- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26043-DB WA No. 810 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 810 OF 2026 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RATHNA DAS, W/O DASA, D/O LATE NARASIMHA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.105, 4TH CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, B.K. CIRCLE, KOTHANOOR DINNE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 075. NARASIMHA ACHARYA (SINCE DECEASED BY LRs) SMT. SARASWATHI ACHARTHI (SINCE DECEASED BY LRs) 2. SRI. GANAPATHI ACHARI, S/O LATE NARASIMHA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.60, 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN, MANGALORE STITCHWARE, B.T.M. 2ND STAGE, NEAR SHANTHINIKETHAN SCHOOL BENGALURU - 560 078. 3. SRI. CHANDRA ACHARI, S/O LATE NARASIMHA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26043-DB WA No. 810 of 2026 R/AT NEAR AVARSHE BHANDSALE, AVARSHE POST, UDUPI TALUK - 576 223. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA. ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 3. DR. VISHWANATH SHETTY, S/O SRINIVAS SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT NEXT TO VISHAL CHILDREN AND MATERNITY HOSPITAL, KODIALGUTHU, MANNAGUDDA, MANGALURU - 575 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2, SRI. H. PAVAN CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED:02.02.2026 IN WP NO.15374/2022(LR) AND DISMISS THE WP NO.15374/2022 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2022 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, GRANTING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26043-DB WA No. 810 of 2026 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: 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) The legal representatives of original respondent No.3 in W.P.No.15374/2022 are before us in this intra Court appeal, assailing the order passed by the Writ Court dated 02.02.2026. By the impugned order, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court. 3. The facts leading to file this present appeal are as under: 3.1 It is a case of the respondent No.3 before the Land Tribunal that the husband of original respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26043-DB WA No. 810 of 2026 No.3 by name Narasimha Achari, S/o Ganapayya Achari was cultivating the land in Sy.No.113/2B, measuring 0.62 acres and Sy.No.113/2C measuring 0.46 acres as a tenant under the petitioner, that is the owner of the land. He has filed Form No.7, seeking occupancy rights. 3.2 It was his case that he was a tenant by paying rent to the land owner. At the early point of time, the Land Tribunal granted 3 cents of property for the purpose of construction of house by holding that late Narasimha Achari was not a tenant within the definition as prescribed under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 1by its order dated 28.05.1981. The said order was the subject matter in W.P.No.4438/1988. The said writ petition was transferred subsequent to establishment of Land Reforms Appellate Authority and numbered as L.R.A No.429/1988 and upon abolition of the said Land Reforms Appellate Authority, C.P.No.11962/1991 was filed before this Court, which was converted into W.P.No.28424/1997. 1 "LR Act" - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26043-DB WA No. 810 of 2026 4. The Writ Court set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 28.05.1981 and remanded the matter for denova inquiry. 5. Upon remand, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 19.07.2022, confirmed the occupancy rights in favour of the legal representatives of the original tenant to an extent of 0.57 acre in Sy.No.113/2-B1 and 0.46 acres in Sy.No.113/2D, on the premise that the land though a punja land, the tenant has proved his cultivation, by means of producing appropriate documents i.e., the postal money order receipts for having paid the rent, so also relying on the Survey Report of the Year 2017 and held that the land comes within the purview of Section 2(A)(18) of the LR Act. This order was the subject matter before the Writ Court in W.P.No.15374/2022. 6. Before the Writ Court, it was contented that the land was a 'punja land' and was shown as a 'gadde land', as such it is uncultivable land and out of the purview of definition provided under Section 2(A)(18) of the LR Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26043-DB WA No. 810 of 2026 As such the LR Act cannot be made applicable as a person cannot be termed as a tenant in respect of a punja land. It was further contended that mere presence of few trees which is common in the said region would not be sufficient to infer that the land with respect to which Form No.7 was filed was the land in terms of Section 2(A)(18) of the LR Act. Even no specific survey numbers mentioned in the Form No.7, except stating 'gudde' under the column meant for stating subdivision Pot Hissa number, except stating the extent of land as total 1 acre. 7. Further, it was submitted that except the report and the receipts which were considered by the Tribunal which were pertaining to the year 2017 and the postal money order receipts said to be of the year 1962 will not enure to the benefit of the alleged tenant to claim occupancy rights. With this, sought to allow the petition and set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal and reject the Form No.7. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26043-DB WA No. 810 of 2026 8. The submissions are opposed by the respondents, contending that the RTC clearly shows that the tenant was growing paddy crop on the land and even if the land was a punja land, it was shown to have been brought under cultivation, as such the same could still be the subject matter of claim of tenancy rights. Further, it was contented that since the parties have understood the claim of late Narasimha Achari seeking occupancy rights by means of filing Form No.7, the non-description or non- amendment stating the survey number would not invalidate the application. Further relying on the Survey Report submitted in the year 2017 sought to argue that the order passed by the Land Tribunal does not call for any interference as the same is passed in accordance with law. 9. The Writ Court after consulting the entire documents placed on record and the arguments and writ petition papers has held that the land is outside the purview of Section 2(A)(18) which defines the word "land" which is as under: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26043-DB WA No. 810 of 2026 "2. Definitions.—(A) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, xxxx.. (18) - land means agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house-site or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes;" 10. The Writ Court further considered that the report which was filed in the year 2017 would not further the case of the tenant, as the Survey Report refers existence of certain trees, this will not prove the possession as a tenant and cultivation rights and further observing that the report of 2017 will not go back and confirm the tenancy rights as on 01.03.1974, since there are no materials produced to the effect that the said original tenant who filed Form No.7 was a tenant cultivating the land as on 01.03.1974, the appointed date, in terms of the provisions stated in the LR Act. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26043-DB WA No. 810 of 2026 11. Further, the Writ Court has observed that the report does not indicate any age of the trees as to draw an inference of existence of trees as on the relevant date. The Writ Court further having considered the RTCs for year 1967 till 1977-78 has observed that the said RTCs merely has an entry of 6 cashew trees and there is no reference to paddy crop. The reference to paddy crops in RTC for the year 1996-97, but the same cannot be taken note to record a finding that as on the relevant date paddy was being cultivated and the same is the case with the RTC of the year 2001-2002, which also cannot be relied upon on the same grounds. 12. The Writ Court having found that the land even described in Form No.7 as "Gadde land" observed that the land is a punja land and un-cultivable land accepted the contentions of the owner of the land and by holding that the tenant not having led any acceptable evidence that such land was brought into cultivation, has failed to prove that the land though a punja land was brought into - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26043-DB WA No. 810 of 2026 cultivation and held that accordingly the land under dispute does not fall within the definition of "land" under Section 2(A)(18) of the LR Act. Further held that the Report dated 07.10.2017 which was conducted pursuant to the order of the High Court does not in any way throw light on the nature of the relationship of landlord and tenant. 13. So far as the money orders dated 28.03.1962, 24.03.1962 and 05.04.1962 relied on by the tenant as payment of rent that is "Geni" in the absence of any supportive evidence to demonstrate the Writ Court held that, the money orders of the year 1962 would be weak evidence in order to record a finding as regards continuous of such relationship during the relevant period, as the money orders by themselves may not be sufficient to establish the relationship and the tenancy rights. In the light of the said finding, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal. It is this order passed by the Writ Court is called - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26043-DB WA No. 810 of 2026 in question in this appeal by the legal representatives of respondent No.3, who is the wife of original tenant. 14. Heard Sri.K.Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri.H.Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for Caveator/respondent No.3 and Sri.B.Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 15. Sri.Chandranath Ariga, who also appeared for the appellant before the Writ Court, reiterated more or less the very same points which he has already submitted before the Writ Court, which were considered and negated by the Writ Court. Nothing new is brought to our notice to take a contrary view from the view taken by the Writ Court. We say so, for the reason, the land being a punja land is outside the purview of land as defined under Section 2(A)(18) of LR Act. 16. We are alive to the situation that even if a land is stated as a punja land, but if the person proves that - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26043-DB WA No. 810 of 2026 despite the land being punja land, it was brought into cultivation, by means of placing cogent evidence and documents, the same can be considered. But in the case on hand, except producing certain documents, which were considered and rejected as not benefiting to the claim of tenancy by the appellants herein/original tenant, by the Writ Court. 17. Learned counsel Sri.Chandranath Ariga is unable to point out any other documents to prove the alleged tenancy of the original tenant as on the appointed date. Though a feeble attempt is made to rely on the RTCs for the years 1996-97 and 2000-2001, the said submissions were also considered by the Writ Court and rejected the same that the description of paddy crops stated in the said RTCs would not enure to be benefit of the party to relate back to the relevant date, to contend that the paddy was being cultivated. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26043-DB WA No. 810 of 2026 18. We find nothing to take a contra view from the view taken by the Writ Court. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly, dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending application/s if any, does not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 ct-vn