 herein before the Assistant Commissioner
in R.A.No.250/2006-07, which came to be disposed of on
06.09.2016 with a direction to the Land Tribunal to
dispose of the proceeding before it at the earliest.
Thereafter, the Land Tribunal accepted Form No.7 filed by
Chikkasonne Gowda in respect of subject land vide order
dated 06.04.2021. Aggrieved by the same, respondent
No.3 herein preferred W.P.No.16643/2021, which was
allowed by the learned Single Judge as aforesaid.
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
HC-KAR
3. We have heard Sri Ashok S.Haranahalli, learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.N.Sudev Hegde,
learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel
for respondents 3 and 4.
4. The primary contention of the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant is that the Land Tribunal, after
meticulously examining 13 witnesses, who are the
adjacent landowners and others and whose evidence
clearly established the tenancy of the appellant's father
over the subject land, has rightly granted Form No.7 in
favour of Chikkasonnegowda. However, the learned Single
Judge without appreciating said aspect, has allowed the
writ petition only relying on the revenue entries, which is
unsustainable.
5. He also contended that the fact that Thiruvengadaiah
initiated eviction proceedings and the further fact that the
father of respondent No.3 herein (son of Thiruvengadaiah)
has initiated proceedings against Chikkasonne Gowda for
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
HC-KAR
recovery of arrears of rent itself clearly substantiates the
tenancy right of Chikkasonne Gowda in respect of subject
land. Further, no material whatsoever has been placed by
Thirvuvengadaiah to substantiate that possession has
been taken from Chikkasonne Gowda even after
confirmation of eviction order by the Deputy
Commissioner. As such, it clearly establishes that
Chikkasonne Gowda was in possession of subject land.
6. He also contended that as per the provisions
contemplated under Sections 132 and 133 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for brevity, "the 1961
Act", the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
suit when the claim of tenancy over the subject land is
pending before the Land Tribunal. As such, the judgment
and decree does not bar the claim of Chikkasonne Gowda
over subject land.
7. To buttress his arguments, he has relied on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MOHAN
BALAKU PATIL & OTHERS VS. KRISHNOJI BHAURAO
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
HC-KAR
HUNDRE (DEAD) BY LRS. - AIR 1999 SC 1114 and in
R.RAVINDRA REDDY & OTHERS VS. RAMAIAH REDDY &
OTHERS - (2010) 3 SCC 214.
8. Without appreciating the aforesaid aspects, the
learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order,
which is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, he prays to
allow the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and
4 contended that the tenancy of Chikkasonne Gowda was
under the Mysore Tenancy Act and the initiation of eviction
proceedings was in the year 1956 in T.A.No.25/1955-56
which has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in
A1 T.A.6/1956-57 and the same has attained finality. As
such, as on 01.03.1974 the father of the appellant was not
the tenant in cultivation and possession of subject land.
Even no gutta receipt was produced to establish the
tenancy of Chikkasonne Gowda in respect of subject land.
10. Further Thiruvengadaiah and his legal heirs were
declared as owner in possession of the property in
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
HC-KAR
O.S.No.53/1981 vide judgment and decree dated
16.10.1985. The said judgment has also attained finality.
11. He also contended that after confirmation of eviction
order by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkasonne Gowda
has filed Form No.7 only in the year 1981 without
questioning the order of the Deputy Commissioner that too
after nearly two decades. Though the appellant claims that
her father was in possession of land even after the order
of Deputy Commissioner, no materials were produced to
substantiate the same. Even the RTC extracts stood in the
name of Thiruvengadaiah and his legal heirs as on the
relevant date i.e., 01.03.1974. Thus, the learned Single
Judge has rightly passed the impugned order after
meticulously examining the documents on record, which
does not call for interference at the hands of this Court.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. We have carefully considered the contentions of the
respective parties and perused the records produced
before us, so also the order of the learned Single Judge.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
HC-KAR
13. As could be gathered from records, it is not in
dispute that Thiruvengadaiah purchased the subject land
in the year 1945 under two Sale Deeds and thereafter, the
eviction was sought by Thiruvengadaiah against
Chikkasonne Gowda in the year 1956 under the Mysore
Tenancy Act before the Assistant Commissioner in
T.A.No.25/1955-56, which has been affirmed by the
Deputy Commissioner in A1 T.A.6/1956-57 in the year
1956-57 itself and the said order has attained finality. As
such, it could be presumed that Chikkasonne Gowda was
not in possession of land ever since from the said order.
Interestingly, the father of the appellant - Chikkasonne
Gowda had also filed O.S.No.379/1959 seeking permanent
injunction against the legal heirs of Thirvengadaiah, which
was dismissed on 02.11.1959 and the appeal preferred
against the same in Misc.A.No.42/1959 was also dismissed
on 30.01.1960. However, O.S.No.53/1981 filed by the
legal heirs of Thiruvengadaiah against Chikkasonne Gowda
seeking declaration was decreed declaring them as
owners.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
HC-KAR
14. It is vehemently contended by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant that respondent No.4
herein in her evidence before the Land Tribunal has
categorically admitted that Chikkasonne Gowda was
cultivating the subject land. However, on perusal of her
entire evidence, it is seen that she has nowhere stated the
period during which Chikkasonne Gowda was cultivating
the subject land.
15. As could be gathered from records, for the first time
the appellant has claimed tenancy right in Form No.7 in
the year 1981 stating that he was in cultivation and
possession of subject land. However, no such documents
including gutta receipt were placed by the appellant to
substantiate that he was in possession and cultivation of
subject land as on the relevant date i.e., 01.03.1974. As
such, in view of aforesaid facts, it is clear that
Chikkasonne Gowda was not in possession as on
01.03.1974 and thus, granting Form No.7 in favour of
Chikkasonne Gowda by the Land Tribunal even after
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
HC-KAR
remand is untenable. On the other hand, the records
reveal that the RTC were standing in the name of
Thiruvengadaiah and his legal heirs as on the relevant
date i.e., 01.03.1974.
16. Further, insofar as the contention of learned Senior
Counsel as per Sections 132 and 133 of the 1961 Act that
the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
when the claim of tenancy over the subject land is pending
before the Land Tribunal is concerned, it is to be stated
that the tenancy was under the Mysore Tenancy Act and
the same was terminated by the order of eviction, which
has attained finality by the order of the Deputy
Commissioner in the year 1956-57 itself and Chikkasonne
Gowda was not in possession and cultivation of land ever
since 1956, the Civil Court, after examining the revenue
records and evidence, has declared Thiruvengadaiah and
his legal heirs as owners in possession and cultivation of
subject land and as such, the said order is not hit under
the provisions of Sections 132 and 133 of the 1961 Act. In
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42733-DB
HC-KAR
the facts and circumstances of this case, the judgments
cited supra by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
are not apposite to the present case. Thus, we find that
the learned Single Judge has correctly considered the
materials on record and passed the impugned judgment
and order, which does not call for any interference at the
hands of this Court.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
