- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26025 WP No. 15466 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 15466 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI A.NARAYANA REDDY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1. SMT. N.PRAMILA DEVI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS D/O LATE A.NARAYANA REDDY W/O SRI S.C.V.REDDY R/AT NO.1980, GF-3, 4TH CROSS 20TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 078. SMT. SURYAPRABHA D/O LATE A.NARAYANA REDDY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 2. SRI GANESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O LATE SURYAPRABHA CAR STREET DODDABALLAPUR TALUK – 561 203. 3. SMT. SHWETHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS D/O LATE SURYAPRABHA Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26025 WP No. 15466 of 2022 CAR STREET DODDABALLAPUR TALUK – 561 203. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI C.KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE CHANDRAM BHATTA NO.43, 15TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040 REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER SRINIVASAREDDY. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER ON IA DATED 19.07.2022 PASSED BY THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FIELD UNDER SECTION 133(1) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC IS AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26025 WP No. 15466 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer: “a. for a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quashing the Order on I.A. dated 19.7.2022 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, rejecting the application filed under Section 133 (1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act read with section 151 of CPC is at Annexure-A. b. Consequently, Order staying all further proceedings in FDP No.11/2008 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur. c. Costs of the Petition.” 2. Heard Sri V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajesh Gowda, learned counsel for the respondent . 3. Without going into the merit of the matter, further proceedings in FDP No.11/2008 was stayed by a coordinate bench in terms of the order dated 17.08.2022, on the ground that another coordinate bench was adjudicating W.P.No.57168/2016. The order reads as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26025 WP No. 15466 of 2022 “List this writ petition along with W.P.No.57168/2016. Till disposal of W.P.No.57168/2016, further proceedings in FDP No.11/2008 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Doddaballapura, are stayed.” On the score of pendency of the said writ petition, the interim order granted in the subject petition is extended from time to time. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the coordinate bench in terms of its order dated 03.07.2025 has allowed W.P.No.57168/2016 in favour of the respondent. 5. The order passed in W.P.No.57168/2016 reads as follows: “10. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner and his father have mortgaged the land in question in favour of H. Muniyappa Reddy as per registered mortgage deed dated 03rd August, 1965 (Annexure-B). The said aspect is reflected in the registered partition deed dated 06th March, 1970 (Annexure-C) executed between the joint family of H. Muniyappa Reddy and his brothers. It is also not in dispute that the said aspect was reflected in the registered partition deed dated 12th June, 1972 (Annexure-D). It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that the Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26025 WP No. 15466 of 2022 21st July, 2008 (Annexure-F1) passed in Original Suit No.52 of 2000, decreed for executing the deed of redemption in favour of the petitioner. The said judgment and decree has reached finality in view of the order dated 26th November, 2013 (Annexure-H) passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.10 of 2010. The proceedings in Regular Appeal No.52 of 2008 came to be abated and in F.D.P. No.11/2008 (Annexure-K), the petitioner has sought for execution of redemption deed by the Court Commissioner. In that view of the matter, there is no dispute that the land in question was handed over to the H. Muniyappa Reddy, who is the ancestors of the private respondents as per mortgage deed and not as tenant. In view of the same, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of THIMMAIAH (supra) at paragraph 4 and 10 held as follows: "4. In order to appreciate the first contention of the appellants it is necessary to set-out Section 4 of the Act, which reads: "4-PERSONS TO BE DEEMED TENANTS-A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not- (a) a member of the owner''s family, or (b) a servant or a hired labourer on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the owner or any member of the owner''s family, or (c) a mortgagee in possession: Provided that if upon an application made by the owner within one year from the appointed day, (i) if the Tribunal declares that such person is not a tenant and its decision is not reversed on appeal, or (ii) the Tribunal refuses to make such declaration but its decision is reversed on appeal. Such person shall not be deemed to be a tenant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that paragraph 17 of the judgement of the Supreme Court indicates that this case also would be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26025 WP No. 15466 of 2022 similar to the one coming under Section 2A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939. We are unable to agree for the reason that what would be the effect of Section 4 of the BT & AL Act which incorporated ''Mortgagees'' as the third exception to the fiction of deemed tenancy had been clearly and expressly stated by the Supreme Court at paragraph 8, extracted above and Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is identically worded. The appellants therefore cannot claim to be deemed tenants as they being mortgagees fall under one of the excepted categories. Therefore, we find no substance in the first contention of the appellants." 11. The Division Bench of this Court in SRI. NI PRA CHANNABASAVA DESHIKENDRA SWAMIGALU (supra) at paragraph 2 held as follows: "2. Basically, the question which arise for our consideration in these appeals is the application of Sections 41 and 130 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to the facts of this case. In other words, whether the application filed in Form No.5 by the appellants for recovery of possession for the respondents is maintainable. If it is maintainable, whether the order passed by the Tahsildar is in accordance with law. Whether the Learned Single Judge was right in setting aside the order and remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. In order to decide these two questions, it is necessary to set out in brief the facts leading to these proceedings." 12. In that view of the matter, since the land in question has been mortgaged as per registered mortgage deed dated 03rd August, 1965 and same is admitted in Original Suit No.52 of 2000 by the respondent No.3(b), the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal that the land in question is tenanted land, is contrary to records and same has to be set-aside in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of THIMMAIAH (supra). Even, if the arguments of Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3(a), 3(b)(i) and 3(b)(ii) is accepted as to filing of Form No.7 by H. Muniyappa Reddy and same is to be ignored as the said H. Muniyappa Reddy was mortgagee under the registered mortgage deed dated 03rd August, 1965. Therefore, I pass the following: O R D E R - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26025 WP No. 15466 of 2022 1) Writ Petition is allowed; 2) Order dated 07th October, 2016 (Annexure-P) and order dated 14th October, 2016 (Annexure-Q) passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal in Case No.LRF:319/1974-75 are hereby set-aside.” In the light of the afore-quoted order, the subject petition or the order that is challenged would not merit consideration. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that writ appeal would be preferred against the said order. 7. In the light of the afore-quoted order, the interim order so granted and extended from time to time, subject to the outcome of W.P.No.57168/2016, stall stand dissolved. 8. With the observations made above, the petition stands disposed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail of such remedy as is available in law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24