- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1632-DB WA No. 100034 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100034 OF 2021 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O TAKAPPA AGE. 89 YEARS, 2. SMT. KAMALAVVA W/O RAMAPPA TADAS AGE. 69 YEARS, 3. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O MADIVALAPPA BILLANNAVAR AGE. 68 YEARS, 4. SRI. CHANDRAKANTA S/O TAKAPPA SAVADATTI AGE. 61 YEARS, ALL ARE REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI. PRAKASH S/O NAGAIAH SHETTY, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MAHENDRAKAR CHAWL, DHARWAD. 5. SRI. PRAKASH SHETTY S/O NAGAIAH SHETTY AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MAHENDRAKAR CHOWLA, DHARWAD- 580001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1632-DB WA No. 100034 of 2021 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DHARWAD SUB DIVISION, DHARWAD-580001. 3. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. RUDRAPPA LOKUR SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS. 3.A SRI RUDRAPPA LOKUR AGE. 78 YEARS, (HUSBAND OF DECEASED R3) 3.B SRI RAMU RUDRAPPA LOKUR AGE. 56 YEARS, (DECEASED SON OF R3) (DECEASED BY HIS LRS.) 3.Bi LALITA RAMU LOKUR AGE. 51 YEARS, 3.Bii MASTER VILAS RAMU LOKUR MINOR, REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER. 3.Biii MASTER VIKAS RAMU LOKUR MINOR, REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, 3.C IRAPPA RUDRAPPA LOKUR S/O. RUDRAPPA LOKUR AGE. 46 YEARS, 3.D BASAVARAJ RUDRAPPA LOKUR S/O RUDRAPPA LOKUR AGE. 43 YEARS, ALL THE ABOVE LRS ARE R/AT. NAVARLU CHAWNI, WADAMMANAVAR BHAVI ROAD, NAVALUR, DHARWAD-580001. 3.E YALLAVVA MADDANI AGE. 47 YEARS, R/AT. VITTAL NAGAR, NEAR VITTAL MANDIR, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1632-DB WA No. 100034 of 2021 NAVALUR, DHARWAD-580001 (DAUGHTER OF R3) 3.F IRAVVA LOKUR AGE. 46 YEARS, R/O DHARWAD TADASINKOPPA ROAD, NEAR ENTRANCE TADASINKOPPA VILLAGE, TADASINKOPPA, DHAWAD-580001 (DAUGHTER OF R3) 4. BHIMAPPA S/O BASAPPA SAVADATTI AGE. 71 YEARS, R/O. NEW LANE, HOSAYELLAPURA, NAVALUR POST, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD- 580001. 5. FAKIRAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA KALAPPANAVAR AGE. 66 YEARS, R/O. NAVALUR VILLAGE AND POST. TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. S.N. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3B(i), R3(C-F) AND R5; R3B (ii AND iii) ARE MINORS R/BY R3B(i); NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED; R3(A) APPEAL ABATED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 09.02.2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10896/2005 (LR) BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1632-DB WA No. 100034 of 2021 THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD) The appellants are the legal heirs of Sri. Takappa, one of the undisputed owners of the land in Sy. No.178 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas of Navalur Village, Dharwad Taluk and District [the subject property]. The legal heirs of the deceased third respondent will be entitled to the Occupancy Rights of the subject property if the Land Tribunal’s order dated 19.02.2002 in proceedings No.1312/1999- 2000 prevails, but at the instance of the first appellant [the wife of Sri. Takappa], and Sri. Iranna S/o. Nagappa Malligwad, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [the Appellate Tribunal] has interfered with the Land Tribunal’s order in Appeal No.169/2002. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1632-DB WA No. 100034 of 2021 2. The appellate Tribunal by its order dated 03.03.2005 has remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad for fresh disposal. The appellant [the wife of one of the land owners] and certain purchasers have called in question the appellate Tribunal’s order in W.P. No.10896/2005. The writ Court has refused to interfere with the order of remand observing that all questions are left open to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner [the competent authority]. 3. Sri. Nandish Patil, the learned counsel for the appellants, contends that this Court must interfere with the writ Court’s order as also the competent authority’s order and the appellate authority’s order, contending that [a] the third respondent was not a tenant as of the effective date 01.04.1974 and she did not continue in possession of the subject property when she filed an application in Form 7A, [b] the subject property even according to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1632-DB WA No. 100034 of 2021 the competent authority’s observations is not an agricultural land because guava and mango trees are cultivated, and [c] the third respondent, who is now deceased and represented by her legal heirs, owned lands over the ceiling limits as observed by the competent authority. 4. Sri. S.N. Rajendra, the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased third respondent, is heard in the light of these submissions. The learned counsel submits that there cannot be any dispute that the subject property was tenanted in view of the concurrent finding of fact by the competent authority and the appellate Tribunal based on the revenue entries during the relevant years for the subject property and the acceptance of vesting as evidenced by revenue entry in mutation No.5192 certified by the Revenue Inspector on 24.12.1976. The learned counsel also submits that given the provisions of Section 2(18) of the Karnataka - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1632-DB WA No. 100034 of 2021 Land Reforms Act, 1961 it cannot be argued that even if a land is cultivated for horticultural crops, it would be an agricultural land. 5. As regards the contention that the deceased third respondent has not established that she continued to be in possession of the subject property as of the date of the submission of Form 7A, Sri. S.N. Rajendra submits that this ground is being urged for the first time but asserting that this is an aspect that could be considered for confirmation of occupancy rights under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. On the question of extent of land owned by the deceased third respondent, the learned counsel submits that the competent authority has rejected the application on the ground that the third respondent owned more than the ceiling limit despite observing that she held these lands in common with others, but the appellate - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1632-DB WA No. 100034 of 2021 Tribunal rightly remanded the matter back for reconsideration. 6. This Court, on reading the competent authority’s order and the appellate Tribunal’s order, must observe that there are conclusive findings on vesting of the subject property and the land being tenanted in favour of the third respondent’s father [who has died in the year 1975] and the subject land having horticultural crops. However, the question whether the third respondent, as of the relevant date, owned any land in excess of the ceiling limit on her own is an aspect that is yet to be considered. This Court must opine that for complete adjudication, the competent authority must also examine whether the respondent continued in possession of the subject land as of the date in Form 7A, and that this must be considered in the light of the fact, amongst others, that it is undisputed that the third respondent’s father was in possession as a tenant, and that on his - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1632-DB WA No. 100034 of 2021 demise, the third respondent was permitted to look after the land which had horticultural crops. 7. In the light of these conclusions, the writ Court’s order is confirmed, and the competent authority is directed to examine the necessary aspects in the light of this Court’s observations as aforesaid. The competent authority shall expedite its decision on merits after due notice and perusal of records but within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The appeal stands disposed of with the above observations. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 23