Sri. K. A. Devendra Anchan vs Cecilia Pinto on 9 March, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                          PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                            AND

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

             WRIT APPEAL NO.45 OF 2023 (LR)

BETWEEN:

1.    SRI. K.A. DEVENDRA ANCHAN
      S/O LATE K. AITHAPPA SUVARNA
      AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS
      R/AT. SAROJA MADHU APARTMENTS
      NEAR BHARATH BEEDI BUILDING
      KADRI ROAD, MANGALURU-575 003
      SINCE DEAD, BY HIS LRs.,


1(a). SMT. ROHINI DEVENDRA ANCHAN
      W/O LATE K.A. DEVENDRA ANCHAN
      AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
      R/AT. 15-7-380/1, SAROJ MADHU APARTMENT
      KADRI ROAD, NEAR CHINMAYA SCHOOL
      BUNTS HOSTEL, MANGALURU
      KODIALBAIL, D.K.-575 003


1(b). SRI. YATHEESH KUMAR
      S/O LATE K.A. DEVENDRA ANCHAN
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
                                2




    FLAT No.201, SVASTHIK ABHIMAN
    TEXAS APARTMENTS, 2ND FLOOR
    BALMATTA, BENDORE ROAD
    KADRI, MANGALURU, D.K.-575 001


1(c). SRI. KISHORE KUMAR
    S/O LATE K.A. DEVENDRA ANCHAN
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
    R/AT. 15-7-380/1, SAROJ MADHU APARTMENT
    KADRI ROAD, NEAR CHINMAYA SCHOOL
    BUNTS HOSTEL, MANGALURU
    KODIALBAIL, D.K.-575 003


1(d). SMT. MAMATHA RAVINDRA POOJARY
    D/O LATE K.A. DEVENDRA ANCHAN
    W/O RAVINDRA KALAPPA POOJARY
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
    R/AT. 1/17, ASHRAYA, KANDAVARA
    KAIKAMBA, KANDAVARA KINNI KAMBLA
    D.K.-574 151
                                          ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE)


AND:


    CECILIA PINTO
    AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
    W/O LATE CHARLES PINTO
                                3




     R/AT. MAROLI, MARIGUDI,
     MANGALORE,
     D.K. DISTRICT-575 007
     SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs.,


1.   EVELYN MENDONCA
     D/O LATE CECILIA PINTO
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS


2.   HILDA
     D/O LATE CECILIA PINTO
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS


3.   LEENA NAZARATH
     D/O LATE CECILIA PINTO
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS


4.   CELINE D'SOUZA
     D/O LATE CECILIA PINTO
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS


     RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
     RESIDING AT: 2-74, ADU MAROLI
     NEAR CITY CATERERS
     KULASHEKAR POST
     MANGALURU TALUK
     DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 005
                                  4




5.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
      TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
      DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
      M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001


6.    THE LAND TRIBUNAL
      MANGALORE TALUK
      D.K. DISTRICT
      REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
      MANGALURU-575 001

                                                     ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2
    & R4;
    SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R5 & R6;
    R3-SERVED)


      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE INSTANT
WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2022
PASSED    IN   W.P.No.44091/2013        (LR)   AND   CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.


      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR    JUDGMENT       ON   23.02.2026     AND   COMING     ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:    HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
          and
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                                 5




                      CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

We have heard Shri. Anandarama K, learned counsel

appearing for appellants No.1(a) to (d), Shri. G. Ravishankar

Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the party

respondents No.1, 2 and 4 and Smt. Pramodhini Kishan,

learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for

respondents No.5 and 6.

2. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the Order

dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in

Writ Petition No.44091/2013 (LR) filed by respondents No.1

to 4. The appellant was respondent No.3 in the writ

petition. The substantial prayer in the writ petition was

against Annexure - A Order of the Land Tribunal dated

21.09.2012 by which the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of

the writ petitioners for occupancy rights in respect of 0.38

acres of land in Sy.No.52/5 of Maroli Village of Mangalore

Taluk.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant that, the appellant had purchased 64 cents

of land in Sy.No.52/1A9 of the Maroli Village by Annexure -

E Sale Deed dated 19.12.1964. The original appellant Shri.

K.A. Devendra Anchan had purchased the said property from

Shri. K. Balakrishna Rao, Shri. Divakar Rao K. and Shri.

Sudhir Rao K. The description of the property in the Sale

Deed was as under:-

"Description of the Property Immovable property situated in Maroli Village Mangalore Taluk with in the local limits of Maroli Panchayat at Board and within the Registeration sub district of Mangalore Taluk SouthKanara District with the following survey sub division numbered Extent RS No SD No Kissan Which Portion (A-C)

49 1C7 Punja Southern Portion 0-36

52 Punja Southern Portion 0-64

TOTAL 1-00

Demarcated as "7" and coloured given in the annexed plan.

Boundaries:

RS No 49/1C7 (0-36 cents)

North: Property sold to shivappa

South: Water channel West: Mud Wall of Vendor"

4. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing

for the party respondents contends that the demarcation

shown in the typed copy of Annexure - E as "7" is a clear

error as a perusal of the original handwritten Annexure - E

would show that the demarcation was as 'F'. Since "7" is

differently written in the same document itself as where the

address of the vendors is shown as 117, lower Maroli

Village, in the first part of the manuscript, it is contended

that the document itself was attached with a sketch where

the property was clearly demarcated and was accompanied

by a plan.

5. It is contended that the property of the appellants

had to be measured, demarcated and set apart first and only

if there is any property remaining in the survey number

could there have been even a consideration of the claim of

the writ petitioner for occupancy rights. It is submitted that

since appellant's property which he had purchased by a Sale

Deed in 1964 was clearly available for demarcation. It was

clear that there was no further land in the survey number in

question to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for

occupancy rights. It is therefore contended that the learned

Single Judge went wrong in remitting the matter to the Land

Tribunal for reconsideration, after conducting a survey,

taking note of the boundaries as provided in the appellant's

Title Deed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the party

respondents, on the other hand, contends that the total

extent of land in Sy.No.52 of Maroli Village was admittedly

8.52 acres. It is submitted that the land purchased by the

appellant herein had been subjected to a phodi and a new

survey number, that is, Sy.No.52/1A9 had been assigned in

respect of his property. It is contended that it is clear from

the Title Deed of the appellant herein and the plan attached

thereto, that his property was demarcated as 'F' in the plan

and was separately shown. It is submitted that the property

of the respondent in Sy.No.52/5 was completely separate

and distinct and that the finding of the Land Tribunal was

therefore, completely perverse. It is contended that the

survey carried out by the surveyor as appointed by the Land

Tribunal was obviously erroneous and the extent and

boundaries of the appellant's properties have not been taken

note of by the said surveyor at all. It is contended that even

if the property of the appellant is measured and

demarcated, there is still property available in Sy.No.52/5

for grant of occupancy rights to the writ petitioner

considering the Form 7 application submitted by her.

7. The learned Additional Government Advocate

submits on instructions that the property has been surveyed

and found that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.52 is 8.52

acres. The Sale Deed of the appellant would specifically

show the description of the property. The said description

has been clearly extracted by the learned Single Judge in

the Order. The learned Single Judge proceeded to peruse

the sketch prepared by the Surveyor pursuant to the order

of the Land Tribunal and found that the Surveyor had not

taken note of the boundaries of the property as provided in

the appellant's Sale Deed. It was found that the sketch

prepared without demarcating the boundaries of the

property purchased by belonging to the appellant specifically

in terms of the Sale Deed could not be relied upon to say

that there is no property available in Sy.No.52/5 for

considering the claim of occupancy rights made by the writ

petitioner, that is, the private respondents herein.

8. Having considered the contentions advanced and

the materials placed on record by the parties including the

Sale Deeds, the Schedules attached thereto and the

sketches which are on record, we are of the opinion that the

finding of the learned Single Judge was well founded. It is

clear from the materials on record that the property

purchased by the appellant was clearly demarcated as 'F'

and a sketch was appended to the Sale Deed as well. The

boundaries of the property purchased by the appellant in

Sy.No.52, were also clearly demarcated in the Sale Deed.

9. In the above view of the matter, we are of the

opinion that the contention raised by the appellant that

there was no requirement for a remand to the Tribunal for a

proper reconsideration after a survey to be conducted taking

note of the boundaries of the property as provided in the

appellant's Sale Deed, cannot be accepted. We are of the

opinion that the learned Single Judge had considered the

factual aspects of the matter and had come to the

conclusion that the survey conducted was not proper.

10. In the above way of the matter, we find no

reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Single

Judge. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

All pending interlocutory applications shall stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

cp*