- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11640 WP No. 8049 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 8049 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O. LATE KALAPPA 2. SRI. DEVARAJU SON OF LATE KALA BOYI @ KALADURGA BHOVI @ KALABHOVI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 3. SMT. MANJULA W/O. LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT KATHALEPALYA VILLAGE, KODIYALA KARENAHALLI POST, BIDADI HOBLI-562109, RAMANAGARA TALUK …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.N.DAYALU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL RAMANAGARAM - 562159, RAMANAGARA TALUK, BY ITS SECRETARY Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11640 WP No. 8049 of 2025 (CURRENTLY THE TAHSILDAR). 3. SRI. VENKATESH SON OF LATE KENCHATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4. SMT. HONNAMMA W/O. LATE KENCHATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R-3 & 4 RESIDENTS OF KODIYALA KAR BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK - 562109. 5. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O. VAJRAPPA, D/O LATE KENCHATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. NO. 411, 4TH CROSS ROAD, PRAGATHIPURA, BIDARAHALLI. BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560070. 6. H.S. ANANTHARAMU SON OF LATE H.R. SUBRAMANYA IYER AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. KONANAKUNTE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI - 560061. BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 7. SRI. PRASHANTH SHETTY SON OF RAVINDRA SHETTY AGED 46 YEARS. NO. 973. 3RD FLOOR, 13TH CROSS ROAD, BANASHANKARI, 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560070. 8. PRAVEEN SHETTY SON OF G. RAVINDRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 9. ROHITH SHETTY - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11640 WP No. 8049 of 2025 SON OF G. RAVINDRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 10. SMT. PRIYA,V W/O. MAHESH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R-8 TO R-10 RESIDENTS AT NO. 674, 5TH CROSS. 9TH MAIN, BSK 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560050. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE EX- PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL ON 24.09.1977 IN CASE NO. LRF(7)426/75-76 GRANTING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS TO KENCHATHIMMAIAH i.e. ANNX-H TO THE WRIT PETITION, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The petition is filed challenging the Certificate of Registration issued in Form No.10 on 30.12.1981. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though only the Certificate of Registration has been challenged, in essence, the petitioner is challenging - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11640 WP No. 8049 of 2025 the order of the Land Tribunal, on the basis of which this Certificate of Registration has been issued. 3. The petitioner has also produced the copy of the order of the Land Tribunal by which it has conferred occupancy rights on Kenchathimmaiah and the said order reads as follows- "24.09.77 :- Case called. Petitioner present. Respondents absent. Petitioner states that he is tenant - cultivator of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.232 for the past 8 years. He states that he was giving part of the produce as rent to Nagappa. As per report of the Surveyor, the petitioner is cultivating 5 acres 20 guntas of land in this survey number. He states that he has no documentary evidence to produce witnesses. The petitioner is therefore registered as an occupant of 5 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.232." 4. Thus, as could be seen from the above, the order of the year 1977 is sought to be challenged in the year 2025. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11640 WP No. 8049 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.N. Dayalu strenuously contends that the order passed by the Land Tribunal is a result of fraud played on it and therefore, there can be no question of considering the delay or laches in approaching this Court. 6. Learned counsel submits that the father of the second petitioner had purchased the land in question under registered sale deed dated 25.06.1963 and though their names were indicated in the cultivator's column, notices were never issued to them and the order was obtained against their vendor and, therefore, this was a clear case of fraud being played on the Land Tribunal. 7. He also submits that a perusal of the order of Land Tribunal would indicate that the Land Tribunal had conferred occupancy rights on the alleged tenant without there being any documentary evidence to establish that he was the tenant. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11640 WP No. 8049 of 2025 8. As could be seen from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fundamental premise on which the argument is made is that the petitioner had purchased the property in question which is bearing Sy.No.232 of Kodiyala Karenahalli village, Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore District. 9. However, the sale deed upon which the title is claimed indicates that the purchasers therein purchased the following extent of land - " PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ PÉÆêÀÄnUÀgÀ ºÀ½îAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ G®èA¥ÀÅgÀa ºÀUÀÄÎ d«ÄäUÉ ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢ :¥ÀǪÀðPÉÌ : ¸ÀħâAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ zÉÆqÀØ D®zÀ ªÀÄgÀzÀ ºÉÆ®zÀ ¨Éð PÀȵÀÚ±ÉlÖgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁ¸À£À PÀmÉÖ ¨É¼ÉUÉgÉ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : £À£Àß d«ÄãÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : £À£Àß d«ÄãÀÄ, zÀQëtPÉÌ : aPÀÌ ¸ÀħâAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå£À d«ÄãÀÄ, K.N. ¸ÀħâAiÀÄå 3 sheet of document No. 1091, Book No.1 SNIC(Seal). F ªÀÄzsÉå ¬ÄgÀĪÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ E¥ÀàvÀÛ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ JPÀgÉ E¥ÀÛvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11640 WP No. 8049 of 2025 ¤ªÀÄUÉ ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ M¦à §gɹPÉÆlÖ d«Ää£À ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À»." 10. As could be seen from the schedule to sale deed, the sale deed does not indicate the survey numbers which have been produced and it merely states that an extent of 23 acres was purchased. If the sale deed upon which reliance is placed does not indicate the survey number, the argument that the predecessor of the petitioners were the owners of the land in question at the relevant point of time cannot be accepted. 11. An argument is, however, sought to be advanced that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed tally with the land in question and, therefore, this sale deed would have to be related only to Sy.No.232. 12. It is to be noticed here the Land Tribunal in respect of Sy.No.232 measuring 5 acres 20 guntas, whereas the sale deed that is sought to be relied upon is to an - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11640 WP No. 8049 of 2025 extent of 23 acres and 23 guntas. Thus, the arguments that the boundaries tallied cannot be accepted. 13. Learned counsel also seeks to contend that the sale deed pertains to five survey numbers. However, this assertion is not reflected in the sale deed, inasmuch as the sale deed is completely silent about the survey numbers which have been purchased by the predecessors in title. 14. In my view, since the sale deed upon which reliance has been placed does not indicate that the petitioners were the owners of the survey number 232, the entire premise on which this petition is filed cannot be entertained and that too after a period of nearly 48 years from the date of the order of the Land Tribunal. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11640 WP No. 8049 of 2025 15. 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.: 18