[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
K. Devappa Suvarna vs State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16883-DB
WA No. 865 of 2025
HC-KAR
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. 865 OF 2025 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. K. DEVAPPA SUVARNA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
2. SMT. VASANTHI
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER SRI.K. DEVAPPA SUVARNA
BOTH THE APPELLANTS ARE THE
CHILDERN OF THE RADHA & SHEENA MENDON
RESIDING AT RIVERSIDE,
MOODUTHONSE VILLAGE,
Digitally KALLIANPUR POST, UDUPI - 576114
signed by
REKHA R
...APPELLANTS
Location: (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL.A, ADVOCATE)
High Court
of
Karnataka AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-1
REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16883-DB
WA No. 865 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SMT. T. VINODA PAI
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
4. SRI. T. RAMDAS PAI
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
5. SRI. T. MADHAV PAI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
6. SRI. T. SURESH PAI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
7. SRI T. RAMESH PAI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
8. SMT. T. SHAILAJA PAI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NOS.3 TO 8
ARE CHILDREN OF LATE T.G.PAI
NOS.3 TO 8 ARE ALL
R/A NO.2-55, KOTE ROAD
KALLIANPUR, UDUPI - 576 114.
9. BHAVANI SHANKAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
EMPLOYED IN
UDUPI WEAVER'S COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
R/O NITTUR, PUTTUR TQ.,
D.K. DIST - 576 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
R3, R5, R6, R7, R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 04.04.2025 IN WP No. 20674/2024 (GM-TEN)
AND ALLOW THE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:16883-DB
WA No. 865 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
1. This writ appeal is filed challenging the order
passed in W.P. No. 20674/2024 dated 04.04.2025 by the
appellants/petitioners.
2. The two applicants, namely, Sri. T. Gopalakrishna
Pai, since deceased and Mrs. Radha, wife of Shgeena Mendan,
since deceased filed application under Section 48 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (KLR Act) claiming
occupancy rights for 1 acre of land in survey No. 19/7 of
Mooduthonse village.
3. The Tribunal rejected the application of Sri. T.
Gopalakrishna Pai who was represented by his legal heirs on
the ground that the said land was no longer an agricultural
land. Enquiries regarding the land was conducted on different
dates and finally, the matter was heard on 21.01.2015. The
first applicant, Sri. T. Gopalakrishna Pai had purchased 0.05
NC: 2026:KHC:16883-DB
HC-KAR
acres of land in survey No. 19/7 of Mooduthonse village on
09.11.1971 from Sri. Purushotham Kini vide moolageni
registered deed and since then he was in possession and
enjoyment of this property. He had constructed dwelling house,
shop and building and he also claimed that he was carrying out
agricultural activities by growing plantation of coconut, banana,
vegetables and that was in possession prior to 01.03.1974.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence
adduced by the parties framed the following issues for
consideration:
i) Whether the disputed land comes within the meaning of
`land' under Section 2A(18) of Karnataka Land Reforms
Act 1961 (Amended Act 1974)?
ii) Whether the disputed land is using for the agricultural
purpose prior to 01.03.1974? its crops?
iii) Whether the 1st and 2nd applicants are entitled for
occupancy rights?
5. The Land Tribunal, considering the documentary
evidence produced by the legal heirs of Sri. T. Gopalakrishna
Pai, moolageni document Nos. 4, 5, 19, 20 dated 25.03.1920
and other documents mentioned in the impugned order, came
NC: 2026:KHC:16883-DB
HC-KAR
to the conclusion that the disputed land was no longer an
agricultural land as there were shop, building on it and
therefore, it would not come within the definition of Section 2-
A(18) of the KLR Act for grant of occupancy rights. Therefore,
the claim of legal heirs of Sri. T. Gopalakrishna Pai was denied
for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question.
6. Insofar as the case of the appellants is concerned,
the Tribunal considered the issues and on their admission that
there is building, godown and bandasale, held that the land was
no longer an agricultural land. It was also stated that besides
building, godown and bandasale, there was no land left out in
respect of the said survey number for grant of occupancy
rights. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the evidence
adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that as the land
in question would not come under the definition of agricultural
land under Section 2-A(18) and 2-A(i) of the KLR Act, held
that neither applicant No. 1 nor applicant No. 2 were entitled
for grant of occupancy rights.
7. The learned single Judge having noted the findings
of the Tribunal has dismissed the writ petition vide impugned
judgment and order.
NC: 2026:KHC:16883-DB
HC-KAR
8. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order. Therefore, the writ appeal stands
dismissed. All/any pending interim application(s) are also
disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
LRS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5
