- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH 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. 766 OF 2025 (LR-) BETWEEN: JUMMA MASJID, HOLEHONNUR VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 277. REP. BY ITS MUTHAVALLI MR. NAZRULLAKHAN …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJETHA R NAIK., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. LAND TRIBUNAL, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 301. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. B. KARIYAPPA, S/O CHOWDAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 3(a). GIRIJAMMA, W/O LATE B. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 3(b). THARAMMA, D/O LATE B. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 3(c). H.K.MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE B. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3(d). ANNAPPA, S/O LATE B.KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4. SUSHEELAMMA, W/O LATE H.D.KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 3 AND 4 ARE R/OF HOLEHONNUR VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 227. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 & 2; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.04.2026 SRI.ABHIMANYU DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3(C)) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:09.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP No. 100/2017 AND THEREBY CONFIRM THE DETAILED ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL DATED 18.11.2016 REJECTING THE APPLICATION (FORM No. 7) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT No. 3 AND 4, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 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) This intra-Court appeal is by the land owner under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, calling in question the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.100/2017. 2. By the impugned order, the Writ Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the order passed by the Land Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to register the petitioners as tenants and issue necessary Certificate of Registration to the petitioners/ tenant in a time bound manner. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 4. Facts germane to file the present appeal are as under: 4.1 The original petitioner B.Kariyappa and Smt.Susheelamma filed the Writ Petition seeking following reliefs: "1. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the order of the second respondent/ Land Tribunal, Bhadravathi in INA.OR.255/1974-75 and INA.OR.2582/1974-75 dated 18.11.2016 as per Annexure-F and order for conferment of occupancy rights in favor of petitioners for an extent of 1 acre 17 guntas each of the land in Sy.No.91 of Koppa village, Holechonnur Hobli, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shivamogga district. 2. Issue any appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court finds it appropriate in the admitted facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice. 3. Award the cost of this proceeding." 4.2 It is the case of the petitioners before the Writ Court that B.Kariyappa [husband of petitioner No.1(a) and father of petitioners 1(b) to (d)] and Sri.H.D.Kariyappa (husband of petitioner No.2) were tenants under respondent No.3 Masjid. Their tenancy has been confirmed by the statement of one - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 Mr.Mohammed Madar who was the son of the person who had gifted the land in favour of the Masjid. In his statement recorded on 09.10.1975, he stated that tenants B.Kariyappa and H.D.Kariyappa were cultivating the land since 4 to 5 years and paying the rent by way of six sacks of paddy grown on the said land. The same was utilized for the purpose of recital of Quran and payment of amount to the Hafiz and for lightings as well as painting expenses of the Masjid. However, in his statement, he has stated that the Masjid has no other land than the land gifted and the same be retained with the Masjid. 4.3 They further relied in the RTC from the year 1967-68 and thereafter till the appointed date that, the name of B.Kariyappa and H.D.Kariyappa have been shown in Column No.12 with the mode of cultivation as Guttige (rent) as per the petitioners, it is similar to Mode-3 i.e., tenancy. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 4.4 On several occasions, the matter was remanded and this present petition is the sixth round of litigation. On several occasions, the application in Form-7 filed by the petitioners' - tenants was rejected. Ultimately, in W.P.No.29711/2002 disposed of on 26.08.2003, this Court having found that the entire case revolves on the statement of Mr.Mohammed Madar, the then President and son of the person who has gifted the land in favour of the Masjid, which has been denied by the Land owner Masjid, stating that the record is a fabricated record and there is no such statement recorded on the said date, remanded the matter directing the Tribunal to deliberate on the said document and decide the matter in terms of Rule 17(9) of the Karnataka Land Reform Rules. 4.5 Subsequent to the order passed by the Writ Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, the Land Tribunal once again passed an order on 23.02.2004 rejecting the application stating that no such document has been - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 produced and the applicants have failed to prove their tenancy rights and cultivation as a tenants in respect of the land. The said order passed by the Tribunal was the subject matter in W.P.No.21938/2004. The Writ Court vide order dated 08.02.2011 allowed the Writ Petition and remanded the matter directing the Tribunal to go through the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.29711/2002 disposed of on 26.08.2003 and pass orders. 4.6 Subsequent to remand, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 18.11.2016, once again rejected the application. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding so far as the statement said to have been made or given by the said Mohammed Madar on 09.10.1975 is not found in the record, as there is no such corresponding recording in the order sheet. The entire recording of statement commenced from 18.11.1977, wherein, the tenants examined five - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 witnesses on their behalf viz, Chowdappa, Rangappa, Ningappa, Kenchappa and Mylarappa. In the order sheet, there is nothing to indicate that Mohammed Madar had appeared before the Tribunal on 09.10.1975, and gave his evidence as a witness. As such, the said statement is a fabricated and created statement as per the records found in the office. 4.7 Further, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that one of the witnesses who had been examined on 18.10.1977 viz, Chowdappa had written a letter on 25.10.1977 to the land Tribunal stating that the statement given by him was a false statement. 4.8 Further, the Tribunal has observed that, so far as the entries in the RTC in Column No.12, there is no mutation proceedings undertaken by the Revenue Authorities while entering the name of the tenants Column No.12 and held that the said names were entered without there being any foundational - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 proceedings in that regard. Having found these flaws in the case, the Tribunal has concluded that the tenants have failed to establish that they were tenants under the respondent No.3 Masjid and cultivating the land since 1968 and continues the same as on the appointed date. In that regard, the Land Tribunal had unanimously opined that the tenants were not at all cultivating the land on rent. Accordingly, rejected the application filed by the tenants seeking registration of occupancy rights. 4.9 Original tenant Sri.B.Kariyappa and wife of Sri.H.D.Kariyappa by name Smt.Sushilamma were before the Writ Court calling in question the order passed by the Land Tribunal. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, original tenant Sri.B.Kariyappa died and his legal representatives were brought on record. 4.10 Before the Writ Court, it was contended that the statement of Mohammed Madar recorded on - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 09.10.1975 as well as the entries showing the name of B.Kariyappa and H.D.Kariyappa in Column No.12 clearly indicate that they were tenants on rent immediately prior to the appointed date i.e. 01.03.1974, as such they have proved their tenancy. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and rejected the application, which is wholly erroneous and unsustainable in law. Whereas, respondent No.3 - Masjid argued in support of the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State also argued in support of the Land Tribunal order. 4.11 The Writ Court on two counts believed the version of the petitioners, further that, there was a statement of the then President recorded on 09.10.1975 and the names of tenants stating that B.Kariyappa and H.D.Kariyappa were cultivating the land 04 to 05 years prior to the recording of the statement and they were paying rent by way of 06 sacks of paddy - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 grown on the land. Secondly, the names of B.Kariyappa and H.D.Kariyappa was found in the RTC since 1969 till the appointed date. On these two courts the Writ Court has held that these two elements have proved the tenancy which has not properly been considered by the Tribunal and accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal and directed the Land Tribunal to enter the name of the petitioners as tenants and grant certificate of occupation. It is this order passed by the Writ Petition is called in question in this appeal by the land owner Masjid. 5. Heard, Ms.Vijetha R.Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Masjid, Sri.B.Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri.P.N.Harish, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3(c). - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 6. Ms.Vijetha R.Naik, inviting our attention to the order passed by the Tribunal, is compliance with the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.29711/2002 disposed of on 26.08.2003, which was also reiterated in the subsequent W.P.No.21938/2004 disposed of on 08.02.2011. The Land Tribunal having considered the entire documents and the order sheet, has given a categorical finding that there is no corresponding entry in the order sheet that Mohammed Madar appeared before the Tribunal on 09.10.1975 and given his statement as a witness. As per the order sheet maintained and the records found in the Land Tribunal, recording of evidence commenced only in the year 1977. As such, there is no question of recording the statement of Mohammed Madar on 09.10.1975. The Tribunal has stated that the said document is a result of fabrication and engineered document. 6.1 So far as the entries found in Column No.12 of the RTCs are concerned, the Tribunal has given - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 categorical finding that there are no mutation proceedings carried out by the revenue authorities to enter the name of tenants B.Kariyappa and H.D.Kariyappa. As such, there is no basis for entering the names. The names are found only in the RTC and there is no corresponding record in the mutation extract. Further, the Tribunal has stated that, one of the witnesses who had been examined on behalf of the tenants in 1977, written a letter immediately thereafter to the Tribunal stating the statement given by him was a fabricated document. The Tribunal having considered these documents and after considering the entire documents placed on record, had come to a conclusion unanimously that the tenants have failed to substantiate their claim regarding tenancy and cultivation as on the appointed date. In that regard, rejected the application. The Writ Court has failed to consider these aspects of the matter. The Tribunal is the fact - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 finding court on the claim of tenancy in terms of Form-7 filed by the tenants. The Writ Court has not given any reason while reversing the findings of the Land Tribunal. The two counts on which the entire order of the Land Tribunal has been subsided are the statement of Mohammed Madar and the RTCs which were found to be fabricated by the Tribunal, and there is no deliberation on the said aspect and accordingly, sought to allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court and dismiss the Writ Petition, while confirming the order of the Land Tribunal. 7. In contrast, Sri.Abhimanyu Devaiah, learned counsel appearing for the tenant argued in support of the order passed by the Writ Court stating that the statement is loud and clear that the tenants were cultivating the land as on the appointed date by paying rent in terms of 6 sacks of paddy grown on the land. Their names have been entered in the RTC in Column No.12 showing the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 cultivation and mode of cultivation as Guttige, which is similar to Mode-3 i.e., tenancy. The entries made in the RTC are presumptive in nature. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter, which has rightly been considered by the Writ Court and sought to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, we have perused the entire Writ Petition papers. 9. This is the sixth round of litigation between the parties. The Tribunal has given a categorical finding on the aspect of evidence of Mohammed Madar, who was said to be the then President and son of the person who has gifted the property in favor of the Masjid, alleged to have given a statement on 09.10.1975. The Land Tribunal categorically recorded a finding that there is no corresponding entry in the order sheet. In the proceedings, the recording of evidence commenced only in the year 1977. There is no entry in the order sheet that - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 Mohammed Madar has presented himself before the Tribunal and there is no record at whose instance he was summoned and has given evidence as a witness. On 09/10/1975, this shows that the document in the official record which clearly shows that the document is an engineered and fabricated document. 10. Further, the Tribunal has given a specific finding on RTC stating that, there are no corresponding proceedings undertaken by the revenue authorities prior to entering the names of the alleged tenants in Column No.12. There are handwritten entries without any corroborative mutation proceedings, which gives legality to the entries made in Column No.12. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has stated that the entries without proceedings cannot enure to the benefit of the tenants to claim their tenancy rights. 11. There is a specific finding recorded by the Tribunal that one of the witnesses by name Chowdappa - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 had written a letter immediately after recording his statement as a witness that the statement given by him was a false statement. The Land Tribunal having considered these aspects of the matter, unanimously recorded that the documents produced would not enure to the benefit of the tenants to prove that they were tenants as on the appointed date and as such rejected their application. 12. A perusal of order passed by the Writ Court clearly indicates that except considering the case on two counts stated supra, there is no deliberation on the finding of the Tribunal on the statement dated 09.10.1975, as well as RTC records. The entire order of the Writ Court is based on these two documents which are found to be fabricated document by the Tribunal. As such, the reliance placed on these documents by the Writ Court is erroneous. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant - Masjid has made out a case for interference in the order of the Writ Court. Accordingly, we - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29056-DB WA No. 766 of 2025 allow this Writ Appeal, set aside the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.100/2017. Consequently, dismiss the Writ Petition, while confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, however there will be no order as to costs. 13. In view of disposal of the Writ Appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 ct-vn