- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12845 WP No. 15727 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 15727 OF 2016 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. CHENNAIAH @ MALLIKARJUNAIAH AGD ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O CHINNAMMANA BASAVAIAH MADDUR VILLAGE, YELANDUR TALUK-571441 CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PUTTALINGAMMA AGED 55 YEARS W/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH MADDUR VILLAGE YELANDUR TALUK-571441 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGAL SUB DIVISION-571440 KOLLEGAL, CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHASILDAR KOLLEGAL TALUK-571440 KOLLEGAL, CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V RANGA RAMA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12845 WP No. 15727 of 2016 TRIBUNAL DATED.24.11.2015 IN APPEAL NO.834/2004 AT ANNEX-R, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner filed an application in Form No.7A for grant of the land, as provided under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, after taking into consideration the evidence of the neighbouring witnesses, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had established that his mother and he were in cultivation as tenants of the lands in question. 3. The Assistant Commissioner also took note of the fact that the two witnesses examined on behalf of the landlord and landlady also indicated that the lands were cultivated by the tenants and, therefore, the land was required to be registered in favour of the petitioner as an occupant. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12845 WP No. 15727 of 2016 4. Being aggrieved, the landlady preferred an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) and the KAT has set aside the order on the ground that the RTC produced would indicate that for the year 1971-72 to 1996-97, the name of the landlady's husband Shivaramaiah had been entered. 5. More importantly, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that even in the cultivator's column, the name of the Landlady's husband Shivaramaiah was entered. 6. The petitioner has produced the copies of the revenue records from the year 1971-72 to 1975-76. This RTC indicates that the name of Shivaramaiah was entered only in column No.9 and the column No.12(2) i.e., the cultivator's column is left completely blank. Though the type of cultivation is shown as 'SELF', in my view, in the light of the fact that there was no entry made in the RTC to indicate that Shivaramaiah's name was found, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12845 WP No. 15727 of 2016 observation of the KAT that Shivaramaiah's name was found even in column No.12 is an obvious error. Since the order of the Tribunal is based only on this premise i.e., the entry in Column No.12, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 7. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. The Tribunal shall take into consideration the statements of the witnesses and other attendant circumstances and decide the matter afresh and not on the basis of the RTC in which the cultivator's name is found to be blank. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. 8. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44