- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15999 WP No. 9324 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 9324 OF 2017 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. Y. RAMAKRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE JAGANNATH RAO, "SHUBHADA", YERMAL VILLAGE, YERMAL-574 119, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. Y. J. RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O. LATE JAGANNATH RAO, 7/1, ANNAIAH REDDY ROAD, GUPTA LAYOUT, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008. 3. LALITHA RAO AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, W/O. LATE JANARDHANA RAO, DOOR NO. 201, SRI RAMA HOMES, NANJA REDDY COLONY, 2ND CROSS, BENGALURU-560 017. 4. VISHALAKSHI P. RAO AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, D/O. LATE JAGANNATH RAO, GURUKRUPA NILAYA, NEAR PETROL BUNK, YERMAL BADA POST, YERMAL-574 119, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S K ACHARYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15999 WP No. 9324 of 2017 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576 101, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. JAYANTHI BELCHADA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, D/O. BABU BELCHADA, RETRD. TEACHER, THENKA VILLAGE, YERMAL-574 119, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. SHOBITH N SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2011 PASSED ON THE FILE OF R-2 AT ANNEX-A AND DECLARE THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The Land Tribunal passed order on 24.09.1981 conferring occupancy rights in respect of the following Survey numbers: ಈ ಾಖೆಯ ಪ ಾರ ಮತು ಪ ಾಗ¼ÀÄ M¦àರುವದಂದ ಅಾರನನು ಾ¬ÄzÉ 45gÀ ಪ ಾರ ಅಾರನ£ÀÄß PÉAಕ ಾ ಮದ ಸೇ ನಂ§gÀÄ 1:1 3- 3:5 0-1- 1-1 0-35 54:2 0- 60 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15999 WP No. 9324 of 2017 1:2 ºÉeÉ 0-15 #ೆಂmïì ಭೂ& ೆ ಅ'(ೋಗಾರ£ÉAzÀÄ £ÉÆAಾ)*ರು+ೆ. ಈ ಆೇಶವನು ಬ/ರಂಗ ಭೂ0ಾ1ಯಮಂಡ3ಯ45 6ೂೕ7ಸಾ)ತು. 2. Thirty years thereafter, an application is filed by the daughter of the tenant. The Land Tribunal has modified the order and has conferred the rights in respect of the following grants: UÁæªÀÄ ¸À.£ÀA§æ «¹ÛÃtð vÉAPÀ 1 0.64 3/5 ¹ 0.10 37/3 0.21 37/10 0.17 131/1b 1.30 133/3f 0.14 3. As could be seen from the above, the Land Tribunal by virtue of this amendment to its original order has included Sy.Nos.37/3 and 37/10 measuring 0.21 and 0.17 cents respectively. It is the contention of the petitioners that these lands were not even sought for in the Form No.7 and therefore, the Land Tribunal was in error in granting the said application. 4. Learned counsel for the tenant however submits that it had been conceded by the Landlord that the tenant was in possession of Sy.Nos.37/3 and 37/10 and this was also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15999 WP No. 9324 of 2017 confirmed in a survey and therefore, modifying the order passed by the Land Tribunal on 24.09.1981 cannot be found fault with. 5. Fundamentally, the Land Tribunal would get jurisdiction to confer occupancy rights only if a Form No.7 is filed claiming a particular survey number to be a tenanted land. If no application is filed, the statutory provisions declares that a tenant would be disentitled to claim occupancy rights thereafter. In the instant case, since, admittedly an application in Form No.7 was not filed in Sy.Nos.37/3 and 37/10, it is obvious that the Land Tribunal could not have corrected its order nearly 30 years after it had passed the original order to incorporate these two survey numbers. 6. In my view, therefore, the impugned order dated 20.12.2011 at Annexure-A cannot be sustained and the same shall stand quashed. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE BS - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57