- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2016 (LR-) BETWEEN: SHAMSHUDDIN SAB SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SRI K. S. ALLAUDDIN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA B. HANJER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M. S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL SORAB DISTRICT: SHIMOGA - 577 429. 3. SRI BANGARAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 3.1. SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O. LATE SRI BANGARAPPA MUDI AT: KALIGGERI, POST: JADE TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. (DECEASED) Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 3.2. PARASHURAM MUDI S/O. LATE SRI BANGARAPPA MUDI AT: KALIGGERI, POST: JADE TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. 3.3. RAVI MUDI S/O. LATE SRI BANGARAPPA MUDI AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. 4. VENKATESH S/O. SHRI NEELAPPA AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 4.A. PADMAVATHI W/O. LATE SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. SRI. LATE NAGARAJ S/O. VENKATESH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 4.A.1. SMT. TARABAI W/O. LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4.A.2. SRI PRAVEEN S/O. LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 4.A.3 SRI PRASHANTA S/O. LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 4.A.4 SRI PRAMODA S/O. LATE NAGARAJ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.4.A.1 TO 4.A.4 ARE RESIDING AT JADE VILLAGE, SORAB TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. 4.B. SUMITRA D/O. LATE SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. 5. MARIYAMBI W/O. SHARPUDDIN SAB AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 5.A. NAZIR SAB S/O. SHARPUDDIN SAB AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. 5.B. KHAJAMODIN SAB SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 5.B.1. MAINUDDIN S/O. KHAJAMODIN SAB AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. 5.B.1.A. SMT. SHABEENA BANU W/O. LATE MAINUDDIN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5.B.1.B. MRS. SUHANA BANU D/O. LATE MAINUDDIN AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AS MINOR NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SHABEENA BANU, THE RESPONDENT NO.5.B.1.A. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 RESPONDENT NO. 5.B.1.A. AND 5.B.1.B. RESIDING AT JADE VILLAGE, SORAB TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. 5.B.2. KHUTBUDDIN S/O. KHAJAMODIN SAB AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. 5.B.3. SAIFUDDIN S/O. KHAJAMODIN SAB AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 5.B.3.1. SMT. HASHEENABI W/O. SAIFUDDIN AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT: PLAT ONI CHIKKERI, HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 104. 5.B.3.2. ANJUM AGED: MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN / MOTHER SMT. HASHEENABI D/O. MAQBUL SAB RESIDING AT: PLAT ONI CHIKKERI, HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 104. 5.B.4. SADRUDDIN S/O. KHAJAMODIN SAB AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. 5.B.5. MAMTAZ BEGAM W/O. KHAJAMODIN SAB AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. 5.C. JAIRUDDIN SAB S/O. SHARPUDDIN SAB - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. 5.D. KHADARMODIN SAB S/O. SHARPUDDIN SAB AT: JADE, TALUK: SORAB SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 419. ALSO RESIDING AT DEPARTMENT STORE BANJARA ONI, BATKAL KARWAR DISTRICT - 581 320. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H. T. ANNAPOORNA, ADVOCATE FOR, SRI S. V. PRAKASH, ADVCOATE FOR R.4.A.1. TO R.4.A.4. AND R.4.B. SRI HARISHA A. S., A.G.A, FOR R.1 AND R.2 R.3(1), R.3(2), R.5(B)(1), R.5(B)(2), R.5(B)(3)(1), R.5.B(4), R.5.B(5)., R.5(C), R.5(D) ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 18078/1992 DATED 5/2/16. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18078/1992(LR) and prayed to allow the appeal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 2. The brief facts of the appellant's case are as under:- The land bearing Sy.No.118 situated at Jade village, Soraba Taluk measuring 6 acres 27 guntas is ancestral property of the appellant's father and there was partition between the appellant's father and his elder brother Sharashudin. Thus, the land to an extent of 3 acres 14 guntas had fallen to the share of the appellant's father, who was cultivating the land personally and he never leased out the property to any tenant. In the year 1974, respondent No.3 Bangarappa and respondent No.4 Venkatesh filed form No.7 under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 before second respondent- The Land Tribunal, Soraba, Shivamogga District claiming occupancy rights on 28.11.1981. The Land Tribunal passed order granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 to an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas and 3 acres 13 guntas respectively. The appellant claims that respondent No.4 Venkatesh and husband of respondent No.5 Sharpuddin Sab had filed a writ petition before this Court and the same was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh inquiry. Thus, respondent No.3 Bangarappa said to have claimed occupancy rights in respect of the share of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 appellant's father and respondent No.4 had claimed occupancy rights in the share of 5th respondent's husband. Neither respondent No.3 nor respondent No.4 were cultivating the land belonging to the appellant's father or his uncle and the Land Tribunal while granting occupancy rights had relied on oral statement and respondent No.3 never produced any documents, such as RTC, khata extract or any lease agreement to establish that he was cultivating the land as a tenant. He also has not produced any tax assessment paid receipts. The khata having been transferred in the name of respondent No.3 and his name having been entered in the cultivators' column in respect of the land to an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas, the Land Tribunal passed an order dated 10.03.1992, wherein it has granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 on 10.03.1992 to an extent of 1 acre and 2 acres 37 guntas respectively. In fact, respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Sorab, has not passed a speaking order and there are no specific findings as to the occupancy rights having been granted in a particular share of appellant's father to respondent No.3 and respondent No.4. In the earlier order passed by the Land Tribunal, occupancy rights had been granted to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 respondent No.3 in the share of the appellant's father and to respondent No.4 in the share of husband of respondent No.5. On a fresh enquiry, respondent No.2-Land Tribunal altered the extent. Hence, being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.18078/1992. However, the learned Single Judge by order dated 05.02.2016 dismissed the writ petition and observed at paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 as follows:- 3. In the course of the arguments, the petitioner seeks to place reliance on an oral partition, by virtue of which, the petitioner’s father is said to have been granted a particular share of the property. However, there are no other incidental documents to evidence such oral partition. It is on this note that the matter stood adjourned to enable the petitioner to gather material at least to be produced before this court, to demonstrate that there was indeed oral partition which had been acted upon over the years, to establish that the petitioner’s father had been given a share at any such oral partition. No such documents are forthcoming. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner has remained absent. Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn as to the claim of oral partition. Beyond this, there is no basis for the petitioner’s claim. 5. In any event, the material on record would indicate that the petitioner could not claim to have been cultivating the land and it was indeed the third respondent and possibly, the fourth respondent. Therefore, there is no fault found with the finding of the Tribunal. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order passed by learned Single Judge is against well- established principles of law and contrary to the law. Further, the Record of Rights(RTC), statements given by various adjacent land owners as well as by respondent Nos.3 to 5, tax paid receipts produced by the appellant clearly proves that the appellant had acquired the disputed land by way of oral partition. On the other hand, the materials on record would clearly show that there was no dispute at all about the partition between the appellant's father and his elder brother. In fact, the partition is an admitted fact and merely because the said oral partition is not acted upon, the same cannot be a reason to reject the claim of the appellant, especially, when the entire documents on record clearly proves that the appellant was in personal cultivation of the land in question and the same was not at all given on lease/rent to any of the respondents. Further, the documentary evidence on record would indicate that the appellant was in possession of the land as on the date - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 of filing of Form No.7 by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and therefore, learned counsel submits that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence on record. 5. In support of his case, learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1. AIR 1953 SC 235 reported in the case of Messrs. Trojan & Co., v. RM.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar. 2. AIR 1984 SC 186 reported in the case of Krishna Priya Ganguly etc. v. University of Lucknow & Ors. 3. AIR 1991 SC 409 reported in the case of Prakash & Ors. v. Ram Kumar & Ors. 4. AIR 2010 SC 475 reported in the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors. 5. AIR 1996 SC 2744 reported in the case of Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr. v. Sarat Chandra Rath & Ors. 6. (2007) 2 SCC 138 reported in the case of U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh and others v. Daya Ram Saroj and others. 7. 1977(3) SCC 532 reported in the case of Siddu Venkappa Devadiga v. Smt. Rangu S. Devadiga and others. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 8. AIR 1961 SC 1097 reported in the case of Raruha Singh v. Achal Singh. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that in the year 1974, respondent Nos.3 and 4 had filed form No.7 under KLR Act, and the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas and 3 acres 13 guntas respectively in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4. But, the appellant wrongly contended that respondent No.4 and the husband of respondent No.5 had preferred a writ petition before this Court and same was allowed and the matter was remanded to the tribunal for fresh enquiry. The appellant has wrongly taken the contention that respondent No.3 claimed occupancy right in respect of land/share of appellant's father and respondent No.4 had claimed occupancy rights in the share of husband of respondent No.5. Further, the appellant has set up oral partition by virtue of which, the appellant's father is said to have been granted a particular share of the property, but, they have not furnished any documents to substantiate oral partition. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the contention of the appellant. Hence, learned counsel prayed to dismiss the appeal. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 7. We have perused the material available on record and the impugned order. 8. According to the appellant, neither respondent No.3 nor respondent No.4 were cultivating the land of the appellant's father and the Land Tribunal, Soraba, while granting occupancy rights had relied on oral statements and respondent No.3 has not produced any documents viz., RTC, khata extract or any lease agreement to substantiate that he was cultivating the land as tenant. Further, respondent No.3 has not produced any tax assessment receipts. The contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal has not conducted proper enquiry and the order passed by the Tribunal is not a speaking order and there are no specific findings for having granted occupancy rights in a particular share of the appellant's father either to respondent No.3 or respondent No.4. In this case, the appellant in order to substantiate his contention, relied on oral partition by virtue of which, the appellant's father is said to have been granted a particular share in the schedule property. The appellant has not placed any other material to substantiate that there was oral partition amongst father of the appellant and his uncle. However, no such documents are forthcoming in the records. It - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 shows that at no point of time, the appellant has been cultivating the land and it was indeed the third respondent and fourth respondent who were cultivating the land. 9. In the case of SIDDU VENKAPPA DEVADIGA v. SMT. RANGU S. DEVADIGA AND OTHERS reported in (1977) 3 SCC 532, the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 8 and head note held as under: "Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 107- Appellate Court cannot go outside the pleadings and make out a new case - Reversal of trial Court's judgment by the High Court on a finding of benami which was never pleaded was unjustified. 8) xxx xxx xxx The decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the plea of the parties, and that it is the case pleaded which has to be found. The High Court therefore went wrong in ignoring this basic principle of law, and in making out an entirely new case which was not pleaded and was not the subject-matter of the trial". 10. We have perused the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions are not aptly applicable to the case on hand. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8355-DB WA No. 860 of 2016 11. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Single Judge considering all aspects of the matter and considering the findings of the tribunal has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any fault in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. Hence, no interference is called for in that regard. Accordingly, we pass the following:- ORDER 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8