- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36468-DB WA No. 1086 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1086 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI DODDAPAPAIAH S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS RESIDENT OF HULIMANGALA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 562 103 BENGALURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BHADRI R. @ BHADRINATH R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI.H.S.RAJANNA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36468-DB WA No. 1086 of 2025 3. SMT. MANGALAGOWRAMMA (SINCE DECEASED BY LRS) W/O. LATE H. S. RAJANNA SMT. MAMATHA, D/O. LATE H.S. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 4. SRI. MAHESH D/O. LATE H. S. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESPONDENTS No.3 & 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.676 6TH 'C' MAIN ROAD J.P. NAGAR, 3RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560 078. 5. SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, SRI H.T. ANANTHARAMA REDDY S/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 6. SRI H.T. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 7. SRI. H.T. SRIDHARA S/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 8. SRI. H. T. JAGANNATH S/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 9. SRI H.T. CHIDAMBARA S/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 10. SRI H.T. DHANANJAYA S/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36468-DB WA No. 1086 of 2025 RESPONDENTS No.5 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 562 103 BENGALURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.06.2025 IN W.P.No. 12995 OF 2017 (LR) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN W.P. No. 12995 OF 2017 (LR) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant [WP No.12995/2017(LR)] was dismissed. The appellant had filed the said writ petition impugning an order dated 28.02.2017 passed by respondent No.2 (the Land Tribunal Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru – hereafter ‘the Land Tribunal’), whereby an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36468-DB WA No. 1086 of 2025 application filed by the appellant for grant of occupancy rights (Form No.7) in respect of the land comprising in Survey No.188/1 located at Hulimangala village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, was rejected. 2. The appellant states that one Siddabasappa was land owner of the subject property (land measuring 1 Acre 18 Guntas comprising of Survey No.188/1 of Hulimangala Village, Anekal Taluk) and, the appellant claims that he had been cultivating the subject land since 30.12.1962 as a tenant under Sri Siddabasappa. In the aforesaid context, the appellant furnished a declaration dated 02.03.1976 before the Land Tribunal claiming occupancy rights as a tenant. The application was objected by Sri Rajanna son of Siddabasappa. The said application was accepted and the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in the name of the appellant. 3. Respondent No.4 - Thimmarayappa filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority (LRA No.568/1986) impugning grant of occupancy rights in favour of the appellant. The said authority was abolished and respondent No.4 filed a petition before this Court which was converted to W.P No.20781/1993. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36468-DB WA No. 1086 of 2025 The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 12.07.2000 and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for considering afresh. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal passed an order dated 30.11.2002 confirming the occupancy rights in respect of the subject land in favour of the appellant. The said order was challenged by the legal representatives of the original owner Siddabasappa and the legal representatives of H.P Thimmarayappa (respondent No.4) in a writ petition being W.P No.30834/2023. The said petition was allowed by an order dated 05.12.2011 and the matter was once again restored before the Land Tribunal for consideration afresh. The appellant appealed the order dated 05.12.2011 before the Division Bench by filing W.A No.503/2012. The same was also dismissed by an order dated 16.07.2014. Pursuant to the said order, the Land Tribunal once again examined the appellant's claim for occupancy rights. 4. It is the appellant's claim that he had been cultivating the land as a tenant prior to 1974 and was paying "wara". The Land Tribunal records that the appellant was cross-examined and in his cross-examination, he stated that Siddabasappa used to come from Bengaluru for cultivating the land in question. He also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36468-DB WA No. 1086 of 2025 accepted that Siddabasappa had dug a well for cultivation and used to stay in his shed located on the subject land. He also acknowledged, Siddabasappa was managing the affairs of the subject land. The deposition was noted by the Land Tribunal. After examining the land records as well as the evidence led by the parties, the Land Tribunal concluded that the appellant was holding occupancy rights as he was not cultivating the subject land as a tenant prior to 1974. 5. The appellant had challenged the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Land Tribunal before the learned Single Judge, which was rejected by the impugned order. 6. A plain reading of the order passed by the Land Tribunal indicates that the Land Tribunal had taken note of the statements made by the appellant in his cross-examination as noted. The same were to the effect that Sri Siddabasappa used to come from Bengaluru for cultivating the land in question; he had dug a well for cultivation; there was a shed on the land where he used to stay; and Siddabasappa was managing the affairs of the subject land. The Land Tribunal also observed that the appellant had shown his - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36468-DB WA No. 1086 of 2025 occupation as a "coolie" in Form No.7. Additionally, the Land Tribunal had also examined the land records during the years 1969-70 to 1987-88 which reflect the name of Sri Siddabasappa as the name of the cultivator. The said record of rights does not mention the name of the appellant. 7. The appellant does not dispute the material facts as recorded in the order dated 28.02.2017. He does not dispute his statement made in the cross-examination; the entries in the land records; and that he had described himself as coolie in Form No.7 as filed by him. 8. The learned Single Judge had considered the finding of the Land Tribunal and had also examined the land records. After examining the material on record, the learned Single Judge found no merit in the appellant's challenge to the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Land Tribunal. 9. As noted above, the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Land Tribunal is a reasoned order and the decision to reject the appellant's claim for occupancy rights is based on material evidence placed on record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36468-DB WA No. 1086 of 2025 10. We do not find any error in the decision-making process. Further, we are unable to accept that the decision rendered by the Land Tribunal is perverse, for strenuous reasons or based on no evidence. The Land Tribunal evaluates evidence and material on record in arriving at its conclusion. 11. We find no fault in the decision of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the appellant's petition. In this view, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 12. The appeal is unmerited and, accordingly, dismissed. 13. Pending application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31