- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53276 WP No. 13749 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 13749 OF 2020 (LR) BETWEEN: SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE D PUTTACHARI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT PRASHANTHNAGAR CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT GOWRIBIDANUR-561 208 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ADITYA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR, SUB-DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101 2. THE TAHSHILDAR TALUK OFFICE CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT GOWRIBIDANUR -561 208 3. SRI N ASHWATHNARAYANAPPA SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LR'S 3.A) JANARDANA S/O LATE N. ASHWATHNARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOSUR VILLAGE , HOSUR HOBLI, HOSUR POST, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53276 WP No. 13749 of 2020 GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 210 3.B) GIRISHA S/O LATE N. ASHWATHNARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOSUR VILLAGE , HOSUR HOBLI, HOSUR POST, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 210 3.C) NAGARJUNA S/O LATE N. ASHWATHNARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOSUR VILLAGE , HOSUR HOBLI, HOSUR POST, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 210 4. SRI H.V NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE VENKATANARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT HOSURU-561 210. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MILIND DANGE, AGA FOR R1 & R2, SRI. N. S. SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A-C) & R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.578/2011 DTD.8.12.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53276 WP No. 13749 of 2020 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 08.12.2017 passed in Appeal No.578/2011 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, ‘KAT’) as per Annexure - 'A'. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband one D.Puttachari was cultivating land bearing Sy.No.149/1 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 19 guntas and her mother-in-law namely Lakshmamma was cultivating land bearing Sy.No.365/2 measuring to an extent of 4 acres 17 guntas situated at Hosur Village, Hosur Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk (for brevity, 'subject lands'). The subject lands are tenanted land i.e., Kammar Nowkri Inam. It is the case of the petitioner is that her husband and her mother-in-law were in possession of the subject lands ever since several decades and cultivating the same. The RTC and other revenue entries also effected in their name. However, inadvertently they failed to file application under Form No.7 and after amendment of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53276 WP No. 13749 of 2020 Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for brevity, 'the Act'), D.Puttachari has filed an application under Section 77A of the Act in respect of the subject lands in the year 1999. During the pendency of the case he expired and his wife i.e, petitioner came on record as his legal representative. 3. The authorised officer i.e., the Assistant Commissioner after an enquiry under Rule 26(C) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules (for brevity, 'the Rules') granted the occupancy right in favour of the petitioner as per order dated 24.05.2007 at Annexure - 'C'. Accordingly, the petitioner continued in the possession of the subject lands. Later, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed an appeal before the KAT in the year 2011 i.e., after a lapse of four years by challenging the grant made in favour of the petitioner. The KAT without hearing the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 08.12.2017 by allowing the appeal and thereby, cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner and directed the Tahsildar of Gowribidanur Taluk to take possession of the subject lands and to enter - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53276 WP No. 13749 of 2020 the name of the Government in the revenue records as per Annexure - 'A'. Challenged to the same is lis before this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Despite granting sufficient time, the learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not appeared. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the KAT has passed the impugned order without extending an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her claim by placing relevant documents. He also contended that the petitioner is in possession of the subject lands from several decades. The RTC entries of the subject lands clearly depicts that the petitioner was in possession of the same as on the date of vesting. 6. He also contended that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are totally stranger to the subject lands and since they - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53276 WP No. 13749 of 2020 made an attempt to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the subject lands, the petitioner filed an original suit in O.S.No.172/2008 before the Civil Judge and JMFC at Gowribidanur. In the said suit, respondent Nos.3 and 4 raised a contention that they are the agreement holders in respect of the subject lands. Strangely, before the KAT they claimed that they are cultivating the subject lands from 30 years i.e., as on the date of vesting to the Government. As such, the defence of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the original suit and before the KAT goes contradictory. In such circumstances, the KAT ought to have extended an opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned order as a compliance of principle of natural justice. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, Learned Additional Government Advocate by supporting the impugned order submits that the KAT has provided sufficient opportunity to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53276 WP No. 13749 of 2020 petitioner, despite she remained absent. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate so also perused the documents placed before this Court. 9. As could be gathered from records, while granting occupancy right in favour of the petitioner in LRF:7A(H):64/1999-2000 by the authorised officer i.e., the Assistant Commissioner clearly observed that the husband and mother-in-law of the petitioner were in cultivation of the subject lands as on the date of vesting. Further, they also placed relevant documents to that effect. However, on perusal of the impugned order, the KAT has observed that the petitioner had not placed any such documents to prove that her husband and her mother-in-law were cultivating the subject lands. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53276 WP No. 13749 of 2020 10. On careful perusal of the records, the RTC placed by the petitioner from the year 1965-66 to 2000-01 clearly depicts that the husband and mother-in-law of the petitioner were in cultivating the subject lands and the subject lands were a Kammar Nowkri Inam Land. 11. These documents placed by the petitioner clearly reveal that the KAT has failed to examine these documents before passing the impugned order. Nonetheless, on perusal of the written statement filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.172/2008 as per Annexure – 'H', respondent Nos.3 and 4 have taken a specific stand that they were agreement holders of the subject lands. Strangely, their contention before the KAT was that they were in cultivation of the subject lands from last thirty years, their defence goes contradictory and destructive. 12. In such circumstance, in my considered view, the KAT has erred in passing the impugned order without - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53276 WP No. 13749 of 2020 extending opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her case by producing relevant documents. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.578/2011 as per Annexure - 'A' is quashed. iii. The matter is remitted back to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration by restoring the Appeal No.578/2011, extending opportunity to the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 to put forth their claim with documents if any, they intend to produce at the earliest. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53276 WP No. 13749 of 2020 iv. The parties shall appear before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 19.01.2026 without any further notice. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38