- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43342-DB WA No. 711 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 711 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI.BHADRAPPA S/O. A. GUNDA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. ALAGERI VILLAGE, DHOORVASAPURA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577432 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SMT. N. SHARADHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT BY ITS SECRETARY-577 432 Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43342-DB WA No. 711 of 2025 3. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O. RAMAIAH GOWDA, MAJOR, R/O. ALAGERI VILLAGE, DHOORVASAPURA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 4. SRI. K. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, MAJOR, R/O. KOTETHOTA THIRTHAMUTTUR POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 415 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT NAMITHA MAHESH B. G., AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02/04/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.17390/2018 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN 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. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 02.04.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.17390/2018 (LR). The appellant had filed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43342-DB WA No. 711 of 2025 the said writ petition impugning an order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the learned Land Tribunal, whereby the application filed by the appellant's father [Sri.A. Gunda Naika S/o. Dasa Naika] in Form No.VII for grant of occupancy rights was rejected and the application filed by the husband of respondent No.3 – Sri Ramaiah Gowda (since deceased) – for grant of occupancy rights was accepted. 2. The dispute between the parties relates to occupancy rights in respect of 20 guntas of land falling in Sy. No.36/2 of Alageri Village, Kasaba Hobli, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shivamoga District [hereafter the subject land]. Shri Ramaiah Gowda filed an application on 15.08.1974 in the prescribed Form [Form No.VII] as stipulated under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in respect of an extent of 2-29-00 acres in Sy. No.36/2 and the said land was granted on 25.09.1982 [in case No.LRT[Inam] K.S.B A.L.G 54.55/81-82.] 3. Sri.Gunda Naika challenged the said order by filing W.P. No.40015/1993. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 16.03.2004 whereby the order dated 25.09.1982 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned Land Tribunal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43342-DB WA No. 711 of 2025 for consideration along with application filed by Sri Gunda Naika (since deceased). 4. In compliance with the said order, the learned Land Tribunal issued notice to the respective parties. Since, in the meantime, Sri Gunda Naika had expired, he was represented by his legal representative, that is, his son Sri Bhadrappa [appellant herein]. 5. The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the suit land is subjected to lease in 01.03.1974? 2. Whether the parties have proved that they are the tenants? 3. On the basis of the present possession whether tenancy is present? 6. After considering the facts on record and evaluating the evidence, the learned Tribunal rejected the application filed by Sri.Gunda Naika. The Tribunal found from the revenue documents that the entire land comprising Sy.No.36/2 of Alageri Village, Kasaba Hobli, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shivamoga District subject to tenancy cultivation. Sri Ramaiah Gowda had also produced the Tenancy Agreement of the years 1965-66 to 1973-74 to establish that he was the tenant in the subject property. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had failed to produce any reliable document to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43342-DB WA No. 711 of 2025 establish that his father Sri.Gunda Naik was a tenant in respect of 20 guntas falling in Sy. No.36/2 (the subject land) immediately prior to 01.03.1974. The only evidence produced by the appellant was a letter dated 17.03.1986 from the land owner. However, the said letter indicates that the Karab land of 1-14 guntas is in possession of Sri Ramaiah Gowda and out of the same, the landlord had learnt that 20 guntas was in occupation of Sri Gunda Naika. He had expressed his no objection for the subject land to be granted in favour of the cultivators/occupants. The Tribunal noted that the landlord had also stated that a notice was issued by the Land Tribunal to Sri Gunda Naika not to enter into the subject land. In the given circumstances, the Tribunal did not give much weightage to the evidentiary value of the said letter. Additionally, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim that he and his father were in possession of the subject land (20 guntas of land) continuously could not be accepted. 7. It is noted that the Land Tribunal had earlier passed an order dated 26.12.1978 appointing a receiver in respect of the land on the allegation that appellant and his father late Sri.Gunda Naik had forcibly tried to take possession of the property. Sri.Gunda Naik - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43342-DB WA No. 711 of 2025 had challenged the order in writ petition being W.P. No.1299/1979. However, the said order was not interfered with. 8. It is apparent from the above that the order passed by the Tribunal was after appreciating and evaluating the evidence led as well as the records. Clearly this decision cannot be interfered with unless it is found that it is arbitrary, capricious or otherwise contrary to law. 9. The appellant’s challenge to the order passed by the learned Land Tribunal, in effect seeks re-appreciation of the evidence, which is not warranted. 10. The Learned counsel for the appellant relies on an interim order dated 07.11.1968 passed by the Munsiff Court, at Shivamogga in O.S. No.586/1968, which was preferred by the father of respondent No.4 and the husband of respondent No.3 against Sri Gunda Naika. We also note that there is some confusion as to the date of the order whereas the copy produced by the appellant indicates the date of the order as 07.11.1968. The last paragraph of the said order indicates that it was pronounced in the open Court on 07.11.1978. The said order records a prima- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43342-DB WA No. 711 of 2025 facie, finding to the effect that 20 guntas of land falling in Sy.No.36/2 are in possession of Gunda Naika. However, we note that there is no prima-facie finding to the effect that Sri Gunda Naika was a tenant in the said premises. The Land Tribunal had also not accepted that the appellant was a tenant in the said premises. 11. The learned Single Judge examined the findings of the Tribunal and declined to interfere with the same. We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that the Learned Tribunal’s order is not required to be interfered with. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25