- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 35445 OF 2015 (LR) BETWEEN: PONNUSWAMY S/O LATE RAYAPPA AGE 69 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN) OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O AGASAVALLI VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA CITY-577 201. 3. UMAPATHI SHARMA S/O A.M. MAHESHWARA MURTHY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs 3(A) G.S. SUSHEELAMMA Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 W/O LATE UMAPATHI SHARMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3(B) SMT. PRIYANKA .A.U D/O LATE UMAPATHI SHARMA W/O SRI. LOKESH T.G. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3(C) A.U MAHESHWARA MURTHY S/O LATE UMAPATHI SHARMA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ALL ARE R/O 'OM SHREE NILAYA' MALNAD GARDEN LAYOUT MALLIGENAHALLI SHIMOGA-577 1401. [CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V/O/D 23.06.2023] …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. RAJASHEKAR .K, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A TO C)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL DATED 20.04.2015 IN CASE NO. LRF(T)GVP/1/74-75 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REJECTING HIS CLAIM FOR CONFERMENT OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF TWO ACRES 38 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.18 AND 23 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.19 OF GOVINDAPURA VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 CAV ORDER 1. The tenant—Ponnuswamy is before this Court challenging the order of the Land Tribunal insofar as it relates to the rejection of his claim over the entire extent of 04 Acres 18 Guntas in Survey No.18 and grant of only 01 acre 20 Guntas, and also against the rejection of his claim in its entirety in relation to Survey No.19. 2. The tenant—Punnuswamy had filed an application in Form No.7 claiming to be the tenant over the land bearing Survey No.18 measuring 04 Acres 07 Guntas and Survey No.19 measuring 02 Acres 30 Guntas. However, before the Land Tribunal, Ponnuswamy gave a statement in the following terms, which is reproduced in its entirety: "Case No.LRE (T) GVP 1 of 1974-75 27.8.76 Deposition ¥ÉÆ£ÀÄ߸Áé«Ä Father's name gÁAiÀÄ¥Àà Age 27 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 Caste ¨sÉÆë Occupation ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄ Residence UÉÆëAzÁ¥ÀÄgÀ Duly sworn UÉÆëAzÁ¥ÀÄgÀzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.18 gÀ°è 4-18 d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß FUÉå 6 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ®Æ UÉÃt ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. UÉÃt 8 aî ¨sÀvÀÛ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß Ex.P1 £ÀAvÉ ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. UÉÃt PÀgÁgÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. FUÀ®Æ £Á£Éà ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. F ªÀµÀð UËj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ dAiÀÄ ¨sÀvÀÛ ©vÀÛ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F d«Ää£À SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. Sd/- ROIAC ¸À»/- 27.8.76 Applicant recalled and further examined: Duly sworn 9.9.76 »AzÉ £À£ÀUÀÆ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÀÆ ªÁådå EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ vÁ|| 27.8.76 gÀ°è ¥ÀÆgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ 1(J)-20(UÀÄ) ªÀiÁvÀæ. CµÀÖ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. ¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ®Ä: E®è ---- ROIAC ¸À»/- 9.9.76 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 3. The land-lord also gave a statement in the following terms: “Case No.LRE(T) GVP 1 of 1974-75 27.8.76 Deposition A.M.GªÀiÁ¥Àw±ÀªÀÄð Father's name A.M.ªÀĺÉñÀégÀ ªÀÄÆwð Age 27 Caste °AUÁ¬ÄvÀgÀÄ Occupation Govt. employed Residence ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ Duly sworn UÉÆëAzÁ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.18gÀ d«ÄãÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä zÉÆqÀØ¥Àà A.M.«±ÉéñÀégÀªÀÄÆwð AiÀĪÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÉ. CªÀgÀÄ ¥Ëw DVzÀÄÝ, ¸À¢æ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥ÁjPÀvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £À£Àß »¸ÉìUÉ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. «±ÉéñÀégÀªÀÄÆwðUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ zÉÆqÀØ¥Àà£ÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ¥ÁjPÀvÀÄÛ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À »AiÀÄjAUïUÉ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁr®è. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ Ex.P1 £À°ègÀĪÀ gÀÄdÄ £À£ÀßzÀ®è. ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ vÀ¥ÁàV £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. FUÀ®Æ £Á£Éà ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. CfðzÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä £À£Àß M¦àUÉ E®è. ¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ®Ä: E®è. Sd/- (A.M.Umapathy Sharma) ROIAC ¸À»/- 27.8.76 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 Respondent recalled and further examined: 9.9.76 Duly sworn £Á£ÀÄ vÀ: 27.8.76 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁr®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. CªÀjUÀÆ £À£ÀUÀÆ ªÀÄ£À¸ÁÛ¥À, ªÁådå DVzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ D jÃw ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝ. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ 4(J)-07(UÀÄ) ¥ÉÊQ 1(J)-20(UÀÄ) d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 6-7 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. UÉÃt 4 aî PÉÆqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ FUÀ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆlÖgÀĪÀAvÉ 1(J)-20(UÀÄ) d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. ¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ®Ä: E®è. Sd/- (A.M.Umapathy Sharma) ROIAC ¸À»/- 9.9.76” 4. As could be seen from these two statements, both the landlord and the tenant had conceded that the tenant was in possession of only 01 acres 20 guntas out of 04 acre 07 guntas in survey No.18, though initially the landlord had contended that the tenant was not in possession of any extent of land and the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 tenant had contended that he was in possession of the entire extent. 5. The Land Tribunal on consideration of these statements proceeded to confer occupancy rights in respect for 01 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.18 though an extent of 04 acres 18 guntas was granted and rejected the claim in respect of Survey No.19. 6. The Land Tribunal by another order dated 29.10.1981 conferred occupancy rights in respect of 0-23 guntas in survey No.19. 7. It may also be pertinent to state here that, as against the first order, granting only 01 acre 20 guntas in survey No.18, the petitioner—tenant did not take any steps to challenge the same. 8. Thereafter, on 22.09.1984, the Land Tribunal had accepted the survey report prepared pursuant to the order of the Land Tribunal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 9. The landlord thereafter filed Writ Petition No.30056 of 1993 challenging the order of the Land Tribunal dated 29.10.1981 by which 0-23 Guntas in Survey No.19 was granted in favour of the tenant, Ponnuswamy. 10. He also challenged the earlier order of the Land Tribunal dated 04.10.1976 by which 01 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.18 had been granted. A challenge was also laid to the survey report which was accepted by the Land Tribunal subsequently on 22.09.1984. Two years thereafter, the tenant filed Writ Petition No.2217 of 1995 challenging the order dated 04.10.1976 by which he was granted only 01 acre 20 guntas as per his statement and also the acceptance of the survey report by the Land Tribunal dated 22.09.1984. In other words, after nearly 19 years, the order of the Land Tribunal dated 04.10.1976 was challenged in Writ Petition No.2217 of 1995. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 11. This Court clubbed both the writ petitions and came to the conclusion that the procedure prescribed under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules had not been followed and therefore set aside the orders dated 04.10.1976, 29.10.1981 and 22.09.1984 and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. 12. The Land Tribunal, on remand, proceeded to come to the conclusion that the tenant was in possession of only 01 acre 20 guntas and it also came to the conclusion that the tenant was not in possession of any extent of Survey No.19. 13. This order dated 12.07.2010 was challenged by filing writ petition No.14973 of 2011 and this Court came to the conclusion that the aforementioned order of the Land Tribunal was not a speaking order and it allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 14. On remand, the landlord and the tenant gave their statements and on consideration of the entire matter afresh, the Land Tribunal has proceeded to pass the impugned order, by which it has once again found that the tenant was entitled for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of 01 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.18 and he was not entitled for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of any extent. 15. Being aggrieved by this order, the tenant— Ponnuswamy is before this Court by way of this writ petition. 16. Shri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner—tenant, strenuously contended that the Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that Ponnuswamy was in possession as a tenant of only 01 acre 20 guntas in survey No.18 and was not in possession of the entire extent of 04 acres 17 guntas in light of the revenue records. He also contended - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 that the Tribunal had assigned no reasons for rejecting the claim in respect of survey No.19. 17. Learned counsel submits that the reliance placed on by the Tribunal on the statements given in the year 1976 could not be the basis for rejection of tenant’s claim and therefore the impugned order could not be sustained. 18. It is no doubt true that in the RTCs in respect of survey No.18, the name of Ponnuswamy is reflected in column No.12(2) for the years 1972-73 and 1973- 74. 19. The checklist available in the records indicates that in respect of Sy.No.18, the name of Ponnuswamy was entered only for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74; however, for the years 1957-58, and from 1959-60 to 1963-64, the cultivation column indicates as self; for the year 1958-59, the name of Eshwarappa is shown; for the years 1964-65 and from 1966-67 to - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 1969-1970, it is blank. It is only for the year 1965- 66, the name of one Ganesha and for the year 1970- 71, the name of one A.M.Vishveshvarappa are indicated in the revenue column and once again for the year 1971-72, it has been stated to be blank. 20. It must be mentioned here that in his Form No.7, which was filed in the year 1975, Ponnuswamy claimed that he was in possession for six years. However, this was not forthcoming in the RTC and his name has been entered only in the year 1972-73. Even if there is an entry in favour of Ponnuswamy for the relevant year and the mode of cultivation is shown as tenanted, the said revenue entries would lose its significance in light of the clear statement on oath made by Ponnuswamy, which is extracted above. 21. As could be seen from the deposition, initially, Ponnuswamy did claim that he was in possession of 04 acres 18 guntas, but on being recalled, - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 Ponnuswamy stated in clear and categorical terms that he was cultivating only 01 acre 20 guntas and requested for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of this 01 acre 20 guntas. 22. The landlord also, as extracted above, did initially deny the possession of Ponnuswamy, but on being recalled, he also agreed that Ponnuswamy was in possession of 01 acre 20 guntas and the said application could be granted. 23. This would indicate that both the landlord and the tenant had basically agreed about the extent of cultivation by the tenant and indicated their consent for the Land Tribunal to pass an order to that extent. 24. The Land Tribunal has accordingly accepted this statement and conferred occupancy rights in the year 1976 itself. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 25. It has to be noticed here that Ponnuswamy did not challenge this order of the Land Tribunal till the year 1995. 26. In fact, when the second order was passed in the year 1981 also, he did not challenge the said order immediately, and he challenged the said order only by filing a writ petition in the year 1995, when the Land Tribunal ratified the survey report that had been placed before it. This would indicate that the tenant—Ponnuswamy had basically accepted the order of the Land Tribunal without any demur. 27. It is no doubt true that this order of the Land Tribunal of the year 1976 and the subsequent order of the year 1981 were quashed and the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal on more than one occasion. Merely because the order of the Land Tribunal is quashed, that would not lead to an inference that the statements given on oath by the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 landlord and the tenant would stand extinguished or would lose its credibility. 28. Once the landlord and the tenant had made clear statements before the Land Tribunal regarding the extent of grants that were in possession of the tenant, the same would always bind the tenant even if the orders passed by the Land Tribunal were set aside on the ground that they were not speaking orders and the procedure prescribed were not followed. 29. In short, a statement given on oath as evidence by the landlord and the tenant would always remain and would always bind them, even if the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal. The impugned order basically recognizes this particular fact and comes to the conclusion that the tenant having accepted in clear terms way back in the year 1976 that he was in possession of 01 acre 20 guntas cannot obviously be - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 permitted to seek for enlargement of his claim merely because he had done so in his Form No.7. 30. The statement given on oath at the earliest point of time, especially a statement given by resiling from the first statement, would indicate that the landlord and the tenant were in ad idem about the extent of land in the possession of the tenant and after securing an order virtually by consent, the tenant cannot be permitted to seek for enlargement of his claim. 31. Having regard to the fact that the tenant kept quiet from 1976 till 1995, thus would basically indicate that he had accepted the first order of the Land Tribunal. The statement that he had given in the year 1976 would assume credence and also acceptance. 32. I am therefore of the view that the order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights only in respect - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:17182 WP No. 35445 of 2015 of 01 acre 20 guntas in survey No.18 is on the basis of the statements given by the tenant cannot be found fault with. 33. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. 34. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 135