- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.1156 OF 2023 (LR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.25020 OF 2022 IN WP No. 1156/2023 BETWEEN: 1. MUNISHAMAPPA @ MUNISWAMAIAH S/O PILLAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SRI. MUNIPILLAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA @ MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKABANAVARA POST HESARGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 090. 2 . SRI. CHIKKANNA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA @ MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT GOLLARAHATTI MAGADI MAIN ROAD, VISVANEEDUM POST BENGALURU - 560 091. 4 . SMT. PADMA D/O SRI. MUNIPILLAPPA Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 W/O SRI. CHALAPATHI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RA/T KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKABANAVARA POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 090. 5 . SMT. MANASA D/O SRI MUNIPILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RA/T KUMBARAHALLI VILALGE CHIKKABANAVARA POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560090. ....PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. H.S. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL DODDABALLAPURA TALUK DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561201 RERPESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE TAHSILDAR DODDABALLAPURA TALUK DODDABALLALPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561201. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 4. SANJEEVAIAH S/O PILLAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SRI. KEMPANNA S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT MAJARA KODIHALLI BEERAIAHNAPALYA VILALGE KONGADIYAPPA ROAD POST MADURE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 561201. 5. PUTTAIAH S/O NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SRI.H.B. NANJUNDAPA S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.285, KUSUMA NILAYA HALAGEVADERAHALLI RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA BENGALURU - 560 098. 6 . SRI. P. RANGAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RA/T NO. 285, KUSUMA NILAYA HALAGEVADERAHALLI RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA BENGALURU 560 098. 7 . SMT. MARY CELINE .A W/O SRI. SADHU KOKILA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RA/T NO.638, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 7TH BLOCK 2ND PHASE BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE HOSAKEREHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 085. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. S. HIMA KIRANA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; SRI. MUNIRAJA M., ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.11.2022 IN CASE NO. LRF 1201/1674-75 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - LAND TRIBUNAL WITH RESPECT TO LAND IN SY.NO.91, NEW NO.91/2, MEASURING 6 ACRES 20 GUNTAS, SY.NO.161/9 MEASURING 6 GUNTAS , SY. NO.161/10 MEASURING 5 GUNTAS AND SY.NO.159 MEASURING 4 ACRE 7 GUNTAS , SITUATED AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, MADURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK AS PER ANNEXURE -A. IN WP NO.25020/2022 BETWEEN SMT. MARYSELINA A. W/O SRI. SADHU KOKILA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.638, 7TH BLOCK 2ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE HOSAKEREHALLI CROSS BENGALURU - 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MUNIRAJA M., ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL DODDABALLAPURA TALUK DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 201 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE TAHSILDAR DODDABALLAPUR TALUK DODDABALLAPURA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561201. 4. SANJEEVAIAH S/O PILLAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. SRI. KEMPANNA S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT MAJARA KODIHALLI - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 BEERAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE KONGADIYAPPA ROAD POST MADURE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALRUU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 201. 5(a). MUNISHAMAPPA @ MUNISWAMAIAH S/O PILLAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SRI. MUNIPILLAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA @ MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKABANAVARA POST HESARUGHTTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560090. 5(b). SRI. CHIKKANNA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA @ MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT GOLLARAHATTI MAGADI MAIN ROAD VISVANEEDUM POST BENGALURU - 560091. 5(c). SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA @ MUNISWAMAIAH W/O SRI HOBAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT HENNEGERE VILLAGE SOLUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 560007. 6. SMT. PADMA D/O SRI MUNIPILLAPPA W/O SRI CHALAPATHI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 R/AT KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKABANAVARA POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560090. 7. SMT. MANASA D/O SRI MUNIPILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKABANAVARA POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560090. 8. 8(a). PUTTAIAH S/O NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SRI H P NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.285, KUSUMA NILAYA HALAGEVADERAHALLI RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA BENGALURU - 560098. 8(b). SRI. P. RANGAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED 51 YEARS R/AT NO. 285 KUSUMA NILAYA HALAGEVADERAHALLI RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA BENGALURU - 560098. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNEL FOR SRI. M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. H.S. SANTOSH, ADVOCATE FOR R5(a-c), R6 AND R7 SRI. S. HIMA KIRANA, ADVOCATE FOR R8(a TO b)) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.11.2022 IN CASE NO. LRF 1201/1974-75 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 LAND TRIBUNAL WITH RESPECT TO LAND IN SO FAR AS SY.NO. 91, NEW NO.91/2, MEASURING 6 ACRES 20 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, MADURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK AS PER ANNEXURE- A. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV ORDER In these writ petitions, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 16.11.2022 in Case No. LRF 1201 of 1974-75 passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal in respect of land in question (Annexure-A). - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 2. Relevant facts in W.P.No.1156 of 2023 are that, land bearing Sy.No.91 (new Sy.No. 91/2) measuring 06 acres, 20 guntas; Sy.No.161/9, measuring 06 guntas; Sy.No.161/10 measuring 05 guntas and Sy.No.159 measuring 04 acres 07 guntas situate at Kodihalli Village, Madure Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk has been acquired by the predecessors of the petitioners-Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah, son of Pillappa as per the registered Sale Deeds during the year 1950. It is further stated that, brother of the said Munishamappa-Sanjeevaiah, made an application in the Form No.7, seeking occupancy rights in respect of subject land under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short the 'Act') by contending that the said Sanjeevaiah is a tenant under his brother- Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal by order dated 17.08.1976 in LRF No.1201 of 1974-75 granted occupancy rights in favour of the applicant-Sanjeevaiah, in respect of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the same, Munishamappa @ - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 Muniswamaiah has filed W.P.No.10613 of 1976 before this court and this court vide order dated 25.03.1983 set aside the order of Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand made by this court, the Land Tribunal recorded the deposition of said Sanjeevaiah and by order dated 21.10.1986, granted occupancy rights in favour of said Sanjeevaiah. Being aggrieved by the same, father of respondent No.5, who is original purchaser-Puttaiah claims to be the purchaser of the land in Sy.No.159 measuring 04 acres, 16 guntas, approached the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.ALRA 782 of 1987. On account of the amendment to the said Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the CP No.3230 of 1991 was filed before this Court and same was converted into W.P.No.2113 of 1997. This court after considering the material on record vide order 15.06.2005 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal to pass fresh orders, after providing an opportunity to all the parties concerned as per Annexure-C. Thereafter, the Land - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 Tribunal issued notice to the legal representatives of Munishamppa @ Muniswamaiah, and legal representatives of Puttaiah, (Respondent No.5) and one Kempanna, son of original applicant -Sanjeevaiah, (respondent No.4). It is further averred in the writ petition that, legal representative of Sanjeevaiah has not produced any material evidence to substantiate as tenant under Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah and the petitioners are in possession of land in question. The Land Tribunal, after considering material on record by order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure-A), allowed the Form No.7, filed in respect of the land in question in favour of Sanjeevaiah and his legal representatives. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 3. In W.P.No.25020 of 2022, it is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner claims to be purchaser of the portion of the land in question from one Munipillappa son of Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah, and his family members as per registered Sale Deed dated 15.02.2014 (Annexure- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 D), and the Rectification Deed dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure-E). The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by Land Tribunal on similar grounds urged in W.P.No.1156 of 2022. 4. I have heard Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions; Sri. K. N. Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. M. A. Subrarmani, for respondent No.4 in both writ petitions; Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State; Smt. S. Hima Kirana, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in W.P.No.1156 of 2023 and respondent Nos. 8(a) and (b) in W.P.No.25020 of 2022; Sri. Muniraja M., learned counsel for appearing for the respondent No.7 in W.P.No.1156 of 2023 and Sri. H.S. Santhosh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 (a to c), 6 and 7 in W.P.No.25020 of 2022. 5. Sri. D. R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that, originally the land in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 question is belonged to Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah. His brother-Sanjeevaiah, filed Form No.7, seeking occupancy rights in respect of schedule land before the Land Tribunal, and same was granted in favour of Sanjeevaiah, which came to be set aside by this Court in W.P.No.10613 of 1976 dated 25.03.1983. Referring to the observation made by this Court, wherein, matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that strict compliance of Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 has been considered by this Court. He further contended that, despite the same, the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in favour of said Sanjeevaiah, as per order dated 21.10.1986 and the said order was questioned in W.P.No.2113 of 1997 and this court vide order dated 15.06.2005, set aside the order of Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal and in this regard, learned Senior Counsel emphasised on paragraph 06 in the said order. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 6. Referring to these orders, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah was cultivating the land in question and land was not tenanted, and no gutta was received from the Sanjeevaiah, who is none other than brother of Munishamppa @ Muniswamaiah and therefore, finding recorded by the Land Tribunal requires interference in these writ petitions. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that, the Land Tribunal had taken into consideration the deposition made by the witnesses prior to the order of remand made by this Court in W.P.No.2113 of 1997 dated 15.06.2005 (Annexure-C) and therefore, the said deposition requires to be discarded. It is further contended that, as there is no material produced by said Sanjeevaiah and his legal heirs, no need to remand the matter and accordingly, sought for interference of this court. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 7. Per contra, Sri. K.N. Phanindra learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 in both writ petitions submitted by referring to deposition of Sanjeevaiah, (Annexure-R2), wherein it is clearly stated that the Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah was residing at Edluru Dinne, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar and Sanjeevaiah was cultivating the land in question as tenant. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel by referring to the deposition of Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah, (Annexure- R3) wherein, the said Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah admits the tenancy of the land in question made in favour of Sajneevaiah and this document would demonstrates that land in question has been leased in favour of Sanjeevaiah by Munishamppa @ Muniswamaiah. It is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel that, there is no impediment for granting occupancy rights in favour of the tenant, wherein, the landlord may be the brother of the tenant. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel refers to the judgment of this Court in the case of Gopal Rao vs. Land Reforms - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 Tribunal and another reported in 1978 SCC OnLine Kar 285. He further argued by referring to judgment of this court in the case of H. R. Ramasingh vs. D. Nageshrao and another reported in ILR 1977 KAR 1350 that, the Land Tribunal having taken note of the material on record arrived at a conclusion that, Sanjeevaiah was personally cultivating the land in question. Therefore, sought for dismissal of these writ petitions. 8. Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent -State made available original records pertaining to the writ petitions. 9. Learned counsel representing the remaining contesting respondents adopted the arguments of learned Senior Counsel, Sri. K. N. Phanindra appearing for respondent No.4 in both writ petitions. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 10. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah had purchased the land in question and the revenue records stand in the name of said Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah. It is also not in dispute that, Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah has a brother by name Sanjeevaiah. It is also forthcoming from the writ petitions that, the said Sajeevaiah has filed Form No.7, seeking occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.91, (new No.91/2) measuring 06 acres, 20 guntas; Sy.No.161/9 measuring 06 guntas; Sy.No.161/10 measuring 5 guntas and Sy.No.159 measuring 4 acres 16 guntas situated at Kodihalli village, Madure Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 17.08.1976, conferred occupancy rights in favour of Sanjeevaiah and same was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.10613 of 1976 and this court vide order 25.03.1983, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal, after holding - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 an enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal recorded the proceedings and by its order dated 21.10.1986, granted occupancy rights in favour of Sanjeevaiah and same was questioned before this court in W.P.No.2113 of 1997. This court vide order dated 15.06.2005 vide Annexure-C set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal to secure the presence of the parties, by issuing notice and to conduct enquiry and thereafter, disposed of the case in accordance with law. The said order passed by this Court reached finality. It is to be noted that, the said writ petition was filed by Puttaiah, (father of respondent No.5) who claims to be a purchaser of portion of the land from Munishamappa @ Munishamaiah. After remand made by this Court, the Land Tribunal conducted the enquiry and by its order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure-A), conferred the occupancy rights in favour of the original tenant- Sanjeevaiah, which is impugned in these writ petitions. On - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 careful examination of the RTC extracts would indicate that, the name of Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah and Sanjeevaiah shown as cultivators in RTC extracts as they were cultivating the land personally, (Swanta) from 1969- 70. It is also to be noted that, the legal representatives of the said Sanjeevaiah, nor the Sanjeevaiah himself has not produced any gutta receipt nor examined any independent witness to establish that Sanjeevaiah was cultivating the land in question as tenant under Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah, by paying gutta or rent in respect of the land in question. It is also to be noted that, this court in W.P.No.10613 of 1976 dated 25.03.1983 remanded the matter for fresh enquiry in compliance of Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. Again this court in W.P.No.2113 of 1997 dated 15.06.2005 (Annexure-C) remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal with a direction to issue notice to all the parties concerned and to hold an enquiry. Paragraph 6 of the said order makes it clear about conduct fresh enquiry in the matter. In that view of the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as to the fact that, the Land Tribunal has misdirected itself by considering the evidence of the parties as per Annexures-R2 and R3, deposed by the parties prior to the remand made by this court. It is to be noted that, on two occasions this court has remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal and though, I find that, this court would remand the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration, again, however, I have carefully examined the original records produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate and perusal of the same would indicate that, names of Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah and Sanjeevaiah was found in the RTC extract for the relevant period from 1969-70. It is also to be noted that, there is no impediment for the Sanjeevaiah being a brother of Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah - land lord, to cultivate the land as tenant under the Act, however, no documents has been produced to establish that, the said Sanjeevaiah was cultivating the land personally as tenant - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 and the RTC extracts shows the name of Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah along with Sanjeevaiah in the cultivators column. No independence witness has been examined by the tenant-Sanjeevaiah, to demonstrate that, he was cultivating the land alone as tenant. No gutta receipt has been produced before the Land Tribunal to establish the tenancy of the land in question. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, since, no acceptable document has been produced by Sanjeevaiah or his legal representatives before the Land Tribunal on earlier occasions, where the order of remand has been made by this court in W.P.No.10613 of 1976, and W.P.No.2113 of 1997, I am of the opinion that, repeated remand order cannot be made by this Court by exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. Following the declaration made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nadakerappa since deceased by LR's and others vs. Pillamma since deceased by LR's and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 387, I am - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 of the opinion that, as no acceptable document has been produced by the Sanjeevaiah or his legal representatives to establish that, they were in cultivation of the land as a tenant under Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-A. It is also to be noted that, though the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 4, refers to the above judgment, however, the facts in the present case is altogether different from the facts referred to in the above case and further as the Sanjeevaiah and his legal representatives failed to establish their tenancy by producing documents, with Munishamappa @ Muniswamaiah, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel respondent No.4 cannot be accepted. 11. At this juncture, it is relevant to cite the judgment of this court in the case of P.Manjunath Shenoy vs. Smt. Vishalakshi Pai and others reported in 1996 (5) KLJ 499 wherein this court at paragraph 8 held as follows: - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 "8. In Bhamy Panduranga Shenoy v. B.H. Ravindra [KLJ 1980 (2) p. 129.] this Court has laid down as to what are the points to be proved by a person who is claiming occupancy rights in a particular land. This Court has held as follows:— “The Act does not apply to all kinds of lands in the State and to all categories of tenants. If the relationship of landlord and tenant does not rest on agrarian relations, the tenant who is in possession of the land, even if the land is an agricultural land within the meaning of the Act, cannot avail himself of any benefit under the Act. The governing factor to bring the case within the fold of the Act will be the relationship of landlord and tenant based on agrarian relations. The tenancy must relate to agriculture in order to bring the relationship of landlord and tenant within the ambit of agrarian relations.” The Court in that ruling has further held as follows:— “Indisputably, the Act primarily deals with matters relating to agrarian relations, conferment of ownership on tenants and ceiling on land-holding etc. The matter relating to agrarian relations is one essentially between the landlord and the tenant relating to agriculture. In other words the tenancy must relate to agriculture in order to bring the relationship of landlord and tenant within the ambit of agrarian relations. The relationship of landlord and tenant is essentially one arising out of a - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 contract between the lessor and the lesee; in other words, under a tenancy agreement, oral or written.” Therefore, in order to show that a person is entitled to the occupancy rights in a land he must prove that the land is used for agricultural purpose and that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the owner of the land. In other words if the land is an agricultural land and even if a person is in possession of the same, but if he has failed to prove that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the owner of the land, by virtue of either oral agreement or written agreement, such a person cannot be a tenant notwithstanding the fact that he might be in possession of the land and cultivating the same. In this case it is proved that the father of respondent No. 1 Vishalakshi was the moolgeni tenant of this land by virtue of a registered document executed by respondent No. 3 in his favour on 22.9.1916. But it was for the petitioner to prove that his father became the chalageni tenant as Narasimha Bandarkar the grand- father of respondent No. 1 leased the land to him in the year 1953. The burden of proving that there was such an agreement of lease either oral or written between his father and the grand-father of the respondent No. 1 was on the petitioner. But the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that there was any such agreement between his father and the grand- father of respondent No. 1. He has not produced any - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 documents for payment of chalageni either by him or by his father to the grand-father of respondent No. 1 or to respondent No. 1. Even he has not produced any documents to show that he was in possession of the land as a tenant except a mahazar that came to be drawn up in a complaint filed by him. Therefore, it will have to be held that the petitioner has failed to prove that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between his father and the grandfather of respondent No. 1. When a person fails to prove that he is cultivating the land as a tenant, he cannot be granted occupancy rights notwithstanding the fact that he might be in possession of the land and cultivating the same. In view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to prove the basic foundation of his case that he is and prior to him his father has been in possession of the land as a tenant by virtue of granting of lease by the grand-father of respondent No. 1, the petitioner could not have been granted occupancy rights in this land." 12. Following the declaration of law to the facts on record would indicate that the respondent No.4/tenant of the land in question has not proved that, he was cultivating the land with his bother Munishamappa as a tenant under Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the issue between the parties is only relating to the family - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29746 WP No. 1156 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25020 of 2022 dispute and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. 13. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petitions are allowed. ii) Order dated 16.11.2022 in LRF No.1201 of 1974-75 passed by the Land Tribunal-respondent No.2 (Annexure-A) is hereby set aside in both writ petitions. iii) Application in Form No.7, filed by the Sanjeevaiah is hereby rejected. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52