- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1754 OF 2024 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. BALAKKA, W/O LATE LINGAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT MADHAPU HOUSE, MARULLYA POST - 574 239 SULIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT 2. SHASHIKALA, W/O LATE ISWARA POOJARY, D/O LATE LINGAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NEKKARE HOUSE, GALITHA MAJALI KALLADAKA, BANTWALA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 222. 3. JAYAPRAKASH M, S/O LATE LINGAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT MADHAPU HOUSE, MARULLYA POST - 574 239 SULIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT 4. SULOCHANA, W/O JANARDHANA, D/O LATE LINGAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ISWARAMANYALA Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 202. 5. SHASHI PRABHA, W/O JAGANNATH D/O LATE LINGAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MATHRADI HOUSE AND VILLAGE, KONTARA POST, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 202. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, LAND TRIBUNAL, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SULLIA, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 239. 3. SUNDARI, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT HALIYURU, VANAGUR POST, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134. 4. A.K.KARUNAKARA, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED 48 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 R/AT HALIYURU, VANAGUR POST, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134. 5. A.K.DAMODARA, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT HALIYURU, VANAGUR POST, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134. 6. A.SHASHIKALA W/O H.R.JAYARAM, D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT HALIYURU, VANAGUR POST, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134. 7. A.K. VASANTH, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.33/1, 6TH CROSS, SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 & R2, VIDE ORDER DATED14.10.2025 R5 DEAD, R3, R4, R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, SRI. B.M. IRSHAD AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR R7) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED:19.09.2024 IN WP NO.26512/2005(LR) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the legal representatives or original respondent No.3, challenging the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26512/2005. 2. Learned Single Judge under the impugned order, allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order dated 04.08.2005 passed by the second respondent - Land Tribunal. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge. 4. The brief factual matrix leading to filing of this appeal are as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 The petitioners filed Writ Petition seeking following reliefs: 1) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari and quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent/ Land Tribunal Sullya, bearing No.L.R.Y.2695:74-75 dated 04-08-2005 vide Annexure-H. 2) Call for the entire records pertaining for the proceedings hearing No.L.R.Y.2695:74-75 of the Land Tribunal, Sullya. 3) Declare the petitioners as the owners of properties bearing Sy.No.131/3 measuring 3 acres 35 cents, Sy.No.131/4 measuring 70 cents and Sy.No.131/5 measuring 4 cents situated at Marulya village, Sullia Taluk. 4) Issue any such appropriate order, orders, direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case by allowing this Writ Petition with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 exemplary costs in the interest of justice and equity. 5. For easy reference, the family tree of the parties is extracted as under: BHATYA POOJARI | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | HONNAMMA MANJAPPA POOJARI POOVAPPA POOJARI | | | LINGAPPA (TENANT) (R3) | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | SUNDHARI NARAYANA RAMAIAH DEVAPPA (P1) | | ----------------------------------------------------- | | | | KARUNKARE DAMODHARA SHASHIKALA VASANTHA (P2) (P3) (P4) (P5) 6. The first petitioner contends that she along with late Manjappa Poojary, Povappa Poojary, Narayana Poojary, Ramaiah Poojary and Devappa Poojary constituted one family. they belong to Billava community and they are governed by law of Aliyasanthana. As per the claim of the petitioners, the petition lands are the ancestral properties and in registered Partition Deed dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 30.04.1970, the first petitioner was allotted 5/10th share. It was the further claim of the petitioners that the father of respondent No.3 who was asserting tenancy rights in the ancestral property, was cultivating the lands on behalf of the family. Post registered partition deed, in a oral partition Manjappa Poojary agreed to give the first petitioner and other parties 02 Mudi, 08 Seru rice. 7. Since, Manjappa Poojary not adhered to his agreed crop share under the oral partition, the first petitioner along with her children instituted a suit in O.S.No.164/1975. The suit came to be decreed. Manjappa Poojary despite preliminary decree, declined to give share and mischievously got Form No.7 by his son Lingappa Poojary before the second respondent - Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in favor of Lingappa Poojary. The said order came to be challenged before this Court in Writ Petition and the order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Land tribunal for de novo enquiry. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 8. After remand, without affording any opportunity to the petitioners, again the occupancy rights were conferred on 13.11.1987. The said order was the subject matter in W.P.No.29353/1996. The Writ Court allowed the Writ Petition and remanded the matter again vide order dated 04.08.2005 (Annexure-H). Again, the occupancy rights were conferred on respondent No.3. Hence, the present Writ Petition was filed. 9. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended by the petitioners firstly that there cannot be any Form No.7 by the son against the father. Secondly that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant. Thirdly that the registered partition deed was referred to contend that the original respondent No.3 was well aware of the registered partition deed and therefore, Form No.7 is not maintainable. Fourthly that it was contended that the Tribunal has not at all examined the material documents produced before it and the order of conferring occupancy rights is erroneous and warrants interference. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 To buttress the arguments, they placed reliance on the Judgment in SMT.A.JALAJAKSHI D.ALWA VS. MEENAXI NAIK AND OTHERS (W.P.No.1086/1980 decided on 11.03.1980) to contend that the family members cannot set up a tenancy in respect of ancestral properties. 10. Refuting the contentions of the petitioners, original respondent No.3 referring to the pleadings at Paragraph No.1 of the Writ Petition contended that the petitioners have admitted in unequivocal terms that Manjappa Poojary had agreed under oral partition to give 2 Mudi 8 Seru rice which clearly shows that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further contended that the petitioner No.1 and her children are not residing in the locality and they are residing at Sakaleshpur and in view of severance in the family, Form No.7 filed by respondent No.3 is maintainable. It is further submitted that Lingappa Poojary was not a party to the partition deed and therefore, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is actually incorrect. To buttress his argument, the legal representatives of respondent No.3 placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in RUKHAMANBAI VS. SHIVARAM AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1981 SC 1881. 11. Learned Single Judge referring to the evidence of son of respondent No.3, extracted in Paragraph No.11 of the order, observed that son of respondent No.3 in unequivocal terms admitted that they were aware of the partition deed. The contention that respondent No.3 was inducted as a tenant since April 1940 is factually incorrect and the statement runs contrary to the materials placed on record by the petitioners and respondents themselves. 12. The learned Single Judge further observed that intentionally Form No.7 is filed by the son against his father Manjappa Poojary and Manjappa Poojary admittedly, is not the owner of the property and there is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 no material to indicate that Manjappa Poojary was inducted as a tenant. There is no material placed to substantiate that the petitioners leased the petition lands to respondent No.3. 13. The learned Single Judge upon considering these aspects of the matter, was of the opinion that unless there is concrete evidence showing that the land was leased by the landlord and the person claiming tenancy rights was lawfully inducted and cultivating the land as on the appointed date, the land in question does not vests in the Government. There is no evidence placed, much less substantial evidence by respondent No.3 to prove that he was cultivating the land as a tenant and if the cultivation is on behalf of the family under oral partition, respondent No.3 cannot be accepted as a tenant under his own father, Manjappa Poojary. With these reasons, the learned Single Judge comes to a conclusion that the Tribunal has ignored the fact that petitioner No.1 was granted half share in property under both registered partition deed and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 preliminary decree in O.S.No.164/1975 and this has not been considered by the Tribunal which has resulted in miscarriage of justice in passing erroneous order. 14. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there is no question of remanding the matter again, since the land is identified as non-tenanted land and no Form No.7 is pending against petitioner No.1 for further investigation and even if the matter is remanded, it would be of futile exercise. Having come to such conclusion, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order passed by the Tribunal. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge is called in question in this Writ Appeal. 15. Heard, Sri.Uday Holla., learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.Keshava Bhat.A., for the appellants, Sri.Mohammed Jaffar Shah., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.B.M.Irshad Ahmed., learned counsel for respondent - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 No.7. Respondents 3, 4 and 6 though served are unrepresented. Vide order dated 14.10.2025, respondent No.5 is reported to be dead. 16. Sri.Uday Holla., learned Senior Counsel referring to Paragraph No.1 of the Writ Petition submits that there is a clear admission by the petitioners that Manjappa Poojary was cultivating the land by giving 2 Mudi 8 Seru rice to the livelihood of the other members and further that the petitioners were residing in Haliyuru Village, Sakaleshpura Taluk, as such, on the appointed date, Manjappa Poojary was cultivating the land as tenant. In these circumstances, From No.7 filed by son of Manjappa Poojary against the petitioners is maintainable and the Tribunal on all the occasions granted occupancy rights considering the fact that Manjappa Poojary was cultivating the land by giving 2 Mudi 8 Seru rice. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and has given more weightage to the decree passed in the original suit and - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 failed to consider the admissions of the petitioners themselves and sought to allow the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 17. In contrast, learned counsel Sri.Irshad Ahmed., appearing for contesting respondent with all vehemence submits that Form No.7 is filed against Manjappa Poojary showing him as owner of the land and there is no Form No.7 filed against the petitioners. In these circumstances, Form No.7 filed itself is not maintainable. The Land Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. Besides this, there is a clear admission by son of respondent No.3 who has given evidence on behalf of respondent No.3 has clearly admitted that there is oral partition and the land has fallen to the share of the petitioners and this has been considered by the learned Single Judge to hold that respondent No.3 was aware of the partition. In these circumstances, the land even if it is cultivated by another family member, it is for the family and cannot be termed as the same is cultivated in the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 capacity of a tenant. In these circumstances, there is no vesting of the land as contemplated under the provisions of Land Reforms Act. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned Single Judge and passed the well reasoned order, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 18. Having considered the rival submissions, we have perused the entire appeal paper. 19. When queried regarding the entries in the RTC in Column No.12, learned Senior counsel with all fairness in his usual way submits that there is no record to that effect. The learned Single Judge considered the case in view of oral evidence given by son of original respondent No.3 before the Tribunal and in view of the partition as well as preliminary decree in O.S.No.164/1975, wherein 1/2 share has been declared in favor of the petitioners, no case has been made out regarding the tenancy claims. The learned Single Judge especially at Paragraphs 14 to 20 has - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15157-DB WA No. 1754 of 2024 reasoned his order and formed an opinion that the land is not a tenanted land and is not vested with the Government under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the order passed by the land Tribunal. 20. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which warrants interference. The appeal sans merits and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8