- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 24248 OF 2022 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PERNUGOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS S/O LATE SHANKARAGWODA 2. SRI. SUBASH AGED ABOTU 39 YEARS S/O LATE MAYILAPPA GWODA 3. SRI. RAMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O KORAGAPPA GOWDA 4. SRI. PADMANABA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O LATE MANJAPPA GOWDA ALL ARE R/AT KUDELU OUSE BALLIPADY VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK D.K. DISTRICT 74241 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.S.VENUGOPAL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMETN VIDHANA SOUDAH BENGALURU 60 001 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL PUTTUR TALUK, PUTTUR D.K. DISTRICT 574201 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRAMAN 3. SMT. SAKUNTALA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O DASANNA ALVA 4. SMT. NAVEENA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS D/O DASANNA ALVA 5. SRI.SHWETA PRAKASH RAI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O DASANNA ALVA 6. SMT. JAYALALITHA RAI AGED ABOUT YEARS D/O DASANNA ALVA R-3 TO R-6 ARE R/AT KOMBARETTUR HOUSE KEMMINJE VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK D.K DISTRICT 574202. 7. SRI. KUSHALAPPA GOWDA., AGED MAJOR, S/O SHANKARA GOWDA., R/AT KOOTELU HOUSE, BALLIPADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574241. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI.S., HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. A.KESHAVA BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-5; SMT. LATHA.S.SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-6; VIDE ORDER DATED:21.07.2023, NOTICE TO R-7 IS DISPENSED WITH) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE R2 LAND TRIBUNAL DATED 09.11.2022 PASSED IN PROCEEDINGS NO.LRYT/2040, 1942, 4600, 4602, 680/2074-75 AND LRYT 475, 478/1977-78 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE CLAIMS OF THE PETITIONERS IN FORM NO.7 AS PRAYED, 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 is filed challenging the order of rejection of the claims of the tenants made in respect of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.14/1, 14/2, 14/4 and 14/5 of Bellipady village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, which were admittedly owned by Rajivi Rai. 2. In respect of these lands, Shankara Gowda, Fakira Gowda, Koragappa Gowda and Padmanabha Gowda made applications seeking for conferment of occupancy rights. In fact, they claimed the following extents of lands in the following survey numbers (as mentioned in paragraph Nos.2 to 5 of the writ petition): - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 Sl. No. Predecessors of Petitioners Taluk, Village Sy. Nos. Extent of Land (Acres-cents) 1 Shankara Gowda Puttur Tq., Bellipady 14/4 01-22 14/1 00-51 2 Fakira Gowda 14/4 00-43 --“-- 14/1 00-34 14/2 00-34 14/5 01-41 3 Koragappa Gowda --“-- 14/4 01-00 14/2P1 00-22 4 Padmanabha Gowda --“-- 14/4 00-62 14/1 00-25 3. The claim of the petitioners has been considered by the Land Tribunal on five occasions and on all these five occasions, the matter has been remanded to the Land Tribunal by this Court and ultimately, by the impugned order, the claims of all the four tenants have been rejected. 4. Consequently, the petitioners, who are aggrieved by this rejection, are before this Court. 5. The fact that, one Shantamma and others, who were family members of Rajivi Rai, had instituted a suit in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 O.S. No.182 of 1952 seeking for a decree for partition, is not in dispute. 6. It is also not in dispute that in the said suit, none of the tenants were arrayed as defendants. This suit was ultimately decreed on 21.12.1959 and this preliminary decree was the subject matter of a final decree proceeding. 7. In the final decree proceeding, the possession was delivered by the bailiff. It would be useful to extract the entire Delivery Receipt, which reads as follows: “zÀ.PÀ.f¯Áè ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¹«¯ï dqÀØgÀ PÉÆnð£À°è I.A.152 in O.S.182/52 gÁfë PÀÆqÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀħâPÀÌ PÀÆqÁ J¢ægÀÄ ¸À£ï 1971£Éà E¸À« J¦æ¯ï wAUÀ¼À vÁjÃPÀÄ 30 gÀ®Äè ¥ÀÅvÀÆÛgÀÄ vÁ®ÄÌ PÉ«ÄäAeÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÉÆPÀð JA§°ègÀĪÀ ¸ÀħâPÀÌ ºÉAUÀÄì ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆ gÁfë §gÀPÉÆlÖ ¹ÜgÀ D¹Û qÉ°ªÀj gÀ²Ã¢:- ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀåªÀºÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è GAmÁzÀ XXVI 1985 (B.200, 1+2+3+4) £Éà ¹ÜgÀ D¹Û qÉ°ªÀj ªÁgÀAlÄ ºÀÄÌA ¥ÀæPÁgÀ F ¢£À - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 ¥ÀÅvÀÆÛgÀÄ ªÀÄĤì¥sï PÉÆÃlð ¨Éìİ¥sï ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ©.zÉêÀAiÀÄå UËqÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃlÄð ºÀÄÌA ¥ÀæPÁgÀ qÉ°ªÀj ºÉÆAzÀ vÀPÀ̪À¼ÁzÀ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ºÀÄn¤AzÀ vÉÆÃgÀĪÀ ¨É½î¥Áàr UÁæªÀÄzÀ Item No.2 £Éà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Item No.3 £Éà ¹ÜgÀ D¹ÛUÉ §AzÀÄ C°èUÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¥ÀoÉîgÀ£ÀÄß «¯ÉÃeï CPËAmÉAlgÀ£ÀÄß §gÀªÀiÁr¹ UÀrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹ £ÉÆÃrzÀ°è Item No.2 £Éà ¸ÀܼÀªÀÅ ¨Á®PÀȵÀÚ JA§ ZÁ®UÉÃt ªÀPÀè ¸Áé¢üãÀ«zÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ Item No.3 gÀ ¸ÀܼÀ ¸ÀªÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAZÀj¹ £ÉÆÃr UÀrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹ ºÀÄÌA ¸ÀAVÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ºÁdjzÀÝ J¯Áè d£ÀjUÀÆ N¢ ºÉý w½¹. l«ÄÌ ºÉÆqɬĹ, ¥ÀæPÀl ¥Àr¹ ºÀÄÌ«Ä£À AiÀÄxÁ £ÀPÀ®Ä MAzÀ£ÀÄß ¸À¢æ D¹ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ºÀ®¹£À ªÀÄgÀ 1PÉÌ J®ègÀÆ N¢ £ÉÆÃqÀĪÀ ºÁUÉ §»gÀAUÀªÁV vÉÆÃgÀĪÀAvÉ CAn¹AiÀÄÆ ¸À¢æ D¹Û ¸ÀªÁð¢AiÀÄ°è J¢æjUÉ EgÀvÀPÀÌ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¸ÀªÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆÃlÄð ºÀÄÌA ¥ÀæPÁgÀ J¯Áè CfðzÁgÀgÀ §UÉÎ 1£Éà CfðzÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¹.¦ PÉÆÃr£À DqÀðgÀÄ 21 gÀÆ®Ä 35gÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ J¢ægÀ ¨sÉÆÃUÀuɬÄAzÀ vÀ¦à¹ ªÀ¦à¹ PÉÆlÖzÀÄ §AvÀÄ CAvÀ µÀgÁ. D¹ÛAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀ Item No.3: Property situated in Bellipady Village of Puttur Taluk, O.21.R.35 RS: Kissam Extension Assessment 14-4 Nanja I 4-48 14-1 Nanja III 1-02 14-7 Nanja III 1-10 14-2 Bagayath 0-34 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 With all mamool water rights and rights of way. avÀÄÛ µÀgÁ: 1. qÀeÉ. 2. PÀÄAlÄ ¥ÀAQÛ ªÀiÁvÀæ 10 ¥ÉʸÉAiÀÄ gɪɣÀÆå ¸ÁàA¥ÀÅ CAn¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ©.gÁfë gÀÄdÄ (K¼ÀÄ) F §UÉÎ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÀÄ:- 1. Sd/- Illegible 30/4/71 Patel Bellipady 2. Sd/- K.Subba Rao (K.Subba Rao) Village Accountant, Bellipady. 3. Sd/- B.Raghunatha Rai, (B.Raghunatha Rai) S/o. M.Rai, at Bellipady Village. 4. Written by Sd/- B.Devayya Gowda, Bailiff, Munisiff's Court Puttur, S.K. 89/264 True copy on 2 sheets Sd/- Examiner” 8. As could be seen from the above, the Delivery Warrant was in the respect of item Nos.2 and 3. Insofar as Item No.2, the bailiff has categorically stated that it was in the possession of Balakrishna—a chalageni tenant and therefore, the possession was not being delivered. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 9. However, in respect of item No.3, he has clearly stated that he was handing over possession of the said property. This would therefore indicate that this land was not in the possession of any tenants as on that particular date. 10. But, it would be necessary to observe here that since the bailiff had found that one item of the suit properties was tenanted and was in the possession of the tenant and in the very same report, he also states that item No.3 was not in the possession of any tenant, that by itself would indicate that the land was not in the possession of any tenants. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners however seeks to put forth the contention that the question of tenancy was never in dispute, inasmuch as a Receiver had been appointed by the Court during the pendency of the suit filed for partition, and the Receiver had in fact filed a suit for recovery of rents amounting to Rs.1,095.85 including interest and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 costs in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.14/4 measuring 01 acre 22 cents and Sy.No.14/1 measuring 51 cents against Shankar Gowda. 12. This proceeding is relied upon to contend that the land was tenanted and the fact that the suit was filed against Shankara Gowda for recovery of rent, established beyond all doubt that the land was tenanted. 13. Though this argument may appear to be correct at first blush, a reading of the plaint averments would result in a different picture altogether. In paragraph No.III(i) of the plaint in O.S. No.158 of 1972, the Receiver had stated as follows: “III (i) That the Plaintiff is the receiver appointed in place of Sri.M.Jayarama Shetty to manage and to collect the rent or profits of certain properties belonging to Bellippady family in the partition suit of the said family in O.S.182/52 on the file of the Civil Judge of South Kanara. The defendant has been a chalageni tenant under the predecessor-in- - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 office of the Plaintiff in one of the holdings of the said estate situated in Bellipady village more particularly described in schedule ‘A’ below on an annual rent of 11 muras of rice and Rs.0-25 cash, payable by 31st of March. He continued to enjoy the said holding on the same terms both under the predecessor-in-office of the plaintiff and under the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to collect the rent from the defendant till 31.3.1970 as the said holding was delivered to the concerned family members of Bellipady family subsequently through court.” 14. As could be seen from the plaint averments, the Receiver categorically stated that he was demanding rents only till 31.03.1970, the date on which the holding had been delivered to the concerned family members through the Court. 15. The denial of this assertion is not forthcoming, since no document is produced either before the Land Tribunal or before this Court to establish that a finding had been recorded in this suit that Shankara - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 Gowda had continued in possession beyond 31.03.1970 and therefore, the application filed at least by him was maintainable. 16. Even if there is no material to indicate that the assertion of the Receiver that possession was delivered on 31.03.1970 was rejected, the Delivery Receipt would have to be accepted as correct. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioners however, seeks to place reliance on Order XXI Rule 35 and Order XXI Rule 36 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to indicate that the possession of a tenanted property cannot be accepted as a surrender of possession since the procedure only contemplates the delivery to be made symbolically by affixing a copy of the warrant on the property. 18. As already noticed above, the Delivery Receipt makes a conscious difference between a land which was in the possession of the tenant, i.e., item No.2, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 and a land in which the Bailiff did not find anybody in possession i.e., item No.3. 19. It is therefore clear from this that as on 31.03.1970, there was no tenant in possession of the land. 20. It may also be pertinent to state here that the Receiver instituted a suit only against Shankar Gowda—the predecessors-in-title of petitioner No.1 and not against the remaining petitioners i.e. the predecessors-in-interest of Fakira Gowda and Koragappa Gowda or Padmanabha Gowda. This would therefore indicate that if there was any claim that could have been made regarding tenancy, it was only by Shankara Gowda. Since there is no material produced by the legal representatives of Shankara Gowda to establish that they continued to be in possession beyond 31.03.1970, as indicated by the Receiver, that claim that Shankara Gowda was in possession cannot be accepted. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 21. The Land Tribunal was therefore justified in coming to the conclusion that the Delivery Receipt produced by the landlords did indicate that the possession was with the landlord from 31.03.1970 itself. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioners however sought to place reliance on a rent receipt said to have been issued on 29.03.1972 executed by Rajivi Rai in favor of Shankara Gowda. 23. In my view, this receipt cannot be of any significance since the Receiver who had filed the suit himself categorically stated that he was only claiming rents till 31.03.1970. When the receiver himself has stated that the rents were being claimed till 31.03.1970, the receipt would be of no consequence. 24. It may also be pertinent to state here that the rent receipt that is produced indicates that the rents were paid for the period 1970-71 and not for the years beyond 31.03.1970. This would also therefore - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16906 WP No. 24248 of 2022 support the case of the Receiver that the land was not in the possession of Shankara Gowda from 31.03.1970. 25. It may also be pertinent to notice here that the RTCs in respect to the lands in question right from the year 1970-71 have been mutated in favor of the decree holder i.e., the landlords and there is no other document to establish that either Shankara Gowda or the other three applicants were in possession. 26. In that view of the matter, in my view, the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 27. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. 28. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 85