- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12898 WP No. 42187 of 2015 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. 42187 OF 2015 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. T.S. JAGANNATH SINCE DEAD BY LRs., 1(a) SMT. RAJALAKSHMI., D/O JAGANATHAN, W/O SRINATH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 1(b) SMT. VIJAYALAKSMI, D/O JAGANATHA., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PETITIONER 1(a) & 1(b) ARE R/AT No.117/3, NAGARAJ LAYOUT, BULL TEMPLE TOAD, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004. 2. SRI T S KRISHNA MURTHY SON OF LATE K T SRINIVASA IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS NO 1095, 3RD CROSS SRIRAMAPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 021 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.S.N.SAMEER., ADVOCATE FOR LRs., OF DECEASED PETITIONER) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12898 WP No. 42187 of 2015 VIDHANA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 REPTD BY SECRETARY 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL ANEKAL ANEKAL TALUK OFFICE BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562106 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. SRI M VENKATANARAYANA SON OF PATEL MUNISWAMAYYA AGED 70 YEARS INDLAVADIPURA VILLAGE & POST ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562106 4. SRI M SEETHERAMAYYA SON OF PATEL MUNISWAMAYYA AGED 65 YEARS INDLAVADIPURA VILLAGE & POST ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562106 DEAD BY LRS., 4(a) KANTHAMMA, W/O. LATE SEETHARAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 4(b) LAKSHMI NARAYAN, S/O. LATE SEETHARAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4(c) LOKESH, S/O. LATE SEETHARAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R-4(a) TO 4(c) ARE RESIDING AT INDLAVADIPURA VILLAGE AND POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI. G.A.VISWANATHA REDDY., ADVOCTE FOR R-3 AND R-4(a) TO R-4(d)) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12898 WP No. 42187 of 2015 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:25.4.2015 (25.3.2015) PASSED BY TEH R-2 LAND TRIBUNAL , ANEKAL TQ.,IN NO.LRF ATC318/1975-76 VIDE ANNEXURE-K, 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 order of conferment of the occupancy rights is called in question in this writ petition. 2. The Land Tribunal by the impugned order has recorded a finding of fact that the revenue entries in respect of the lands in question were standing in the name of Muniswamayya i.e., the father of the applicants and the mode of cultivation has also been shown as tenant. 3. The Tribunal has noticed that there was nothing on record to show that the land-lords had challenged these entries in the Pahani and after the death of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12898 WP No. 42187 of 2015 applicant-Muniswamayya, the name of his children was also reflected in Column No.12(2) of the RTC. 4. The Tribunal has therefore come to the conclusion that the tenancy of the petitioners and their possession was established beyond doubt and has proceeded to confer occupancy rights to the applicants. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal has not taken note of the fact that the applicants had already held huge extents of lands and therefore, they were ineligible to be conferred with the occupancy rights. 6. A reading of Form No.7 indicates that the applicants did disclose that they held several bits of land. However, the Tribunal has noticed that the total extent of the lands held by the petitioners was about 16.00 acres and therefore, they were holding land within the ceiling limit prescribed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12898 WP No. 42187 of 2015 7. If the land claimed by the applicants is also taken into consideration, which is about an extent of 06 acres 28 guntas, it is seen that it would not exceed the ceiling limit. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is therefore untenable. 8. The learned counsel also sought to argue that there was no documentary evidence to indicate that the lands in question were tenanted. 9. As already noticed above, the RTCs, as recorded by the Tribunal, specifically indicate that the applicants were in possession and the mode of cultivation was shown as tenant. 10. In light of this documentary evidence, it is clear that the order of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 11. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92