- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 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. 30088 OF 2018 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. RAJASHEKAR GOWDA, S/O VEERASANGANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O CHIKKAVALI VILLAGE, UDRI POST, SORAB TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577 419. 2. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA S/O VEERASANGANA GOWDA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 2a) PREMAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA GOWDA, R/O CHIKKAVALI VILLAGE, UDRI POST, SORAB TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577 419. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VEERENDRA R PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL SORABA. BY ITS CHAIRMEN. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR. R/O SORABA. SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 419. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 3. P LAKSHMOJI RAO. S/O TUKKOJI RAO. SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 3a) P L KUMAR RAO SINDHE S/O P LAKSHMOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/O TOWN PANCHAYATH, SORABA, SORABA TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577 419. 4. GUDDE NINGAPPA, S/O DYAVAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 4a) MANCHAPPA S/O GUDDE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/O CHIKKAVALI VILLAGE, UDRI POST, SORAB TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577 419. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2, R3(A) IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, SRI S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN ORDER DATED 20.03.2018 T.N.C.V.R 12/76-77 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F WHEREIN RESPONDENT NO.2 GRANTED THE OCCUPANCY RIGHT IN LAND IN QUESTION IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT NO.4. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by the landlord challenging the conferment of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal in favour of the tenant. 2. The land involved in this writ petition is Survey No.1/2 which totally measures 10 acres 14 guntas, but, the claim of the tenant was only in respect of 03 acres 11 Guntas. 3. The land in question was initially owned by one Lakshmoji Rao (respondent No.3) who executed a sale deed on 24.11.1976 in favour of one Veera Sangana Gowda (father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2). 4. It was the case of the tenant who filed an application in Form No.7 on 21.09.1976 that he was the tenant of the land in question for a period of ten years prior to the filing of Form No.7 and he was hence entitled to be conferred with occupancy rights. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 5. The Land Tribunal on 06.10.1981 had conferred occupancy rights in favour of the tenant, as against which Writ Petition No.29951 of 1981 was filed by the son of Veera Sangana Gowda who purchased the property in the year 1976 and this Court allowed the writ petition on 30.05.1984 and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. 6. The Land Tribunal on remand has come to the conclusion that the land in question was a tenanted land and had stood vested with the State as on 01.03.1974 and consequently, the sale deed executed in favour of Veera Sangana Gowda was of no consequence and it has therefore proceeded to confer occupancy rights on the tenant. The Land Tribunal has also taken into consideration the oral depositions given by the witnesses who had deposed on behalf of the tenant. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 7. The order of the Land Tribunal is extracted for the better understanding of the manner in which the application has been considered: “PÀæAiÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà UËqÀ ©£ï «ÃgÀ ¸ÀAUÀ¥ÀàUËqÀ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß 1976 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è CzÀÄ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÁV CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀ vÀgÀĪÁAiÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:01-03-1974 gÀ°è UÉÃtÂzÁjPÉAiÀÄ ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄÄ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ°è «°£ÀUÉÆArzÀÄÝ. «ÃgÀ¸ÀAUÀ¥ÀàUËqÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24-11-1976 gÀAzÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀt PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀåªÁºÁgÀ £ÀqɹgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CAvÀºÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÁ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1961 gÀ PÀ®A. 44. 45, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 48 J ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ°è «°Ã£À ¨sÀÆ«Ä RjâAiÀÄÄ ±ÀƤßÃPÀgÀtUÉƼÀÄîvÀÛzÉ CAvÀºÀ d«ÄãÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è »vÁ¸ÀQÛAiÀÄļÀî EvÀgÉ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À°è ¤»vÀªÁVgÀĪÀ J¯Áè ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀPÀÄÌ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »vÁ¸ÁQÛAiÀÄÄ PÉÆ£ÉUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. J¯Áè IÄt ¨sÁgÀUÀ½AzÀ ªÀÄÄPÀÛªÁV gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ°è ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtðªÁV ¤»vÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ°è ¤»vÀªÁzÀ UÉÃt d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°PÀgÀÄ ªÀÄgÁl ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ° D d«Ää£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸Á® ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ° ¨ÁåAPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ UÉÃt d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸Á® ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ° £ÁåAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄävÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CfðzÁgÀgÀ UÀÄqÉØ ¤AUÀ¥Àà ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ PÁ¬ÄzÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 24-09- 1976 gÀAzÀÄ C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁjPÉ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÉÆÃj Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ, ºÁUÀÆ ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ PÁ¬ÄzÉ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°è 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÀ »A¢¤AzÀ®Æ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß UÉÃt ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÁUÀƪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CfðzÁjUÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ UÉÃtÂAiÀiÁV ªÉÆzÀ®Ä 16 aî §vÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀAvÀgÀ 18 aî §vÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F §UÉÎ zÀÈrÃPÀj¸À®Ä CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀgÀ ¸ÁPÁëzsÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À SÁvÉzÁgÀgÁzÀ ¢ªÀAUÀvÀ ®PÉÆÃëäÃfgÁªï ©£ï vÀÄPÉÆÌÃfgÁªï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À ªÀÄÆ® ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°PÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀgÀÄ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÁð£ÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wêÀiÁ𤹠F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÉ “//DzÉñÀ// ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÆgÀ§ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½ aPÁ̪À° UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À £ÀA 1/2 gÀ°è 3-11 JPÀgÉ d«ÄäUÉ UÀÄqÉØ ¤AUÀ¥Àà ©£ï zÁåªÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ UÀÄqÉØ CrªÉ¥Àà ©£ï zÁ媥ÀàÀ EªÀjUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ PÁ¬ÄzÉ. 1961gÀ PÀ®A 45gÀr C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¹ DzÉò¹zÉ.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 8. As could be seen from the above, the main reason for the Land Tribunal to confer occupancy rights is that Veera Sangana Gowda had purchased the property after 01.03.1974, by which time the land had stood vested in the State and he had thus acquired no title. The Land Tribunal while passing the impugned order has also basically considered the oral evidence of the tenant to come to the conclusion that the tenant was in cultivation of the land as on the relevant date. 9. It is the case of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Land Tribunal has basically ignored the revenue records for the relevant years, which clearly indicated that the land was in possession of the vendor till the year 1976 and thereafter, the name of the purchaser was entered both in the Khatedar's column and in the Cultivator's column. 10. It is his case that the Land Tribunal has not even taken into consideration several aspects of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 deposition of the witnesses during the course of their cross-examination, which fundamentally indicated that their evidence was not trustworthy and ought to have been rejected. 11. Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the tenant, on the other hand, contended that the entries in the RTC’s would not be the conclusive piece of evidence to arrive at the conclusion that the tenant was in possession. He submitted that it was perfectly open for the Land Tribunal to rely upon the oral evidence of the witnesses who had deposed on behalf of the tenant to come to the conclusion that the land was tenanted and the applicant had been cultivating the land. He submitted that the Land Tribunal has basically recorded a finding of fact which ought not to be interfered with in a petition file under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. In light of the above, the only question that will have to be considered in this writ petition is: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 “Whether the Land Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the tenant was in occupation of the land in question as a tenant as on 01.03.1974.” 13. It is no doubt true that the entries in the RTC’s are not conclusive piece of evidence in order to come to the conclusion that as to whether the persons mentioned in the RTC are in actual possession of the land in question, however, at the same time it will also have to be kept in mind that the record of rights have a presumptive value under Section 1331 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and since the record of rights relate to a period prior to 01.03.1974 and have been made by a public servant, they carry credibility in the eye of law. Unless the entries in the revenue records are rebutted, normally the entries will have to be accepted. 1 133. Presumption regarding entries in the records.—An entry in the Record of Rights and a certified entry in the Register of Mutations 1[or in the patta book shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 14. In this case, the revenue entries in respect of the land in question clearly indicate that for the years 1971- 72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, the name of B.Lakshmoji Rao, the erstwhile owner, has been entered both in column No.9 and also in column No.12. In respect of the year 1973-74, the revenue records do not state that the mode of cultivation was tenanted. The name of Lakshmoji Rao has been continued for the years from 1974-75 up till 1977-78. It is only after the purchase made by Veera Sangana Gowda, his name has been entered in the revenue records from the year 1978-79. 15. As far as reliance on the oral evidence by the Land Tribunal is concerned, the evidence given by the General Power of Attorney holder of the tenant i.e., Kendappa is noticed, it becomes clear that he has stated that he was not even aware as to when Lakshmoji Rao had purchased the property in the year 1965 and he had also admitted that there was - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 no entry in respect of the adjoining lands to show that his father was in possession. He has also stated that there were no rent receipts produced and has also conceded that the entries in the RTCs did not reflect their possession. 16. The evidence of another witness T.K. Kariyappa has deposed that he was not aware as to the total extent of Survey No.1/2 and he was also not aware of its boundaries. He has stated that he is a resident of Chikkavali village and has admitted that he does not own any abutting properties and he was not also aware as to what was the rent that was being paid. It is therefore clear that the evidence of this witness would also be of no value to come to the conclusion that the tenant was in possession. 17. The other witness, Sanna Hanumantappa, has deposed that he was a resident of Elavatta village which was about three kilometers from the land in question. He has also admitted that he had not seen - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 whether the landlord had raised paddy and he has also stated that he is not able to narrate the boundaries of survey No.1/2. He has also stated that he was not aware as to what were the other lands owned by the tenant. 18. This evidence would also therefore indicate that the evidence of this witness would also be not helpful to the tenant nor would it establish that the tenant was in possession of the land in question. 19. The evidence of T.Basavantappa indicates that he was also unaware of the boundaries of survey No.1/2 and he was also unaware of the other lands owned by the applicant/tenant. 20. If a witness is unaware of the extent of the land in respect of an application for tenancy has been filed and he is unable even to state the boundaries of that land, it would be improper to accept his evidence to - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 come to the conclusion that the tenant was in possession. 21. Similar is the evidence of the other witness, Kariyappa. 22. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses would really have no credibility to justify the reasoning given by the Land Tribunal. 23. Having regard to the fact that the entries in the RTC’s do not support the claim of the tenant and taking into consideration that the entries reflect the possession of Veera Sangana Gowda, who had purchased the property in the year 1976, the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained. 24. It is to be noticed here that if the land in question was not tenanted, there was no bar for the erstwhile owner—Lakshmoji Rao to alienate the property and therefore the Land Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that the sale in favor of Veerasangana - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 Gowda being made after 1974 was of no consequence. 25. If the documentary evidence indicate that until the date of purchase, Lakshmoji Rao was in possession of the land in question and thereafter, the name of Veera Sanganagowda had been entered as the landlord in possession, it would be appropriate to accept this documentary evidence as compared to the oral depositions which do not support the case of the tenant that he was in possession. 26. The reliance placed by the learned counsel, Sri.S.V.Prakash, on the judgment rendered by this Court in Gopal vs. State Of Karnataka & Others, ILR 2003 KAR 3686, to the effect that the entry in the record of rights was not a conclusive piece of evidence, will have no relevance in the present case. 27. As already stated above, the entries in the revenue records are by themselves not conclusive. However, - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 there must be cogent and credible oral evidence to disregard or rebut the entry in the revenue records. As noticed above in the instant case, the oral evidence of the witnesses is not credible and they in fact indicate that they were unaware of even the extent of the land or the boundaries of the land and therefore, their evidence could not have been relied upon by the Land Tribunal to confer occupancy rights in favor of the tenant. 28. In fact, in this regard, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the landlord on the decisions rendered by the Division Bench in Hire Masudi Inam(Jamia Masjid) v. The Land Tribunal & Ors, 1977 (1) KLJ 263, in which it has been held that if the presumption regarding the correctness of the revenue entries is not rebutted by the State or by the person claiming to be the tenant, a presumption would arise that it was the land owner who was - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 personally cultivating the land will have to be applied. 29. The learned counsel is also justified in placing reliance on the Division Bench rendered in Madaiah Bin Doddamadaiah v. State of Karnataka & Ors, W.A.No.1654 and 2201/2008 (DD 17.3.2018) in which it has been held that for raising the presumption in favour of tenancy, the names of the tenants must be found in the revenue records. 30. Sri. SV Prakash also raised an argument that Krishnoji Rao, the land owner as on 01.03.1974, was admittedly working as a teacher and hence it was impossible to accept the contention that he was personally cultivating the lands due to his full time avocation as a teacher. This Court in Veena Shetty & Ors v. The State of Karnataka, W.P.No. 6087/2012 (DD 18.07.2012) has while considering an identical submission, albeit in the case of a teacher who was working as a primary school - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 teacher and was yet claiming to be the tenant has held as follows: “21. It has to be stated here that it is not uncommon in Mofussil areas for Teachers and other employees of an organization to not only discharge their duties under their respective employers, but also at the same time engage in agricultural activities. 22. It is to be stated here that the Land Reforms Act itself defines the expression "to cultivate personally" which means to cultivate the land on one's own account or by the labour of any member of one's family or even through hired labour. The fact that the tenant was working as a Teacher would not, by itself, lead to an inference that she was not cultivating the land personally as she could also cultivate the lands through her family members or even through hired labour. In fact, the Land Tribunal also stated that there was no bar for a Teacher to engage herself in agricultural activities”. 31. In the light of this judgment, the argument that a teacher cannot be considered as a person who was cultivating the land personally cannot be accepted. 32. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16132 WP No. 30088 of 2018 33. Since it is held that there is no evidence to indicate respondent No.4 was in possession, the Form No.7 filed by him is rejected. 34. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 35. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK Ct: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59