- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4971 WP No. 67777 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 67777 OF 2011 (LR-) BETWEEN: KALLANAGOUDA S/O. DUNDAPPA KATTEPPANAVAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1. RAMESH S/O. KALLANAGOUDA KATTEPPANAVAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUNDARAGI, BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SMT. REKHA W/O. MALLIKARJUN TUPPAD, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. SURESH S/O. KALLANAGOUDA KATTEPPANAVAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUNDARAGI, BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. MAHANTESH S/O. KALLANAGOUDA KATTEPPANAVAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUNDARAGI, BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 5.. SMT. RAJESHWARI D/O. KALLANAGOUDA KATTEPPANAVAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4971 WP No. 67777 of 2011 R/O. KUNDARAGI, BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B. V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. RAMAPPA KADAPPA KANKANAKOPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 2(a). SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA KANKANAKOPPA AGE: ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KUNDARAGI, BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. SANGAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA KANKANAKOPPA AGE: ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUNDARAGI, BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. TIMMAPPA SAIDAPPA KANKANAKOPPA AGE: ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUNDARAGI, BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2(A)-SERVED; R4-SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BILAGI RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.LKR/SR/2320/73/06 DATED 22.07.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT OCCUPANCY RIGHTS TO THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE SUIT BY ALLOWING THEIR APPLICATION. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4971 WP No. 67777 of 2011 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 22.07.2011, passed by the Land Tribunal, Bilagi, in LKR/SR/2320/73/06, produced as per Annexure-A. 2. Heard Sri.B.V.Somapur, learned counsel of the petitioners, Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, initially Dundappa Katteppanavar was the tenant in respect of the disputed land under Thimmappa Saiddappa Kankanakoppa, who was the landlord. Even though Dundappa Katteppanavar filed application under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short, ‘the KLR Act’) seeking permission to surrender the land in favour of the owner, and the order was passed permitting him to surrender the land. The land was not surrendered physically, but Dundappa Katteppanavar continued - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4971 WP No. 67777 of 2011 to be in possession of property as tenant. After the death of Dundappa Katteppanavar, the father of petitioner No.1 being his adopted son, continued to be in possession and cultivation of the disputed land and filed Form No.7. The Land Tribunal considering Form No.7 and holding an enquiry, granted occupancy rights in favour of the father of petitioner No.1 as per order dated 31.03.1988, produced as per Annexure-C. The said order was challenged by respondent Nos.2 and 3 by filing WP No.45140/2001 before this Court. This Court by order dated 13.01.2005, produced as per Annexure-D allowed the writ petition and set aside the Land Tribunal’s order and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. Accordingly, the land Tribunal held fresh enquiry and passed the impugned order produced as per Annexure-A. 4. He further submits that while passing Annexure-C, the statements of the owner and the tenant were recorded by the land Tribunal. The owner Thimmappa Saiddappa Kankanakoppa had given the statement that he was the owner of the land, and he had leased the property to the tenant Dundappa, and thereafter, the petitioners were in possession and cultivation of the land. The land Tribunal has also taken - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4971 WP No. 67777 of 2011 into consideration the statements of witnesses that, even though permission was accorded under Section 25 of the Act to surrender the land as per the request made by tenant Dundappa, actual possession was not surrendered by Dundappa, however it continued with him. After making such observations, the land Tribunal proceeded to confer occupancy rights in favour of the father of petitioner No.1. But, when the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry, the Land Tribunal, formed an opinion that the land in question is not a tenanted land and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. This observation of the Land Tribunal was wholly perverse, illegal and against the materials on record. Therefore, petitioners pray to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, opposing the petition submitted that, since there was an order passed by the Land Tribunal to surrender the land as on 24.02.1972, the petitioner cannot now contend that he was the tenant as on the appointed date i.e. on 01.03.1974. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in passing the impugned order. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4971 WP No. 67777 of 2011 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, also opposing the petition submitted that, once the order under Section 25 of Mysore Land Reforms Act has been passed for surrendering of the land to the tenant, cannot be permitted to turn around and say that he had not surrendered the land physically. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in V.G. Shankaranarayana Bhat Vs. Girija1, to contend that the surrender was done before the judicial authority, in accordance with law and therefore, surrender will remain intact. The tenant cannot be permitted to contend otherwise that, he continued to be in possession of the property as a tenant, as no fresh tenancy could be created after coming into force of Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was right in passing the impugned order and therefore he prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. The undisputed facts of the case are that, initially Dundappa Katteppanavar was the tenant in respect of the disputed land under the then owner H.B.Thimmappa Saidappa Kanakanakoppa. Duddappa Katteppanavar had filed the application under Section 25 of Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1 AIR 2009 (8) SC 2515 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4971 WP No. 67777 of 2011 seeking permission to surrender the land in favour of the owner. Admittedly, an order was passed by the learned Munsiff on 25.02.1972, permitting the tenant Dundappa Katteppanavar to surrender the land in favour of the owner. Even though all these facts and circumstances are admitted, now it is the contention of the petitioners that, in spite of such an order for surrender, actual surrender had not taken place and the tenant Dundappa was in possession and enjoyment of the property as a tenant till the appointed date i.e. dated 01.03.1974. Such possession continues even till today with the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the statement of respondent No.4 recorded before the Land Tribunal where he said to have stated that even though an order was passed in 1972, permitting Dundappa to surrender the land, the possession was not handed over by the tenant. But on the other hand, he continued to be in possession of the property as a tenant. 8. He also places reliance on the statement of respondent No.3-Sangappa recorded before the Land Tribunal, where he said to have stated that the possession of the land was not taken through the process of the Court, and that the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4971 WP No. 67777 of 2011 revenue records continued to stand in the name of the tenant as in possession and cultivation of the land. 9. Even though the order dated 24.02.1972, is an undisputed order passed by the Land Tribunal, under Section 25(2) of Mysore Land Reforms Act, permitting the tenant to surrender the land, the question that arises is as to whether the tenant had actually surrendered the land or not as per the order. There are no records to support the contention of the respondents that the land in question was in fact surrendered by the tenant and he was not in possession of the same as on the appointed date. The statement referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners recorded by the Land Tribunal i.e. statements of respondent Nos.3 and 4 clearly disclose that in spite of such an order for surrender, the tenant continued to be in possession and cultivation of the land, and accordingly his name was continued in the record of rights, even on the appointed date. If at all, the land was surrendered as per the order for surrender, naturally there will be an entry in the record of rights and the name of the tenant could have been deleted. No such steps were taken either at the instance of the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4971 WP No. 67777 of 2011 owner of the land, or suo moto by the revenue authorities on the basis of the order of the learned Munsiff. 10. Even though the order under Section 25 was passed by the learned Munsiff, permitting to surrender the land by the tenant in favour of the owner, the question as to whether the tenant had actually surrendered the land or not, is a question of fact to be proved in accordance with law. There is no presumption either under the provision of Mysore Land Reforms Act or Karnataka Land Reforms Act to form an opinion that once the order for surrender is passed, it is to be presumed that the owner is actually in possession and cultivation of the land. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any materials to substantiate the contention of the owners, pursuant to the order dated 24.02.1972, that the tenant had physically handed over the land in favour of the owners and moreover, in view of the statements of respondent Nos.3 and 4 recorded before the Land Tribunal, where respondent No.3 has categorically stated that the possession continued with the tenant, and he used to cultivate the land even on the appointed date, I am of the opinion that the Land Tribunal was not right in passing the impugned order. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4971 WP No. 67777 of 2011 11. The finding recorded by the Land Tribunal that the land in question was not a tenanted land, there is no relationship between the landlord and the tenant between the petitioner and the respondent, was without any basis. The Tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned order even after referring to the statement of respondent No.3. 12. Even though learned counsel for respondent No.3 places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, in V.G.Shankaranarayana Bhat (supra), where the facts and circumstances narrated therein are entirely different under which, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, the surrender of the land was before the Judicial Authority as per the provisions of the Act and thus, the surrender remained intact. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, where respondent No.4 whose statement was recorded before the Land Tribunal in candid words states that physical possession of the land continued with the tenant and he continued to be cultivating the land, I am of the opinion that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. As the result, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4971 WP No. 67777 of 2011 I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 22.07.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bilagi is liable to be quashed. 13. In view of the discussion held above, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for confirmation of occupancy right as tenants. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 22.07.2011 passed by Land Tribunal, Bilagi-respondent No.1 in LKR/SR/2320/73/06 vide Annexure-A, is hereby quashed. (iii) It is held that the petitioners were the tenants in respect of the land bearing R.S.No.254/4 measuring 2.10 acres of Kundaragi village, Bilagi Taluk as on 01.03.1972 and are entitled for confirmation of occupancy right. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB, MKM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2