[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rathnamma vs The Land Tribunal on 25 March, 2026
-1-
WA No. 823 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 823 OF 2025 (LR-SEC 48)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O. LATE CHOKKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HORAKERE VILLAGE,
VAKKALERI HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT 563 101.
2. SMT. BAGYAMMA,
D/O. LATE CHOKKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHILENGIRI VILLAGE,
UTTUR HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.MURALIDHAR.B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
KOLAR TALUK,
AT THE OFFICE OF
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
KOLAR - 563 101.
-2-
WA No. 823 of 2025
2. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA,
W/O. SAMPANGIRAMAIAHA.
3. SRI. RAMAPPA,
S/O. SAMPANGIRAMAIAHA,
R2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT
MATANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SUGUTUR HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR INAM ABOLITION,
KOLAR - 563 101.
5. PARVATHARAJU,
S/O. VENKATASWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHOKKAPURA VILLAGE,
NARASAPURA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1 & 4;
SRI.D.S.RAMACHANDRA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IN WP NO.11510/2012 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
08/04/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.11510/2012 BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED/ PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
-3-
WA No. 823 of 2025
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)
This intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is by respondent Nos.4
and 5 calling in question the order dated 08.04.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.11510/2012.
2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings
before the learned Single Judge.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to filing of this
appeal is as under:
The father of the petitioner by name
Venkataswamappa filed an application before the Special
Deputy Commissioner seeking to grant occupancy rights in
respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.41 measuring 01 Acre 32
Guntas, 47 measuring 01 Acre, 47 measuring 16 Guntas
and 49 measuring 01 Acre 20 Guntas minus Phot Kharab
05 Guntas, so also claimed rights over the land bearing
Sy.No.17 measuring 02 Acre 02 Guntas and Sy.No.89
measuring 20 Guntas, immediately after coming into force
of Inams Abolition Act, 1954 i.e., the Mysore (Personal
and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short
'the Act'), under Section 10 of the said Act.
4. The Special Deputy Commissioner, after hearing
the rival submissions, registered Venkataswamappa - the
father of the petitioner as Occupant under Section 5 of the
Act in respect of Sy.Nos.41, 47, 47 and 49. In so far as
Sy.No.17 and 89 are concerned, in view of the admission
given by the Jodidhar that Venkataswamappa was
cultivating the land as Vara tenant, he was registered as
ordinary vara tenant under Section 9A of the Act. So far as
Sy.No.87 measuring 30 Guntas is concerned, since the
said Venkataswamappa has submitted that he was not
cultivating the land for last three years, the claim on the
said land has been rejected. This order was passed by the
Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Kolar
Circle, Kolar on 22.09.1963. So far, this order has not
been challenged by anybody including the Inamdar and
father of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and has attained finality.
5. Subsequent to passing the order in 1963,
stating that Venkataswamappa is an Ordinary vara tenant
under Section 9A of the Act, an endorsement came to be
issued on 17.12.1963 by the Special Deputy Commissioner
for Inams Abolition. In this endorsement, it has clearly
been mentioned that Venkataswamappa has been
registered as an ordinary tenant under Section 9A in
respect of two lands stated supra i.e. No. 89 and No.17
(Annexure-B1).
6. It seems that one Chokkappa - father of
respondent Nos.4 and 5, said to have purchased the
property in Sy.No.17, measuring 02 Acres 02 Guntas from
the Inamdar, filed an application for re-grant of the said
land. The Special Deputy Commissioner considered the
application and proceeded to re-grant the land in favour of
Chokkappa. In the said order, the Special Deputy
Commissioner without there being any notice on the father
of the petitioner, has held that Venkataswamappa could
not have been treated as a Tenant under Section 9A of the
Act. This order came to be passed on 21.08.1978.
7. Venkataswamappa who was continuing as a
tenant under Section 9A of the Act, after coming into force
of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, filed Form No.7 claiming
occupancy rights. During the proceedings the Land
Tribunal taking note of the fact that in respect of the two
properties wherein he was stated as vara tenant under
Section 9A and in respect of other properties, the Land
Tribunal, passed an order registering him as an occupant
and confirmed the tenancy rights on 23.03.1976.
8. During the pendency of the proceedings before
the Land Tribunal, Venkataswamappa expired and his wife
Muniyamma and the petitioner herein who was minor,
were brought on record as applicants representing the
estate of Venkataswamappa. The Tribunal having
considered the fact that the claimant Venkataswamappa is
cultivating the land as on the date of coming into force of
the Act, so also the fact that he has already been
registered as an ordinary tenant under Section 9A,
granted occupancy rights in their favour in respect of land
bearing Sy.Nos.17 and 89, measuring 02 Acre 20 Guntas
and 19 Guntas respectively.
9. This order was challenged by the father of
respondent Nos.4 and 5 by name Sri.Chokkappa in
W.P.No.4291/1976. This Court allowed the Writ Petition
and remanded the matter to hold de novo inquiry.
10. Subsequently, the Land Tribunal passed an
order on 27.05.1986 rejecting the application filed by
Venkataswamappa and continued by the petitioner and his
mother Muniyamma.
11. The same was subject matter in
W.P.No.30178/1993 by Smt.Muniyamma. The Writ Petition
came to be allowed remanding the matter to the Tribunal
for consideration de novo vide order dated 22.11.1999.
12. The Land Tribunal by the impugned order dated
01.02.2011, considering the order dated 02.08.1978 and
the sale deed dated 12.12.1968 in favour of the father of
respondent Nos.4 and 5 and particularly in view of the
Order dated 1978 stated supra by the Special Deputy
Commissioner, observed that the name of Sampangi
Ramaiah was found in Column No.9 and name of
Chokkappa was found in Column No.12(2) of the RTC,
rejected Form No.7 filed by Venkataswamappa and
continued by Smt.Muniyamma on behalf of the petitioner.
This order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order
dated 21.08.1978 passed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner were called in question by the petitioner in
W.P.No.11510/2012.
13. The learned single Judge, after going through
the entire record, found that on 22.09.1963, an order
came to be passed holding that Venkataswamappa was
entitled to be treated as a Vara Tenant under Section 9A
of the Act. Admittedly, the said order has not been
challenged by anybody including Chokkappa qua Jodidhar
i.e., Inamdhar.
14. The learned single Judge has found that once
Venkataswamappa has been registered as Ordinary Tenant
by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition
Act, which has attained finality without there being any
challenge to the same, it would be impermissible in law for
a subsequent Special Deputy Commissioner while
considering the application for re-grant by Chokkappa -
father of respondent Nos.4 and 5 - appellants herein, who
came into picture only in 1968 to hold that the earlier
order of the Special Deputy Commissioner treating
Venkataswamappa as a tenant was incorrect and held that
the order dated 21.08.1978 passed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner was a void order and could not obviously
bind the petitioner herein.
15. The learned single Judge further held that a
perusal of original records produced by AGA indicate that a
notice was said to have been issued to Parvatharaju -
petitioner herein, who was a minor at that point of time,
represented through his mother. However, no
acknowledgment has been found in the record for having
served the notice either on the petitioner or his mother. As
such, the learned single Judge held that the order dated
21.08.1978 was an order passed behind the back of the
petitioner and therefore, cannot be sustained. In view of
- 10 -
the same, the learned single Judge has held that the
Special Deputy Commissioner could not have passed an
order on 21.08.1978 annulling an order which was passed
in the year 1963. Consequently, proceeded to hold that
the order dated 21.08.1978 is void.
16. Further, the learned Single Judge on the basis
of the order dated 22.09.1963 treating Venkataswamappa
as a Tenant under Section 9A of the Act and which was in
subsistence till the Karnataka Land Reforms Act came into
force, treated Venkataswamappa as Tenant and held that
the Land Tribunal was therefore not justified in rejecting
the application. Consequently, the order of the Land
Tribunal was set-aside and Tribunal was directed to
register the petitioner who is the son of Venkataswamappa
as a Tenant in respect of land bearing Sy.No.17.
Accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition. It is this order
passed by the learned Single Judge is called in question by
respondent Nos.4 and 5 who are the daughters of
Chokkappa.
- 11 -
17. Heard, Sri.Muralidhar.B.N., learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, Sri.Mohammad Jaffar Shah.,
learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents
1 and 4 and Sri.D.S.Ramachandra Reddy., learned counsel
for respondent No.5. Respondent No.3 though served, is
unrepresented.
18. The main contention urged by
Sri.Muralidhar.B.N., is that the Order dated 22.09.1963
has not registered the father of the petitioner
Venkataswamappa as occupant of the land. It has been
stated in the order that the claim of the Jodidhar has been
upheld to the aforesaid lands, but Venkataswamappa was
registered only as an ordinary vara tenant under Section
9A of the Act, which is subject to Chapter III-A of the Act,
1954. Chokkappa purchased the property in 1968 under
registered sale deed executed by Inamdhar and filed an
application seeking re-grant of the land, which has been
considered by the Special Deputy Commissioner in 1978,
re-granting the land, wherein it has also been observed
that treating Venkataswamappa as ordinary tenant under
- 12 -
Section 9A was incorrect. In these circumstances, the
learned single Judge has not properly considered the
entire material placed on record and sought to allow the
appeal.
19. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No.10299/2011, W.P.No.14133/2008 and
W.A.No.1677/2019 and stressed more on the order in
W.P.No.14133/2008 passed by the learned single Judge of
this Court.
20. All the respondents in unison, argued in support
of the judgment passed by the learned single Judge.
21. Having heard the rival submissions, we have
perused the judgments cited by Sri.Muralidhar.B.N.
Though the judgment in W.P.No.14133/2008 is passed by
the learned single Judge, though we are in division bench,
however we have considered the same on a persuasive
value, since it was rendered based on the judgment
passed by Division Bench of this Court and Hon'ble Apex
- 13 -
Court. Even in the said judgment, the learned single Judge
in Paragraph No.8 continued till page No.25 of the
Judgment has clearly stated that in the said case on hand
in the said petition, the persons who have been registered
as ordinary tenant under Section 9A have not filed any
application for grant of land by filing Form No.7 after
coming into force of the Land Reforms Act. In those
circumstances, the land has been granted to other tenants
and therefore, for non-filing of Form No.7 immediately
after coming into force of the Act i.e., on the appointed
date i.e., 01.03.1973, the right in their favour stood
extinguished by virtue of Section 48A(8) of the Land
Reforms Act. In the case on hand, Form No.7 has been
filed by Venkataswamappa claiming occupancy rights and
that has been considered by the Land Tribunal way back in
the year 1976 and granted occupancy rights considering
the fact that he was registered as ordinary tenant under
Section 9A. None of the other judgments referred by
learned counsel for the appellants supports their case,
rather, they support the case of the respondent.
- 14 -
22. The learned single judge in his order has given
appropriate reasons which starts with Paragraph No.8 and
ends with Paragraph No.14. The appellants have not made
out any case to take a contrary view, as has been taken
and considered by the learned single Judge after going
through the records placed on record.
23. In these circumstances, the appeal fails and is
accordingly, rejected.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN
