- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11295 WP No. 6890 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 6890 OF 2020 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT CHIKKA THATTA MANGALA VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 135. 2. SMT LALITHAMMA @ AKKAYAMMA D/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT CHIKKA THATTA MANGALA VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 135. 3. SRI THIMMARAYAPPA S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT CHIKKA THATTA MANGALA VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 135. 4. SRI. LAGUMAPPA., S/O LATE RAMMAPPA., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKA THATTA MANGALA VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562135. …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11295 WP No. 6890 of 2020 (BY SRI. VIKHAR AHMED.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA-561 203 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 3. THE TAHSILDAR THE TAHSILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI-562 110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 4. SMT V C GOWRAMMA W/O Y C BAJJAPPA D/O CHIKKAVEERANNA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT NO.1027/136 71ST A CROSS, 20TH MAIN 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA BENGALURU-560 010 5. SRI S MUNIRAJU S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O RAMAMURTHYNAGAR YARAPPANAPALYA BENGALURU-560 016 6. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O LATE RAMAPPA AGEDA BOUT 42 YEARS R/AT JARAMANDAHALLI VILLAGE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11295 WP No. 6890 of 2020 MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101 7. SRI RAJANNA S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT YEARS R/O RAMAMURTHYNAGAR YARAPPANAPALYA BENGALURU-560 016 8. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA., W/O C.ASHWATHANARAYANA., AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT No.639, SULIBELE MAIN ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TALUK AND TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI.S., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.03.2025, NOTICE TO R-4 TO R-7 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI. T.SHESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R-8) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN REVENUE APPEAL NO.571/2005 VIDE ANNX-T, 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11295 WP No. 6890 of 2020 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is by the petitioners - tenant challenging the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by which, the Tribunal reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, who had granted the land to the tenant by holding that land had vested in the State and the petitioners were cultivating the land. 2. In the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner has placed reliance on a spot inspection, statement of the villagers and also a recommendation of the Tahsildar to come to the conclusion that the land was vested in the State and proceeded to grant the land to the tenant. 3. However, the Tribunal has taken the view on the basis of the documents produced by the landlord that the RTC stood in the name of the landlord and, therefore, there was no material to indicate that the land in question was a tenanted land and had stood vested in the State. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11295 WP No. 6890 of 2020 4. Importantly, after considering the contention of the landlord, the Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the Assistant Commissioner had passed the impugned order in favour of the tenant without serving the notice of the proceedings on the landlord. 5. If the Tribunal were to conclude that the order that had been passed by the Assistant Commissioner was without hearing the landlord, the Tribunal ought to have merely remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner and issued a direction to the Assistant Commissioner to record a finding as to whether the land had stood vested in the State and, whether the applicant had proved that he was in possession as on the date of vesting and continued in possession. 6. The Tribunal, in my view, could not have come to the conclusion that the RTCs, which had not been considered by the Assistant Commissioner, could be the basis for rejection of the petitioners' claim. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11295 WP No. 6890 of 2020 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the landlord places reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Lokayya Poojary's case1 and contends that the factum of vesting should be an undisputed fact and, an enquiry cannot be gone into as to whether the land in question was tenanted or not. 8. It must be stated here that, in this very judgment the Full Bench has stated that, there is no need for an order of vesting to be passed and, the question of vesting of the land was by operation of law. The Full Bench has also said that, there must be a Government record, which indicated that the land in question was vested. 9. This, by itself indicates that the Assistant Commissioner was required to record a finding as to whether the land vested in the State or not and, this 1 Lokayya Poojary and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others - ILR 2012 KAR 4345 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11295 WP No. 6890 of 2020 would obviously depend on the documents produced by the tenant as well as by the landlord. 10. In the present case, the Assistant Commissioner had placed reliance on a spot inspection and a recommendation of the Tahsildar to conclude that the land in question had vested. Unless this finding was found to be incorrect, the Tribunal could not have disturbed the said order. 11. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would indicate that, the Tribunal has not even considered the correctness or otherwise of the spot inspection, statement of the villages and also the recommendation of the Tahsildar. 12. In my view, therefore, the order the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 13. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter shall now stand remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, who shall consider the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11295 WP No. 6890 of 2020 matter afresh and, record a clear finding as to whether the land in question had vested in the State as on 01.03.1974, and whether the tenant was in possession as on that date and continued to be in possession till the date of his application. 14. The Assistant Commissioner shall complete this exercise within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 15. This petition is accordingly allowed. 16. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1