- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20928 WP No. 54209 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.54209 OF 2013 (LR-SEC 48A) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. B.C. NIRMALA KUMARI SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS SRI C.V. KALLIMANI H/O LATE SMT. B.C. NIRMALA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. SRI C.K. PRASHANTH S/O. LATE B.C. NIRMALA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 3. SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O. LATE B.C. NIRMALA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT 16/6/7 NIRMALA CHANDRA SRI SAI BABA MANDIR ROAD MATRU LAYOUT, NEAR MOTHER DAIRY GKVK POST, YALAHANKA NEWTOWN BENGALURU-560 065. 4. UMMA REDDY VEERA GANESH S/O. SRI VENKATESWARALU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT BAPATLA VILLAGE GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-522 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20928 WP No. 54209 of 2013 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDINGS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BENGALURU NORTH TALUK (DEVANAHALLI) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PODIUM BLOCK, T.V. TOWER BENGALURU-560 001. 3. 3(A) SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O. B.H. NARAYANASWAMY SINCE DEAD BY LRS VASANTHA LAKSHMI DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE VENKATAMMA W/O. LATE B.M. RAMAJANI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 3(B) ANIL KUMAR S/O. OF LATE B.M. RAMANJANI GRAND SON OF LATE VENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. 3(C) KUM. TULASI D/O. OF LATE B.M. RAMANJANI GRAND DAUGHTER OF LATE VENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. 3(D) SMT. SUMANGALA W/O. LATE B.N. ANAND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE VENKATAMMA S/O. LATE B.H. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 3(A) AND 3(D) ARE RESIDING AT BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20928 WP No. 54209 of 2013 BENGALURU-562 157. 4. SENIOR BASIC SCHOOL REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MASTER BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE CHIKKA JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-562 157. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH K. H.C.G.P. FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI M. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3(A, B AND D); R-3(C) AND R-4 ARE SERVED) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.LRF 943/1979-80 DATED 6TH AUGUST 2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 06.08.2011 passed by respondent No.2 in case No.LRF/943/1979-80 produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition, inter-alia, seeking for declaration that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to review the earlier order dated 16.02.1994 produced at Annexure-G to the writ petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20928 WP No. 54209 of 2013 2. It is the case of petitioners that the land bearing Sy.No.28(New No.38) measuring 4.35 acres of Jodi Papanahalli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk was cultivated by one B.H. Narayanaswamy, the husband of late Venkatamma. It is also stated that the land has been classified as Inam land as per personal and Miscellaneous Inam under the provisions of Mysore personal and miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short 'Act of 1954'). It is also stated that, the husband of late Venkatamma-B.H.Narayanaswamy has filed an application in Form No.1 before the Competent Authority seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of the subject land. The said application was registered as case No.15, 9 and 14/1959-60, as the other persons in the same village have also claimed in different survey numbers. 3. The Competent Authority after considering the material on record, by order dated 21.12.1967, granted occupancy right in favour of Sri. B.H.Narayanaswamy under Section 6 of the Act of 1954 (Annexure-B). It is also stated in the petition that, at the time of granting of the land in favour of said Sri. B.N. Narayanaswamy, one Sri. Annayyappa was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20928 WP No. 54209 of 2013 cultivating the land in question as a tenant and after the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the said Sri. Annayyappa has filed an application in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of the subject land. The said application was registered as LRF.No.2/1974-75 and respondent No.2-Land Tribunal after conducting enquiry, was pleased to grant occupancy right in favour Sri. Annayyappa in respect of the subject land bearing Sy.No.28(New Sy.No.38) in LRF No.2/1974-75 dated 16.10.1976 (Annexure-C). It is further stated in the petition that the survey Authorities have conducted the re-survey of the land in question and also phodi and durasth has been made with regard to the subject land. It is further stated that respondent No.3 herein has challenged the order dated 16.10.1976 (Annexure-C) before this Court in WP.No.46355/2002 and this Court vide order dated 08.09.2003 (Annexure - D), allowed the writ petition and as such, remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal with a direction to transfer the application of respondent No.3 insofar as relates to the land in question, to the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition Act to re-consider and pass appropriate orders on the said application. It is also stated in the petition that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20928 WP No. 54209 of 2013 original grantee before the Land Tribunal - B.Annayyapppa has sold the land in question in favour of one Sri. N.K.Ramaswamy Iyengar as per the registered Sale Deed dated 22.01.1988 (Annexure-E). Thereafter, the said purchaser of the land-Sri. N.K. Ramaswamy Iyengar had approached the Tahsildar, Devanahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk for change of mutation entry in respect of the subject land and in this regard, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, on 16.11.1988 as per (Annexure-F) passed the order. In the meanwhile, the said Sri. N.K. Ramaswamy Iyengar has sold the land in question in favour of Sri. N.Ramaiah as per registered Sale Deed dated 18.01.1992 and thereafter, the mutation records have been accordingly modified. In the meanwhile, petitioners herein have challenged the order dated 08.09.2003 in WP.No.46355/2002 (Annexure-D) before the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.7783/2003 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.03.2005, allowed the Writ Appeal in-part and as such, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and further, observed that the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru, shall take decision in the matter with regard to considering the case of the parties afresh. It is also further - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20928 WP No. 54209 of 2013 submitted that, the order dated 16.02.1994 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent No.2 herein was questioned before this Court in WP.No.23532/1999 and this Court vide order dated 09.11.2000 (Annexure-M), has allowed the writ petition and accordingly, arrived at a conclusion that there is discrepancy in respect of the subject land is concerned and accordingly, remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand made by this Court as per Annexure-M, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent No.2 on 06.08.2011 as per Annexure-A. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri. S.G.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. M.Srinivasa, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3(a, b and d). 5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that, respondent No.2 herein has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order after the conclusion of the proceedings by the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.7783/2003 and the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20928 WP No. 54209 of 2013 Division Bench of this Court has interfered with the order passed by the learned Single Judge with regard to remanding the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration. In that view of the matter, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to look into the grant of the occupancy made in favour of the father of the petitioner herein and respondent No.2 has become functus officio, after the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.7783/2003. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private-respondent, invited the attention of this Court to the points for consideration made by this Court as per the order dated 03.03.2020 and submitted that, petitioners herein are claim to be the tenants of their father which is not permissible under law to file the application in Form No.7 before the Tribunal. 7. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for private-respondents that, the findings recorded by the Tribunal is that petitioners herein have not filed Form - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20928 WP No. 54209 of 2013 No.7 and the entire case of petitioners herein is based on certain observations made in the order with regard to the filing of Form No.7, which has no place in the records and accordingly, sought for dismissal of this Case. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that, the entire case of petitioners is based on filing of Form No.7 in respect of the subject land bearing Sy.No.28 before the Special Deputy Commissioner, which has already been concluded by this Court in W.P.No.23532/1999 dated 09.11.2000 and therefore, it is contended that fraud has been made before this Court by referring to filing of Form No.7 is concerned and as such, the learned Senior Counsel refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V.PAPAYYA SASTRY AND OTHERS Vs. GOVT. GOVT. OF A.P. AND OTHERS reported in (2007)4 SCC 221 and submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Per contra, Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader has placed the original records and submitted that petitioners herein have not filed Form No.7 in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20928 WP No. 54209 of 2013 respect of the subject land and accordingly, submitted that the order at Annexure-A requires to be confirmed in this petition. 10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the four points raised by this Court, by order dated 03.03.2020, reads as follows: 1. How the Form No.7 can be filed by the petitioner No.1- married daughter against her father Sri Chandrashekariah in respect of Sy.No.28 of Jodi Papanahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk? 2. If the competent authority/Special Deputy Commissioner already granted four properties as per Annexure-B on 21.12.1967 in favour of husband of respondent No.3 herein- Smt.Venkatamma in Sy.Nos.40, 27, 28 to an extent of 4 acres 35 guntas and in Sy.No.29, how the petitioner No.1 could again file Form No.7 in respect of 4 acres 9 guntas in the very Sy.No.28, either the survey number should be the larger extent. If Sy.No.28 is one and the same, how the extent 4 acres 9 guntas differs. Learned single judge considering the entire material on record recorded the finding that, if Sy.No.28 and other survey numbers are already granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Inam, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy right in favour of the present petitioners to an extent of 4 acres 9 guntas in Sy.No.28. 3. The present petitioners also made statement before the learned single Judge that Sy.No.28 was granted in favour of husband of present respondent No.3. Therefore, the learned single Judge quashed the occupancy grant made by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy right. Accordingly, quashed the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20928 WP No. 54209 of 2013 order of the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to transmit the application to respondent No.3 therein insofar as the said survey numbers. 4. The order passed by the learned single Judge is the subject matter of the writ appeal by the present petitioners, wherein, the writ appellate Court observed that there was no order challenged made in favour of the present petitioners. Therefore, nothing warrants the learned single Judge to issue suo-moto and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. The Division Bench also made it clear that “Further the appellant herein is bound by the statement made by him before the learned single judge which is recorded in para 3 of the order.” 11. On careful examination of the points referred to by this Court, undisputably petitioners herein claimed right in respect of the land in question against their father stating that they filed Form No.7. After considering the record produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader and the statement made by the learned High Court Government Pleader would indicate that the Form No.7 is not filed by petitioners herein. 12. It is also to be noted that, this Court vide order dated 08.09.2003 in Writ Petition No.46355/2002 (Annexure-H), remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal with a direction to transfer the application of respondent No.3 therein (petitioner herein) to the Competent Authority-Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, to consider the same afresh. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20928 WP No. 54209 of 2013 However, the said order is merged with the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.7783/2003 dated 09.03.2005. The entire case of petitioners herein before the Division Bench of this Court is based on the ground that the Form No.7 has been filed by petitioners claiming occupancy right in respect of the subject land against her father. 13. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that, there is no Form No.7 filed by petitioners herein claiming the occupancy right in respect of the subject land, I am of the view that, arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents requires to be accepted in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V.PAPAYYA SASTRY AND OTHERS (supra). 14. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the private respondents herein have produced the deposition of the wife of the original land owner (father of petitioners) as per Annexure-R14, admittedly, there was no filing of Form No.7, I am of the view that the findings recorded - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20928 WP No. 54209 of 2013 by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-A requires to be confirmed in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as having no merit. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58