-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITON NO.20376 OF 2018 (LR) C/W WRIT PETITON NO.6806 OF 2021 (LR) IN WP No.20376 OF 2018 BETWEEN 1. 1(a) 1(b) 1(c) SRI G REVANNA S/O. LATE. PATEL GIRIGOWDA, DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE G.REVANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O. CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. RANI @ CHANDRAKALA W/O LATE MAHESH AGE 33 YEARS R/O. CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. MAHESH S/O RANI @ CHANDRAKALA AGE 17 YEARS R Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA -2- 1(d) 1(e) 1(f) KUMARI VARSHINI D/O RANI @ CHANDRAKALA AGE 13 YEARS SINCE THE 1 (c) & 1(d) ARE MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER BY 1(a) PADMAVATHI D/O LATE G.REVANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O. CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. SANTOSH S/O LATE G.REVANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O. CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 2. SRI. G MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE. PATEL GIRIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O. CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS (BY ARAVIND H., ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI CHINNAPPA REDDY S/O. LATE. ABBAIAH REDDY, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(a) SMT. AKKAYAMMA W/O. LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY, -3- AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/O CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALRE RURAL DISTRICT. 1(b) SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. GOPALREDDY, D/O. LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SINGASANDRA, BEGUR HOBALI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-99. 1(c) LALITHAMMA W/O. KHEKAR REDDY, D/O. LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SARAKKI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BEGUR HOBALI, BANGALORE. 1(d) MUNIREDDY S/O. LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, CHIKKANAGAMANGALA, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 1(e) SMT. PADMA W/O. NAGARAJA REDDY, AGE MAJOR, D/O. LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY, VANGASANDRA, BEGUR HOBALI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE. 1(f) SRINIVASA S/O. LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY AGE MAJOR, -4- CHIKKANAGAMANGALA, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 1(g) SMT. KOMALA W/O. NARAYANAPPA REDDY, D/O. LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGE MAJOR, H.S.R. LAYOUT, BANGALORE. 1(h) RAMESH S/O. LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGE MAJOR, CHIKKANAGAMANGALA, HOSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 2. SRI. KRISHNA REDDY S/O. LATE. ABBAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/O. CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ANEKAL TALUK, LAND DEVELOPMENT, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT. 4. SRI. C R MANJUNATH S/O. LATE. RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O. VARTHUR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. 5. SRI. NANJUNDAIAH S/O. LATE. NARAYANA RAO, -5- R5 DIED AND R4 TREATED AS LR OF R5 V/O DT. 16.06.22. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIVEK S.REDDY., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.N.SUBBAREDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1(a TO h) & R2 SRI. K.P.YOGANNA., AGA FOR R3 SRI. V.BASAVA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4 R4 IS TREATED AS LR’S OF R5 V/O DT. 16/06/2022) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 30.11.2017 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.25/2011 AT ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE KARANATAKA APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND ETC. IN WP No.6806 OF 2021 BETWEEN 1 1(a) SRI CHINNAPPA REDDY SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LRS SMT.AKKAYAMMA W/O LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY AGED 85 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560099 1(b) SMT.JAYAMMA W/O GOPAL REDDY AGED 65 YEARS R/AT SINGASANDRA, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560068. -6- 1(c) SMT.LALITHAMMA AGED 67 YEARS, W/O SHEKAR REDDY NO.2, NEAR RAMA MANDRI SARAKKI JP NAGAR 1ST PHASE, JP NAGAR BANGALORE-560078 1(d) MUNIREDDY S/O CHINNPPA REDDY AGED 66 YEARS, NO.7 MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, CHIKKANAGAMANGALA BANGALORE-560099. 1(e) SMT.PADMA AGED 58 YEARS, W/O NAGARAJ REDDY NANDA GOKULA NILAYA, 4TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, HONGASANDRA, KALYANA MANTAPA ROAD, BANGALORE-560068. 1(f) SRINIVAS REDDY S/O CHINNAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 7, RAJIV GANDHI NAGARA, 18TH CROSS, BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH-560068. 1(g) SMT.KOMALA AGED 57 YEARS, W/O NARAYANAPPA R/AT 2010, 22ND C MAIN, 14TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, 1ST SECTOR HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560102. 1(h) RAMESH AGED 55 YEARS, -7- RAMA MANDIR TEMPLE SARAKI JP NAGAR 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078. 2 . SRI.KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE ABBIAH REDDY AGED 79 YEARS, CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURLA DISTRICT-560099 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUBBA REDDY K N., ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 106. 3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 106 4 . THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 106 5 . SRI.G.REVANNA S/O PATEL GIRIGOWDA AGED 64 YEARS, CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, -8- ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560099. 6 . SRI.G.MUNIRAJU S/O PATEL GIRIGOWDA AGED 59 YEARS, CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560099. 7 . SMT.MANJULA D/O MUNIRAJU AGED 30 YEARS, CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560099. 8 . SRI.SATISH S/O MUNIRAJU AGED 27 YEARS, CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, HUSKUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560099. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. ARAVIND.H., ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO R4 HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 12.03.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO A2 AND DELETE THE EXISTING ENTRY IN COLUMN NO.9 AND 10 OF THE RTC PERTAINING TO SY.NO.38 OF CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND ETC. -9- THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS) These writ petitions raise an interesting question as to whether a person who claims to be a tenant, but has not filed an application either in Form No.7 or Form No.7A as contemplated in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’) could question an order passed by the competent authority, conferring occupancy rights in favour of another tenant? 2. The undisputed facts are that the Assistant Commissioner/competent authority passed an order on 09.09.2003 in proceedings bearing No.L.R.F.7A:490:1998- 99, jointly granting the lands in favour of Sri.G.Revanna and his brother Sri.G.Muniraju. Title deed of grant in Form No.11CCC was also granted by the Tahsildar, Anekal -10- Taluk in favour of the two brothers on 03.03.2004. Although it is not relevant, nevertheless, it needs to be stated that in a suit for partition, in O.S.No.396/2008, on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC., at Anekal, a decree was drawn in terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties and the said properties were divided amongst the family members and the present RTC reflects such division and allotment. The original respondents No.1 and 2 viz., Sri.Chinnappa Reddy and Sri.Krishna Reddy filed an appeal under Section 118(2) of the Act, challenging the order dated 09.09.2003 in No.L.R.F.7A:490:1998-99, in the year 2011. By the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 at Annexure-J, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, allowed the appeal while condoning the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order dated 09.09.2003. This writ petition was filed by the original grantees, Sri.G.Revanna and Sri.G.Muniraju, both of whom died during the pendency of -11- these proceedings and their legal representatives have come on record. 3. The main contention of the petitioners is that such an appeal filed at the hands of the contesting respondents could not have been entertained by the Tribunal, for the reason that admittedly, the contesting respondents never filed an application either in Form No.7 or Form No.7A. It is contended that the contesting respondents have no locus standi to question the impugned order dated 09.09.2003, since they are not rival claimants. In this regard, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Kori Erappa Vs. The Secretary, Revenue Department and Others, in W.P.No.36191/2000 (LR) dated 20.02.2001 and Kori Erappa, Since Dead by his LRs., Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, in W.P.No.6169/2008 dated 21.12.2023. -12- 4. Per contra, the contesting respondents submit that Section 118(2) of the Act, provides for an appeal in respect of every order passed by the competent authority and therefore, it cannot be contended that the contesting respondents have no locus standi. 5. In the considered opinion, this Court needs to look no further than a decision of a Division Bench in the case of Basappa Gurusangappa Baragundi and etc Vs. The Land Tribunal, Badami and Others etc. etc. , AIR 1980 KAR. 175, where, in paragraph No.10, it is held as follows: “10. When rival applications are made before the Tribunal for grant of occupancy right in respect of the same land, it is, in our opinion. The duty of the Tribunal to consider together those rival applications and decide them by a common order 'otherwise, there cannot be a proper adjudication of the rival claims. Even if one of the rival applicants had filed his application earlier and the Tribunal had granted him occupancy right in respect of that land and subsequently another applicant makes an application within the time limit provided by S. 48A -13- in respect of the same land, the Tribunal cannot decline to consider the subsequent application on the ground that it has already granted occupancy right in respect of that land to the earlier applicant. The Tribunal is bound to consider every application on file within the time limit provided by the Act and it is no answer to such application to say that that land is not available for grant of occupancy right therein. The only way in which the Tribunal can be enabled to consider the later application, is to set aside its earlier order arid to direct it (the Tribunal) consider together both the rival applications and to decide thereon. It may look startling that an order of the tribunal which was valid when it was made and did not suffer from any infirmity, should be set aside, merely because another person makes a rival application in respect of the same name land after the Tribunal has ranted occupancy right in respect of that land to the earlier applicant. But there is no other way in which the Tribunal can discharge its obligation to consider all applications filed in time.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. It is therefore clear, having regard to Rule 17(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, which provides that if there are more applications than one for -14- registration of occupancy rights by different persons in respect of the same land, those cases shall be clubbed together and a common order passed. If the contesting respondents had also filed application within the prescribed time, then the contesting respondents were entitled to have their application considered along with that of the petitioners. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was entitled to pass an order setting aside the order dated 09.09.2003, while remanding the matter back to the competent authority to reconsider both the applications and pass a common order. However, when admittedly, no application is filed by the contesting respondents, the contesting respondents will have no locus standi to question the impugned order dated 09.09.2003. Though the petitioners herein raised such a contention, the Tribunal has failed to consider the said issue. 7. Writ petition No.6806/2021 is filed by the contesting respondents herein seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the revenue authorities to delete the -15- names of the petitioners herein from the revenue records and enter in Column No.11 of the RTC the order passed by the Tribunal and the pendency of these writ petitions. Having regard to the finding given hereinabove, the prayer made in the said writ petition becomes infructuous. 8. Consequently, the issue raised is answered accordingly. Writ petition No. 20376/2018 is allowed while setting aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.25/2011 at Annexure-J. The other writ petition in W.P.No.6806/2021 stands dismissed. Ordered accordingly. 9. In view of disposal of the main petitions, all pending Interlocutory Applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (R. DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL