- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.15771 OF 2018 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. NARMADA BAI SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 1(a). MURALIDHARA S/O LATE N. SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O MAYANNA ROAD, PAPER TOWN POST, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577 301. 1(b). SUJATHA SRIKANTH D/O N. SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O MAYANNA ROAD, PAPER TOWN POST, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577 301. 1(c). N. PRASHANTHA S/O N. SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O MAYANNA ROAD, PAPER TOWN POST, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577 301. 2. SRI. N. DATTATRI S/O LATE N. SHANKRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O SURGITHAOPU, MAYANNA ROAD, PAPER TOWN POST, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577 301. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 301. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TASHILDAR. 2. SMT. SUBHADRABAI W/O LATE RANGOJIRAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O MARASHETTIHALLI, HOLEHONNUR POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 227. 3. MAHADI MANJAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 3(a). NANJAMMA W/O LATE MAHADI MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O MARASHETTIHALLI, HOLEHONNUR POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 227. 3(b). GAJENDRA S/O LATE MAHADI MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O MARASHETTENHALLI, HOLEHONNUR HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 227. 3(c). HARISHA S/O LATE MAHADI MANJAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O MARASHETTENHALLI, HOLEHONNUR HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 227. 3(d). SHEKAR S/O LATE MAHADI MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O MARASHETTENHALLI, HOLEHONNUR HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 227. 3(e). RAGHU S/O LATE MAHADI MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O MARASHETTENHALLI, HOLEHONNUR HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 227. 3(f). SMT. TULASAMMA W/O MAHADI MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O MARASHETTENHALLI, HOLEHONNUR HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 227. 4. JANAKIBAI W/O DHARMOJI RAO, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 4(a). MOHAN RAO S/O DHARMOJI RAO. 4(b). KUMAR, S/O DHARMOJI RAO. 4(c). SAROJI BAI D/O DHARMOJI RAO. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 R4(a) TO R4(c) ARE R/O MARASHETTYHALLI, KALLIHAL POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT -577 227. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3(a, b, e and f) AND R4(a to c); R3(c) & (d) - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10TH JANUARY, 2018 PASSED IN CASE NO.K.L.R.A. 1210, 1212, 1213/1975-75 BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BHADRAVATHI, GRANTING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 VIDE ANNEXURE-W; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION 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 this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 10th January, 2018 (Annexure-W) passed by the respondent No.1-Land Tribunal in Case No. K.L.R.A 1210, 1212, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 1213/1974-75, granting occupancy right in favour of respondents 2 to 4. 2. The facts in nutshell for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner No.1 is wife of late N. Shankarappa and the remaining petitioners are the children of the petitioner No.1. The grandfather of the petitioner No.2 viz., late Narayanarao was owner in possession of the inam land bearing Survey Nos.60 and 61 of Marashetty Halli, Bhadravathi Taluk based on the re-grant order made by the respondent-Government. After the demise of Narayana Rao, grandfather of the petitioner No.2, the father of petitioner No.2 viz., N. Shankarappa was in cultivation of the subject land. Index of land issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Bhadravathi is produced at Annexure-A. It is further stated that the record of rights are produced at Annexure-B, which demonstrates the cultivation of the land by the father of the petitioner No.2. It is also stated that the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga, by order dated 13th October, 1978, rejected the application filed by the father of the petitioner No.2, seeking re-grant of the land and as such, the said N. Shankarappa filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.5/1980 before the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 District Judge, Shivamogga, which came to be allowed on 08th January, 1981 (Annexure-D). Thereafter, the mutation entries have been made in favour of the father of the petitioner No.2. After death of the father of the petitioner No.2, petitioners herein have made an application, seeking change of mutation in their favour and at that juncture, the petitioners came to know that, one late Rangojirao along with respondents 3 and 4 herein have filed application under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as '1961- Act') before the respondent No.1-Land Tribunal, Bhadravathi, seeking occupancy right in respect of land bearing Survey Nos.60 and 61 of Marashetty Halli Village, Bhadravathi Taluk claiming different extent of land. It is the case of the petitioners that, those applicants were never in cultivation of the aforementioned lands and false claim has been made by the said applicants. The respondent No.1-Land Tribunal, by order 21st February, 2004, granted occupancy right in favour of late Rangojirao as well as respondents 3 and 4 herein. Being aggrieved by the same, the father of the petitioner No.2 viz., N. Shankarappa filed Writ Petition No.33054 of 2004 and this Court, by order dated 12th September, 2007 (Annexure-J), allowed the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 writ petition and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand, the Land Tribunal, by order dated 04th November, 2010 (Annexure-K), passed an order granting occupancy rights in favour of the original applicants. Being aggrieved by the same, father of the petitioner No.2 filed Writ Petition No.2006-07 of 2011 and 2652 of 2011 before this court and this Court, by order dated 27th June, 2012 (Annexure- L), allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. 3. The grievance of petitioners is that, no fair opportunity was extended to the petitioners by the Land Tribunal and finally, the Land Tribunal, disposed of the petition on 10th January, 2018 (Annexure-W), granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents 2 to 4. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners presented this writ petition. 4. Heard Sri. S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1; Sri. Vijaya Kumar K., learned counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3(a, b, e and f) and respondent No.4(a to c). - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 5. Sri. S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the land bearing Survey Nos.60 and 61 of Marashetty Halli, Holehonnur Hobli, Bhadravathi Taluk was a Inam Land and re-granted in favour of the father of the petitioner No.2 viz., N. Shankarappa as per order dated 08th January, 1981 under the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'KVOA Act') and therefore, the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights in favour of the respondents 2 to 4 herein. It is also argued by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that, as the land in question is not a tenanted land and as such, occupancy rights granted in favour of respondents 2 to 4 is illegal. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of SHRI. DHARMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE vs. CHINNATHAYAPPA reported in ILR 1990 KAR 4242 and in the case of HANUMANTHAIAH AND OTHERS vs. THE LAND TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2003 KAR 1410, contended that the respondent No.1-Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with the land granted under KVOA Act. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 6. Per contra, Sri. Vijaya Kumar K., learned counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3(a), 3(b), 3(e), 3(f) and 4(a) to 4(c) submitted that the petitioners are raising the plea of jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal for the first time before this Court, despite the earlier orders passed by this Court at Annexures 'J' and 'L', wherein this Court proceeded on the footing that the land in question is a tenanted land under 1961- Act. It is also argued by learned counsel Sri. Vijay Kumar K. that the land in question was tenanted even before the promulgation of KVOA Act. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the writ papers, the same would indicate that the land bearing Survey Nos.60 and 61 of Marashetty Halli, Bhadravathi Taluk have been re-granted on 30th March, 1985 in favour of the father of the petitioner No.2 under KVOA Act. The said aspect is forthcoming from the original - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 records submitted by the Government and reflected in the proceedings No.PDA 26,27/1988-89 dated 30th September, 1989. It is also forthcoming from the order dated 08th January, 1981 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.5/1980 on the file the District Judge, Shivamogga. The basic question to be answered in this writ petition is whether the provisions under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 be made applicable to the tenants, who were in cultivation of the land granted under KVOA Act. In this regard, it is relevant to follow the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of N.C. GANGARAJU (SINCE DEAD) BY HIS LRS AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2009 SCC OnLine KAR 15, wherein at paragraphs 13 to 16 held as under: 13. The perusal of Section 8 of the above provision reveals that if any land granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State has been lawfully leased and such lease was subsisting on the appointed date (1-2-1963), the provisions of the tenancy law for the time being in force in the area in which the land is situate, shall apply to the said lease. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 5 of the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1908 which did not prohibit the leases of service inam lands, when such lease was neither permanent nor for a long - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 period and was not a ‘transfer’ which is prohibited by Section 5 of the said Act. So, in view of the above said provision, if the appellants are successful in establishing that there was a lawful subsisting lease on the appointed date, the appellants are entitled to the grant of occupancy rights. Furthermore, we feel it just and proper to refer to the provisions of Section 126 of the KLR Act, which reads as under: “Application of Act to inams.—For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the provisions of this Act insofar as they confer any rights and impose obligations on tenants and landlords shall be applicable to tenants holding lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands (including tenants referred to in Section 8 of the Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 but subject to the provisions of the said Act) and to landlords and inamdar holding in such villages or lands”. 14. By this provision, it was declared that the provisions of this Act insofar as they confer any rights and impose obligations on tenants and landlords shall be applicable to tenants holding lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands (including tenants referred to in Section 8 of the Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 but subject to the provisions of the said Act). The italicised portion in the above provision was inserted by Act No. 1 of 1979, with effect from 1-1-1979, thereby even in respect of lands which fall within the category of Section 8 of the KVOA Act, the provisions of the KLR Act were also - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 made applicable and thereby if the appellants are successful in proving that they are the occupants of the lands as lawful tenants are entitled to the grant of occupancy rights. 15. In view of the said provisions, now it is relevant for us to take into consideration the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 10. In the decision in Shidramappa Bheemappa Asangi v. State of Karnataka [ILR 2001 KAR 5072 (DB).] the Division Bench of this Court taking into consideration the abolition of the village offices by the KVOA Act stated that the lands attached to Watan or Village Office which were always the property of the Government reverted back to the Government with effect from 1-2-1963 and the Watandars ceased to have any right or interest in them and have no authority to transfer any right or interest in Watan lands. Further the facts disclose that the Watandars executed a lease deed in favour of the tenants on 9-2-1970 and it was held that Watandars had no right, title and interest in Watan lands after they were resumed on 1-2-1963 and the tenant in possession of such lands could not claim occupancy rights in terms of Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act because he was not in lawful possession. The perusal of the facts reveal the creation of the tenancy after 1-2-1963 and it is in this context that this Court held that it was unlawful lease. As the Watandars had leased the right, title and interest in the lands after the resumption and their rights were under suspension till the regrant was made. As could be seen - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 from the facts on hand, it is the claim of the appellants that they were tenants much prior to 1-2-1963 and in fact they produced record of rights for the year 1960 before the Land Tribunal and even for the period subsequent to 1965, which would go to show that the predecessors of the appellants were in occupation of the land much prior to the date of the abolition of the village offices. If once the entry of the name of the predecessors of the appellants is presumed to be genuine under Section 133 of the KLR Act and as there was no prohibition of a lease prior to 1-2-1963, it could be said that they were in lawful possession of the property as tenants and the principles laid down in the decision referred to supra do not apply to the facts on hand. The learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court in Bore Gowda v. Rama Naik (dead) by L.Rs [1973 (1) Mys. L.J. 89 (DB).] , wherein this Court took into consideration the provisions of Section 8 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act and in a case where a lease is held by the holder of office to a tenancy which was subsisting on the date of resumption of the land by the Government, it was held that the case falls under the first part of Section 8 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act and the lease is governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the relationship of landlord and tenant created by the lease and the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto continue to remain subject to the provisions of the tenancy law till the land is regranted. This Court further held that the application filed under Section 42 and the statement filed under Section 14(1) of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 the Karnataka Land Reforms Act by the landlord would be maintainable. It is necessary to observe here that the application was filed by the landlord for recovery of the rent pertaining to the tenanted land. The perusal of the principles laid down in fact very much support the appellants as this Court held that the tenancy continues despite the abolition of the village offices. So also, as could be seen from the decision of this Court in Mariyappa v. Land Tribunal, Mandya [1978 (1) Kar. L.J. 418.] . Considering the provisions of Sections 141 and 126 of the KLR Act, it has been held that the persons in occupation of the land will have to get their rights worked out only under those Acts and not under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and the tenants and inferior holders though cultivating inam lands covered by the aforesaid enactments, will be entitled to seek appropriate reliefs under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is further held: “The main object with which the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act was brought into force was to abolish hereditary rights to village offices and the emoluments appertaining to such offices. This Act, unlike other Inams Abolition Acts, does not provide for conferment of ownership or occupancy rights in favour of tenants and other inferior holders. On the other hand, that Act envisages the continuation of such leases, if any, existing on the date of vesting. The relationship between the regrantees and their tenants would be governed by the existing tenancy laws”. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 16. The fact that the relationship between regrantee and their tenants were governed by the existing tenancy laws would clearly support the version of the appellants as they have sought for occupancy rights under the KLR (Amendment) Act, 1974. So, as could be seen from the decision referred to above, they do not favour the respondent, in case if the appellants were able to prove the lawful tenancy prior to 1-2-1963 and continued as tenants of the said property as on 1-3-1974, the date when the KLR (Amendment) Act came into force, they are entitled to the occupancy rights and Form 7 is filed by them and at the most could be kept pending till the Order of regrant were made by the Tahsildar in the year 1985. It is further necessary to mention here that the year of regrant relates back to the date of the application of the legal representatives of the office holder and as the tenancy is created earlier to 1-2-1963, there is no bar for the appellants to claim the occupancy rights. It is in this context, we have to look into the documents produced by the appellants, both before the Tribunal and also in this Court. The appellants have produced the records regarding the cultivation of the land for the year 1960 onwards but did not produce any material to show as the cultivation as on 1-2-1963. Furthermore, an application before this Court is filed and the record of rights for the years 1960-1961 to 1964-1965 reveal the names of the predecessors of the appellants in the column pertaining to the cultivation on lease basis. When the appellants had produced the record of rights for the year 1960-1961, before the Land Tribunal and so also, for the year 1964- - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 1965, an inference could be drawn regarding continuation of their name in the record of rights unless the respondents had produced the record of rights to show that their names were there in the cultivator's column of the property register. But, it is relevant to note that the appellants have produced the records for the year 1960- 1961 and even thereafter their names appear in the cultivator's columns as on 1-3-1974 and in view of the fact that subsequently the land has been regranted to the legal representatives of the village office holders, if the provisions of Section 8 of the KVOA Act and Section 126 of the KLR Act is taken into consideration, the appellants in fact are entitled to the grant of occupancy rights and their application in Form 7 has to be considered." 9. The aforementioned aspect was considered by this Court recently in the case of GADIGAEYYA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Writ Petition No.107171 of 2019 disposed of on 14th February, 2024, wherein at paragraph 6 to 9 held as under: 6. Admittedly, the subject lands were leased in favour of the petitioners in the year 1959 for a period of six years. The KVOA Act, 1961 came into effect from 20.07.1961. Section 4 of the KVOA Act, 1961 states that all village offices shall be and are hereby abolished, and sub Section (3) states that all land granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State shall be and is hereby resumed, and shall be subject to - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 the payment of land revenue under the provisions of the Code and the rules and orders made thereunder as if it were an unalienated land or ryotwari land. Section 5 of the KVOA Act, 1961 provides for Re-grant of land resumed under section 4 to the holder of the village office. In the instant case, the holder of the land, the person to whom the land was granted has not filed application for regrant of the subject land and as of today there is no regrant order made in favor of the holder of the regrant order. 7. Section 8 of the KVOA Act, 1961 deals with application of tenancy law, and it states that any land granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State has been lawfully leased and such lease is subsisting on the appointed date, the provisions of the tenancy law for the time being in force in that area in which the land is situate shall apply to the said lease and the rights and liabilities of the person to whom such land is granted under sections 5, 6 or 7 and his tenant or tenants shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be governed by the provisions of the said tenancy law. 8. The issue as to whether the occupancy rights can be granted in respect of land which was lawfully leased before commencement of the KVOA Act, 1961 and subsisting as on the appointed date under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in the absence of regrant order was examined by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of N.C. Gangaraju and others vs. State of Karnataka and others. The Division Bench has held that - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 if the appellants therein are successful in establishing that there was a lawful subsisting lease on the appointed date, the appellants therein are entitled to the grant of occupancy rights. 9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Akkamma vs. Deputy Commissioner and others reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3301 has held that in view of the clarification inserted by Amendment Act of 1979, irrespective of the fact that the land is inam land or in the regular course, the tenanted land for which there is claim for tenancy, the Land Tribunal has got jurisdiction to deal with the same. Therefore, having regard to the specific provision contained in section eight of the KVOA Act, 1961, the rights of a person to whom the land was leased lawfully and continues to be in possession as a tenant as on the date of the appointed date i.e., 01.03.1974 is protected, despite that there is no order regranting the subject lands to the holder of the office. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure – F is hereby quashed. The respondent No.3 having filed an affidavit categorically admitting that the petitioners were cultivating the subject land as tenant as on the appointed date, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No.2 to - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 grant occupancy rights in favor of the petitioners herein in respect of the subject lands. The respondent No.2 to pass an order granting occupancy rights in favor of the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order or within three months from the date of reconstitution of the Tribunal. 10. Following the declaration of law made in the above decisions, I am of the opinion that the judgments referred to by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners are not applicable to the case on hand. It is also to be noted that, the order passed by the respondent No.1-Land Tribunal has been questioned before this court twice on earlier occasions in two writ petitions and the case was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The petitioners in the present writ petition are challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1-Land Tribunal for a third time. It is also to be noted that the question relating to applicability of KVOA Act, was not canvassed before this Court on the earlier two occasions and also before the respondent No.1-Land Tribunal. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27999 WP NO.15771 OF 2018 private respondents. Therefore, following the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. AND OTHERS vs. PILLAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SC OnLine SC 38, I am of the opinion that, this Court is empowered to decide the matter on merits to avoid further repeated remand orders and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are failed to prove the legal question relating to excluding the land from the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and that apart, the private respondents were in cultivation of the land in question prior to the promulgation of the KVOA Act and continued in possession on the relevant date i.e., on 01st March, 1974, the date on which the amendment was incorporation to the 1961-Act, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83