- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 54869 OF 2013 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SIDDAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS., 1(a) SMT. V.B.MALLIGAMMA, W/O SIDDAPPA., AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 1(b) SRI. PRAKASHA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 1(c) SRI. SURESHA.V.S, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 1(d) SRI. MALLESHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 1(e) SRI.V.S.MAHADEVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, APPLICANTS 1(b) TO (e) ARE THE SONS OF SRI.SIDDAPPA., ALL ARE R/AT VOLAGERE VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571315. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VASUDHA H R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BNAGALORE-560001 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL NANJANGUD TQ., MYSORE DIST. MYSORE BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. 3(a) SRI NAGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA, MAJOR 3(b) SMT. PARVATHAMMA S/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA, MAJOR 3(c) SRI MADAPPA S/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA, MAJOR 3(d) SRI BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA, MAJOR 3(e) SMT. RAJESHWARI D/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA, MAJOR 3(f) SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA, MAJOR 3(g) SRI SHIVAPPA, S/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA MAJOR 10. SMT. GOWRAMMA S/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA, MAJOR R-3(a) TO (h) ARE R/O KATHWADIPURA VILLAGE, NANJANGUD TALUK-571315. 4. SMT. M V SHARADAMMA W/O K RAMASWAMY, MAJOR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 R/AT NO. 83, 3RD BLOCK EAST THANDAVESWARA TEMPLE ROAD LIC COLONY, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. P.MAHESHA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3(a TO h); VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2019, NOTICE TO R-4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-C DATED.12.9.2012 PASSED BY THE R-2 LAND TRIBUNAL, NANJANGUD, IN CASE NO.LRF.3783/74-75, 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. This petition arises out of an order of the Land Tribunal in respect of which applications seeking for conferment of occupancy rights were filed in respect of Sy.No.11 of Kathwadipura Village, Nanjangud Taluk. 2. Unfortunately, this is a case in which the matter has come back to this Court after four orders of remand and in order to put an end to the matter, the matter - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 is taken up for consideration on merits of the claim of both the parties. 3. Applications were filed in Form-7 by Nagappa. In fact, he made two applications. The first application was made on 25.06.1976, in which he claimed tenancy only in respect of 1 acre 5 guntas. He also made a second application on 15.01.1979, whereby he increased his claim to the entire extent of 2 acres 10 guntas. 4. Siddappa was the other claimant who filed Form-7 on 10.07.1978 claiming an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.11. 5. In both the applications filed by Nagappa and Siddappa, it was shown that one Sharadamma was the landlady. 6. On 10.04.1981, the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in respect of both Nagappa and Siddappa to an extent of 25 guntas each. However, this order was challenged and the same was set - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 aside by this Court and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration to the Tribunal. 7. On remand, the Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in favour of Siddappa in respect of 1 acre 10 guntas by order dated 18.08.1988, and it also rejected the claim of Nagappa. 8. Nagappa, being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim and by grant of occupancy rights in favour of Siddappa, preferred an appeal to the erstwhile Land Reforms Authority from which the appeal was transferred to this Court on the petition being filed by Nagappa and it was ultimately converted into a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.30790/1993 and this writ petition of Nagappa was allowed vide order dated 18.02.2000 and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 9. On remand, the Tribunal proceeded to confer occupancy rights in favour of Nagappa in respect of 1 acre 10 guntas by order dated 03.05.2005. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 10. Being aggrieved by this, Siddappa filed W.P.No.22305/2005 which was allowed and the matter was again remanded to the Tribunal by order dated 11.04.2008. 11. On remand, by the impugned order, the Tribunal has conferred occupancy rights in favour of Nagappa on the basis of the statement given by the landlady Sharadamma. 12. Siddappa, being aggrieved by rejection of his Form-7 is before this Court by way of this writ petition. 13. The Tribunal, by the impugned order has basically conferred occupancy rights in favour of Nagappa only on the statement given by the landlady Sharadamma who admitted that he was the tenant and she also stated that he was giving her rent in the form of seven pallas of paddy. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that Sharadamma had stated that she was not even aware of Siddappa and therefore, his application could not be considered. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 14. Smt.H.R.Vasudha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land was undoubtedly a tenanted land and the tenant was one Kempananjappa, who was the father of Mallappa and Mallamma. She submits that Siddappa, the applicant was the son of Mallappa, whereas Nagappa, the other claimant was the foster son of Mallamma. These facts are not in serious dispute. 15. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that Mallamma had purchased 1 acre from the erstwhile landlady Sharadamma in the year 1961 and on the death of Mallamma, Nagappa, being her foster son, had inherited the property. It is therefore clear that out of the entire extent of 2 acres 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.11, Mallamma was in fact the owner of nearly half of the property i.e., 1 acre of land and the dispute was with regard to remaining extent of 1 acre 10 guntas of land in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 respect of which both Siddappa and Nagappa claimed to be the tenants. 16. The RTC of the relevant period from 1971 reflects the name of Mallamma in the cultivator's column. However, it may be pertinent to state here that Mallamma's name was shown as cultivator in respect of 1 acre of land only and she was also shown to be the khatedar in respect of 1 acre. It is therefore clear that the entry of name of Mallamma in the revenue record can only be attributable to purchase that she had made and the entry cannot be taken as an entry which reflected the tenancy of Mallamma. 17. It is not in dispute that in the RTC, the name of Siddappa, her foster son was never entered as a tenant, nor was his name even found in the records except for the year 1975-76 where his name was shown along with Mallamma. 18. In other words, as per the entries in the RTC, the name of Nagappa was entered in addition to or - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 jointly with Mallamma and his entitlement to be in possession independently has not been recognized in the revenue records. 19. Smt.H.R.Vasudha, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the register maintained i.e., Fasal Patrike for recording the crops, boundaries, etc., which were found in the records of the Land Tribunal clearly indicate that in respect of Sy.No.11 covering an extent of 2 acres 10 guntas, 1 acre was shown to be in possession of Mallamma and an extent of 1 acre was shown to be in possession of Mallaiah's son Siddappa and the mode of cultivation was shown as guttige. She therefore contends that if the extract of the year 1971 categorised the possession of Mallamma as self cultivation for 1 acre and the cultivation of Siddappa as tenant for the remaining 1 acre, it is obvious that Nagappa who claimed under Mallamma could not claim to be a tenant in respect of 1 acre. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 20. In other words, it is her contention that since Nagappa was claiming under Mallamma and the RTC of the year 1975-76 also indicates that both their names were entered jointly, it is clear that claim of Nagappa was that of a owner claiming title under Mallamma and it was never the case of Nagappa that he was the tenant of the land in question. 21. She also submits that the entry indicating that Siddappa was in possession of 1 acre as a tenant proves her assertion that Siddappa was the tenant of this land in question and in light of this document in which the name of both Mallamma and Siddappa were entered, the Tribunal could not have conferred occupancy rights in favour of Nagappa solely on the statement of Sharadamma, the landlady. 22. It may be pertinent to state here that Sharadamma on the earlier occasion had in fact given a letter to the Land Tribunal conceding that Siddappa was the tenant, but in the subsequent round of litigation, she - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 changed her stand and stated that Nagappa was the tenant and she never knew Siddappa. She also incidentally conceded that Nagappa had given her and her husband the requisite rents and she therefore conceded the tenancy in his favour. 23. In light of this oscillating stand of Sharadamma, no credence can be given to her evidence, more so, when revenue records do not reflect her statement given before the Land Tribunal. 24. As already noticed above, in the revenue record, there was a clear entry that Siddappa was in possession of 1 acre as a tenant and the very same record also indicates that Mallamma was in possession of 1 acre and that was on the basis of her own cultivation. 25. As already noticed above, the RTC also reflected the fact that Mallamma had also purchased 1 acre of land from erstwhile landlady and therefore, the entry in the RTC in which name of Mallamma and Nagappa - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 were indicated cannot lead to an inference that they were tenants of land in question. 26. It may also be pertinent to state here that the conduct of Nagappa is also not trustworthy. In the year 1976, he made an application in Form-7 contending that he was in possession of land to an extent of 1 acre, but three years thereafter in the year 1979, he enlarged his claim to an extent of 2 acres 10 guntas. 27. As already noticed above, Nagappa is the foster son of Mallamma who had purchased 1 acre from Sharadamma and her husband. If that be the admitted position, question of Nagappa claiming to be tenant of entire land, half of which was owned by his foster mother would clearly indicates that he was trying to grab both the lands purchased by his mother and also the remaining land. 28. In my view, in light of the clear entry in the revenue record which indicates that Siddappa was in - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 cultivation of land in question to an extent of 1 acre on guttige, the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained. 29. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for Nagappa that the statement of Sharadamma, the rent receipts and also the statement of other witnesses justify the conferment of occupancy rights in favour of Nagappa cannot be accepted for two reasons. 30. Firstly, as stated above, the evidence of Sharadamma is completely untrustworthy. While she contends in one round of litigation that Siddappa was the tenant and later, she resiles from that statement and states that she does not even know Siddappa and hence, no amount of evidence of Shardamma would lead to an inference that Nagappa was the tenant. 31. Secondly, rent receipts that were produced by Sharadamma or from her husband would also be of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 no consequence. If the landlady is inconsistent about the tenancy and in each round, changes her version regarding the tenants, any document which was given by her as a rent receipt cannot be accepted. 32. It may also be pertinent to notice here that in the statement given before the Land Tribunal Sharadamma had affixed her signature in English, but in all the rent receipts which were of the year 1970-1971 and 1974, her signature was in Kannada. It is therefore doubtful as to whether the rent receipts produced were indeed signed by Sharadamma, who has signed the same in Kannada. 33. Learned counsel appearing for Nagappa also seeks to contend that the document relied upon by Siddappa i.e., Fasal Patrike cannot be accepted. 34. It is to be noticed here that the proceedings before the Land Tribunal are summary in nature and strict rules of evidence as in a original suit cannot be applied. The records produced by Siddappa were - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12879 WP No. 54869 of 2013 neither objected to by Nagappa at any point in time, nor did he cross-examine Siddappa with regard to said document. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for Nagappa cannot be accepted. 35. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the Land Tribunal is directed to register the name of Siddappa as tenant in respect of 1 acre 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.11 of Kathwadipura Village in Nanjangud Taluk. 36. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30