[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Seethamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2893-DB
WA No. 1345 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1345 OF 2025 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SEETHAMMA
W/O. D.R.NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 14,
GROUP-1, KHB COLONY
HOOTAGALLI EXTENSION, MYSURU
KARNATAKA - 570 010.
REPRESENTED BY THE GPA HOLDER
SRI. PUTTARAMEGOWDA S/O NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
Digitally RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.14
signed by
SREEDHARAN GROUP-1, KHB COLONY
BANGALORE
SUSHMA HOOTAGALLI EXTENSION,
LAKSHMI MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 010.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.R.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2893-DB
WA No. 1345 of 2025
HC-KAR
KARNATAKA - 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MYSURU SUB-DIVISION,
MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 001.
SRI. SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHARAJA
WADEYAR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
3. SMT. PRAMODA DEVI
W/O SRI. SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHARAJA
WADEYAR,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT MYSURU PALACE, MYSURU
KARNATAKA - 570 001.
4. SRI. YADHUVEERA WADEYAR,
S/O. SRI. SRIKANTADATTA
NARASIMHARAJA WADEYAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT MYSURU PALACE, MYSURU
KARNATAKA - 570 001.
5. THE REGISTRAR,
THE MYSURU UNIVERSITY,
MANASA GANGOTHRI, MYSURU
KARNATAKA - 570 006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP
NO.35486/2024, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET-ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN WP NO.35486/2024 DATED
16/06/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2893-DB
WA No. 1345 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The intra-court appeal has been filed impugning the
judgment and order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.35486/2024.
2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings
before the Writ Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The petitioner had filed the writ petition impugning
the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Review Petition No.2/2018, order dated
13.10.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,
Bengaluru, in Appeal No.863/2011 and the order dated
06.07.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mysuru Taluk,
Mysuru, in Case No. LRF 7(A) 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 243/A,
243/C/98-99, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for
granting occupancy rights in respect of the land in question.
NC: 2026:KHC:2893-DB
HC-KAR
4. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the
facts, which are briefly stated as under:-
a) The land bearing Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli, Kasaba
Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, is one amongst the several lands
belonging to the Maharaja of Mysuru. The said land was leased
out in favour of several persons.
b) The petitioner claimed to be a tenant in respect of
the land bearing Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli, Mysuru Taluk, to
an extent of 8 acres 31 guntas. The petitioner did not file an
application in Form No.7, seeking registration of occupancy
rights in respect of the land in question, despite the petitioner
claiming to be the tenant of the said land.
5. Section 77A was inserted in the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961 with effect from 01.11.1998, which would
provide that, if the Deputy Commissioner, or any officer
authorized in this behalf, is satisfied after holding such enquiry
as is required, that a person was, immediately before the first
day of March, 1974 in actual possession and cultivation of any
land not exceeding one unit, which had vested in the State
NC: 2026:KHC:2893-DB
HC-KAR
Government under Section 44 and the said person was entitled
to be registered as an occupant of such land under Section 45
or 49 and had failed to apply for registration of occupancy
rights in respect of such land under sub-section (1) of Section
48A within the time prescribed therein, but he has continued to
be in actual possession and cultivation of such land on the date
of commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms
(Amendment) Act, 1997. The Deputy Commissioner may grant
land to such a person, subject to such restrictions and
conditions and in the manner as may be prescribed. Thus, a
window was opened by the amendment of 1997 in the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act by inserting Section 77A to the
persons who could not applied for grant of occupancy
certification in Form 7.
6. However, the requirements of actual possession and
cultivation of the land remained intact. The petitioner has
failed to produce any document before the Land Tribunal and
the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to show that the petitioner
was in actual cultivation of the land. The petitioner may have
been in possession of the land, but the twin requirements i.e.,
NC: 2026:KHC:2893-DB
HC-KAR
possession and cultivation are sine qua non for granting the
occupancy rights even after insertion of Section 77A.
7. The learned Single Judge, in paragraph No.8, after
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has
observed as under:-
"8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on careful examination of the finding
recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the
respondent No.2 in the impugned orders, the same
would indicate that the petitioner has not shown any
document before the Land Tribunal, Mysuru and the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to establish that she
was cultivating the land in question as on 01st March,
1974. It is forthcoming from the finding recorded by
the Land Tribunal and the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal in the impugned orders that the petitioner
herein has failed to establish her possession and
enjoyment of the land in question as on 01st March,
1974. It is also forthcoming from the petition that
the Geni Chit has not been produced before the
respondent-Authorities and no documents were
produced before the respondent-Authorities, even
after the incorporation of Section 77A to the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is also clear that, in
the RTC extracts produced by the petitioner, the
name of the petitioner is not find place in the
NC: 2026:KHC:2893-DB
HC-KAR
cultivators column. In that view of the matter, taking
into consideration the fact that the petitioner has
failed to establish her possession in respect of the
land in question and that apart the land has been
granted by the then Maharaja of Mysuru in favour of
His Excellency the President of India for the purpose
of construction of Institute of Speech and Hearing at
Mysuru and the said Institute is situated in Mysuru
for more than fifty years, providing medical
assistance relating to the ENT, I am of the view that,
no interference be called for in this writ petition.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed."
8. We are not the Appellate Authority or Appellate
Forum of the orders passed by the Karnataka Land Appellate
Tribunal and therefore, we do not find that there is any error in
the judgment that had crept in, which requires an interference
by this Court. Therefore, we dismiss this writ appeal.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
BSS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
