- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46066 WP No. 5793 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 5793 OF 2023 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. PAULIN D'ALMEIDA AGED 94 YEAS W/O LATE FRENCIES D'ALMEIDA R/AT BETHEL VILLA, OPP: FATHIMA CHURCH, PEREMPALLI, SHIVALI VILLAGE, POST KUNJIBETTU - 576 102 UDUPI DISTRICT … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAGAR D NAIDU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46066 WP No. 5793 of 2023 3. LATHA S RAO AGED 45 YEARS, D/O LATE SADASHIVA RAO R/AT DOOR NO. 11/3/112 NEAR MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE SHIRIBEEDU UDUPI - 576 101 UDUPI DISTRICT … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI V. SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) *** THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 28.10.2022 PASSED IN CASE. NO.LRY77-937-TRI-10479/80-81 ON THE FILED OF THE R-2 LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE LAND AND TO DECLARE THE SAME AS UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46066 WP No. 5793 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The present petition has been filed by the tenant calling in question the order dated 28.10.2022 passed in Case No. LRY 77-937-TRI-10479/80-81 by the Land Tribunal, Udupi. 2. It is to be noticed that the petitioner had filed Form No.7 claiming to be a tenant under the landlady Smt.Ramabai, who is the mother-in-law of respondent No.3. The claim of the petitioner is with respect to Survey No.358/5 measuring 1.38 acres of Shivalli Village, Udupi Taluk. The claim came to be rejected as per the order dated 28.10.2022 by the Land Tribunal, which is called in question before this Court. 3. It is to be noticed that there were proceedings in prior grounds of litigation as well and the order earlier passed in LRA No.394/1998 was converted to Writ Petition No.2251/1997 which was allowed on 18.08.2003 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Subsequent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46066 WP No. 5793 of 2023 to remand, the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 has been passed. 4. The present petition is concerned only regarding the claim of Smt. Pauline D' Almeida. The Tribunal, while considering the claim of other rival claimant Smt. Theresa D'Souza-kom-Phillip D'Souza as well, has passed the common order disposing of both the claims made by way of Form No.7. 5. The Tribunal has recorded the following points for consideration:- "(i) Whether the land in question with respect to the claim that was made would fall within the definition of 'land' under Section 2(A)(18) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. "(iii) Whether the claimants proved that they were tenants prior to 01.03.1974 and were in possession and were cultivating the land. " - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46066 WP No. 5793 of 2023 6. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the land was 'Punja land' and not fit for cultivation and mere presence of few coconut trees or cashew trees would not make it fall within the definition of 'land' and that there has to be effective agricultural activities. 7. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, specific finding of the Tribunal relying on the evidence of petitioner herself is that the portion of the land was converted for non-agricultural purpose to an extent of 0.10 acres and further, the Tribunal has noticed that the petitioner has admitted regarding the conversion of land as well as putting up of RCC structure. Accordingly, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the land in question would not fall within the definition of Section 2(a)(18) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act ['KLR Act'], 1961. 8. The further finding of the Tribunal is that the petitioner through her husband was using the land for the purpose of running hotel business and accordingly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46066 WP No. 5793 of 2023 recorded a clear finding that the land was being used for commercial purpose and accordingly the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the land would not fall within the definition of 'land' of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. 9. Insofar as the claim of tenant, though the petitioner had produced Tenancy Receipt to evidence the same, however, on close scrutiny, it was observed that the said document related only for use of shop to an extent of 0.20 Cents and only for one year. Further, the finding specifically was that the Chalageni Chit did not have the signature of a person who grants Chalageni. Such detailed findings are sought to be assailed, but the petitioner is unable to substantiate her contentions or assail the findings of the Tribunal. 10. The finding that the land which is claimed under Form No.7 does not fall within the definition of Section 2(a)(18) of the 'KLR Act' requires to be accepted, as the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46066 WP No. 5793 of 2023 Tribunal has rightly observed that the petitioner has admitted in evidence regarding her husband intending to use the land for hotel purpose and also an extent of 0.10 acres having been converted for non-agricultural purpose, however, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that Chalageni Chit though disbelieved was apparently for the purpose of putting up shop in an extent of 0.20 Cents and if that were to be so, the finding of the Tribunal the claim relates to the land which is not brought under cultivation requires acceptance. 11. Though the petitioner has asserted that there are four coconut trees, six coconut seedlings and three jackfruit trees, two mango trees, however, the Tribunal refers that these trees are standing in their land which was converted for commercial purpose. Even otherwise, it is settled position reiterated by a number of orders of this Court that mere presence of few standing trees will not amount to bringing the property for active cultivation unless it is demonstrated by the tenant that the property - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46066 WP No. 5793 of 2023 was subject to active cultivation, the claim before the Land Tribunal claiming tenancy in respect of agricultural land would not arise. 12. Accordingly, the finding of fact by the Tribunal both, as regards the nature of property not being 'land' and therefore could not be subjected to claim in light of the definition in Section 2(A)(18) of the KLR Act as well as the finding that the petitioner was making efforts to use the land for non-agricultural use, i.e. for shop and the other portion for the hotel business are correct findings that cannot interfered with. 13. Accordingly, the petition is rejected and the order dated 28.10.2022 passed in Case No.LRY 77-937- TRI-10479/80-81 by the Land Tribunal, Udupi is upheld. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR