- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20566 WP NO.35486 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.35486 OF 2024 (LR) BETWEEN: SMT. SEETHAMMA W/O D.R. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT HOUSE NO.14, GROUP-1 KHB COLONY, HOOTAGALLI EXTENSION, MYSURU - 570 010. REP. BY HER G.P.A. HOLDER SRI. PUTTARAMEGOWDA, S/O NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.14. GROUP-1 KHB COLONY, HOOTAGALLI EXTENSION, MYSURU - 570 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.R. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSURU SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU - 570 001. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20566 WP NO.35486 OF 2024 3. SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHARAJA WADEYAR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S SMT. PRAMODA DEVI, W/O SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHARAJA WADEYAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT MYSURU PALACE, MYSURU - 570 001. 4. SRI. YADHUVEERA WADEYAR S/O SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHARAJA WADEYAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT MYSURU PALACE, MYSURU - 570 001. 5. THE REGISTRAR THE MYSURU UNIVERSITY, MANASA GANGOTHRI, MYSURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET- ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU IN CASE NOS.LRF 7(A) 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 243, 243/A, 243/C/98-99 DATED 06TH JULY, 2011 VIDE ANNEXURE- F INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED; SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU PASSED IN APPEAL NO.863/2011 DATED 13TH OCTOBER, 2017 VIDE ANNXURE-G; AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION NO.2/2018 DATED 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-H; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20566 WP NO.35486 OF 2024 ORAL ORDER Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 23rd September, 2024 (Annexure-H) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Review Petition No.2/2018; order dated 13th October, 2017 (Annexure-G) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.863/2011; and order dated 06th July, 2011 (Annexure-F) passed by the Land Tribunal, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru in case No.LRF 7(A) 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 243/A, 243/C/98-99, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for granting occupancy rights in respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition as averred by the petitioner are that, the land bearing Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk is one among the several lands belonging to the Maharaja of Mysuru and the said land was leased in favour of several persons. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner is a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20566 WP NO.35486 OF 2024 tenant in respect of the land bearing Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli, Mysuru Taluk to an extent of 8 acre 31 guntas and due to her ignorance, the petitioner has not filed Form No.7, seeking registration of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question, despite the petitioner was a tenant. It is also stated that, after the incorporation of Section 77A to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the petitioner filed an application in Form No.7A, seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. The respondent No.2, after clubbing the applications filed by several applicants along with the application of the petitioner, by order dated 31st January, 2000, had rejected the applications. The said order of rejection of applications was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.19215/200, 34993/2000, 8107-8108/2001, 34994/200 and 34995/2000, and this Court, dismissed the writ petitions by reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal Nos.530- 532/2003 and the said appeals were allowed and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20566 WP NO.35486 OF 2024 4. It is also stated that the enquiry was conducted by the Land Tribunal after remand by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the son-in-law of the petitioner has prosecuted the matter, since the petitioner was aged. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal, by order dated 06th July, 2011, rejected the applications made by the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.863/2011 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 13th October, 2017 (Annexure-G), rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Review Petition No.2/2018 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru and the said review petition came to be dismissed, by order dated 23rd September, 2024 (Annexure-H). Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Heard Sri. K.R. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20566 WP NO.35486 OF 2024 6. Sri. K.R. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the land in question and in this regard, RTC extracts stands in the name of the petitioner as a tenant and further, though landlord was receiving the Gutta from the petitioner, the said aspect has been ignored by the respondents and the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, by referring to the applications filed by the petitioner and the revenue records in respect of the land in question, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought for interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, originally the land in question belongs to the Maharaja of Mysuru and the Maharaja of Mysuru, had gifted the vast land situate in Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village, Mysuru Taluk to an extent of 22 acres in favour of His Excellency President of India for construction of Institute of Speech and Hearing at Mysuru. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that, as all the respondent-Authorities and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20566 WP NO.35486 OF 2024 have concurrently held against the petitioner, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the respondent No.2 in the impugned orders, the same would indicate that the petitioner has not shown any document before the Land Tribunal, Mysuru and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to establish that she was cultivating the land in question as on 01st March, 1974. It is forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the impugned orders that the petitioner herein has failed to establish her possession and enjoyment of the land in question as on 01st March, 1974. It is also forthcoming from the petition that the Geni Chit has not been produced before the respondent-Authorities and no documents were produced before the respondent-Authorities, even after the incorporation of Section 77A to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is also clear that, in the RTC extracts produced by the petitioner, the name of the petitioner is not find place in the cultivators - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20566 WP NO.35486 OF 2024 column. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has failed to establish her possession in respect of the land in question and that apart the land has been granted by the then Maharaja of Mysuru in favour of His Excellency the President of India for the purpose of construction of Institute of Speech and Hearing at Mysuru and the said Institute is situated in Mysuru for more than fifty years, providing medical assistance relating to the ENT, I am of the view that, no interference be called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31