- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10340 WP No. 48205 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 48205 OF 2018 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. H V PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, 2. RATHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE H V HANUMANTHAIAH, 3. SMT. VINUTHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O LATE H V HANUMANTHAIAH, 4. SMT. VINODA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O LATE H V HANUMANTHAIAH, 5. SMT. VINANTHI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, D/O LATE H V HANUMANTHAIAH, 6. SRI H A DINESH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE H V APPAJI, ALL ARE R/AT No.1668 NORTHERN EXTENSION, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201. 7. SRI H V VENKATESH SINCE DECEASED Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10340 WP No. 48205 of 2018 7(a) SMT. SUNANDA., AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O LATE VENKATESH.H.V., 7(b) H.V.LOHITH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATESH H.V. BOTH ARE R/AT NO.16/99 NAIDU WORK SHOP ROAD, NORTHERN EXTENSION, HASSAN-573 201. 7(c) SMT. DIVYA.H.V., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O LATE VENKATESH H.V., W/O PRAKASH.M.D., R/AT No.1072, 9TH MAIN, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, MYSORE-570 023. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.C.SHIVARAMU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY LAND TRIBUNAL, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201. 2. THE PRESIDENT LAND TRIBUNAL HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201. 3. SRI M C VENKATARAMU AGE MAJOR, S/O LATE CHINNE GOWDA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10340 WP No. 48205 of 2018 4. SRI M D GOVINDE GOWDA AGE MAJOR, S/O LATE M.D.DODDE GOWDA, @ APPAJI GOWDA @ KRISHNE GOWDA, R-3 & R-4 ARE RESIDENTS OF MAVINAHALLI VILLAGE, TEJUR POST AND KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA.R., ADVOCATE FOR CR/R-3 & C/R-4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:7.9.2018 PASSD BY THE R-2 IN PROCEEDINGS AT ANNEXURE-D, 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 landlords are before this Court challenging the order by which the Land Tribunal has conferred occupancy rights on the tenants. 2. A perusal of the order would indicate that the Tribunal has merely recorded the entire history of the case and has ultimately stated as follows: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10340 WP No. 48205 of 2018 "¨sÀÆ£ÁåAiÀĪÀÄAqÀ½ ºÁ¸À£À vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ºÁ¸À£ÀgÀªÀgÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¸ÀASÉå LRF 1348/74-75 ¢£ÁAPÀ 17.02.1979 £ÀÄß ¥ÀÅgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå GZÀÒ£ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. jmï ¦nµÀ£ï ¸ÀASÉå 25082/92 ¢£ÁAPÀ 27.01.1998 gÀ°è£À wæð£ÀAvÉ DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÁågÀ ¸ÀASÉå 4 gÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è£À ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÁ¢ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ, ¥Àæw ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄUÀ¼À «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±À ¤Ãr ªÁzÀ «ªÁzÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß D°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.ºÁUÀÆ G¨sÀAiÀÄ ¥ÁnðUÀ¼À ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀ CTvÀ ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß «ªÀıÉð ªÀiÁr ¥Àj²Ã°¹ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ. DzÉñÀ ºÁ¸À£À vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½ ªÀiÁ«£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA 29/1 gÀ°è 5 JPÀgÉ 18 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ¥Àæw ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ JZï.J¸ï.ªÉAPÀlgÁªÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹ DzÉò¹zÉ. ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ 1£Éà atÂÚÃUËqÀ (¥Ëw) ©£ï PÀȵÀÚUËqÀ EªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÁV F £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è ºÁdgÁV ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæw¤¢ü¹zÀÝ JA.¹.ªÉAPÀlgÁªÀÄÄ ©£ï.¯Éà atÂÚÃUËqÀ EªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ«£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.29/1 gÀ°è 5 JPÀgÉ 18 UÀÄAmÉAiÀÄ ¥ÉÊQ 2 JPÀgÉ 29 UÀÄAmÉ ºÁUÀÆ JA.PÉ zÉÆqÀØUËqÀ G||C¥ÁàfUËqÀ (¥Ëw) ©£ï PÀȵÀÚUËqÀ EªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÁV F £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è ºÁdgÁV ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæw¤¢ü¹zÀÝ JA.r.UÉÆëAzÉÃUËqÀ ©£ï JA.PÉ zÉÆqÀØUËqÀ G||C¥ÁàfUËqÀ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10340 WP No. 48205 of 2018 (¥Ëw) EªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ«£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA 29/1 gÀ°è G½zÀ 2 JPÀgÉ 29 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁjPÉ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁr DzÉò¹zÉ." 3. As could be seen from the above, the Tribunal has not recorded a finding as to whether the applicants had proved that they were in possession of land in question as tenants as on 01.03.1974. The Tribunal has not considered the RTC and other revenue documents to indicate as to whether the tenants were in possession or the landlords were in possession of the land in question. In short, there is no finding at all as to whether the land was tenanted and whether the applicants were tenants. 4. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall record a specific finding as to whether the land in question was tenanted and whether the applicants were in possession of land in question as tenants as on 01.03.1974. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10340 WP No. 48205 of 2018 5. It is needless to state that while recording the finding the Tribunal shall take into consideration the RTC, revenue records, and other documents and also the evidence adduced by both the parties. 6. It is submitted that the Land Tribunal is not yet constituted. If so, the Government shall take immediate steps to ensure that the Land Tribunal is constituted within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Since the matter is remanded for the second time, it would be appropriate to direct the Tribunal to consider this matter afresh within a period of three months from the date of constitution of the Land Tribunal. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87