- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 546 OF 2016 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MARY MONTHEIRO D/O MAGDALENENA MONTHEIRO AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT IDDYA VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK INCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS 1(a) MAXIM D'SOUZA S/O LATE MARY MONTHEIRO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 1(b) RITA S'SOUZA D/O LATE MARY MONTHEIRO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 1(c) LUCY PINTO D/O LATE MARY MONTHEIRO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 1(d) PHILOMINA D'SOUZA D/O LATE MARY MONTHEIRO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ALL APPELLANT NOS. 1(A) TO 1(D) ARE R/AT IDDYA VILLAGE, SURATHKAL MANGALORE TALUK-575 014. Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016 APPELLANTS NO. 1(A) TO 1(D) ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER APPELLANT NO.1(A) SRI. MAXIM D’SOUZA. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL MANGALORE-575 001, BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. SRI B NARAYANA RAO S/O NARASAPPAYYA, NOW DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS 3(A) SRI B SRIDHAR RAO S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 3(B) SRI RADHAKRISHNA RAO S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS. 3(C) SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 3(D) SRI DIVAKARA RAO S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016 3(E) SMT. YESHODA R RAO D/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 3(F) SMT. SEETHARTHNA H BHAT D/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 3(G) SMT. SHAMALA R RAO D/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 3(H) SMT. MANORAMA KEDILAYA D/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 3(I) SMT. VIJAYA H RAO D/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 3(A) TO 3(I) ARE RESIDING AT IDDYA VILLAGE, SURATHKAL, MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 014. 3(J) SMT. SAROJA H RAO SINCE DECEASED, RESPONDENTS 3(A) TO 3(I) ARE TREATED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF RESPONDENT NO. 3(J) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBA R. K, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. PRASANNA V. R., ADVOCATE FOR R3(A AND D); R3(B) - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O/DTD. 01.03.2023 R3(C), R3(E), R3(F), 3(G), R3(H) AND R3(I) ARE SERVED THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08/02/2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.9485/2004 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This intra-court appeal is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9485/2004 (LR). 3. By means of the impugned order, the petition filed by the appellant seeking to challenge the order dated 12.12.2003 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore, was dismissed holding that if the petitioner was only an occupant of the non-agricultural portion of the land, the Tribunal would not even have jurisdiction to decide the claim for occupancy rights. 4. The background of the case as appears from the record is that, the appellant claimed to be in possession of the land measuring 02 acres 14 cents in Survey No.137/1 of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016 Idya Village of Mangalore Taluk, by virtue of an oral Chalgeni with the owner of the land one Sri. Narayana Rao on an annual rent of Rs.175/-, which rent was later increased to Rs.180/- per annum. The appellant was paying the rents to the Landlord and constructed a house on the said land in the year 1970 and also fenced the property. The appellant was growing vegetable crops and rice crops on the said land which was being cultivated by her since 1970. An application in Form No.7 was filed by the appellant claiming occupancy rights in respect of the house. The Land Tribunal declared the appellant as an occupant of the land. The Respondent No.3 challenged the order of the Tribunal in Writ Petition No.21947/1982, which was allowed by an order dated 18.11.1985 and the order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. 5. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that, not only the petitioner was claiming occupation of the house existing on the land, but was also cultivating the land and therefore, by the order aforesaid dated 12.12.2003 passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting Form No.7, holding - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016 that the petitioner was not a tenant in respect of the agricultural land, deserves to be set aside. 6. The respondent’s counsel contended that the appellant herself had admitted that she was occupying only the house portion, which was a portion converted to non- agricultural land, on which the house has been constructed and she had been inducted as a tenant in respect of that premises. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for occupancy rights. 7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the learned Single Judge held that it is not open for the petitioner/appellant to have resiled from her stand as an after-thought and the admission made by her at the first instance would certainly have to be given credence. The petition was therefore dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, a categorical statement was made by the appellant before the Tribunal that, she did not know how to read and write and to speak properly in Kannada and that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016 she was forced to affix her signature to the documents in respect of which she was paying the monthly rent. It is further stated that she was growing potatoes, vegetables and other crops on the land. She had also named various neighbours who could be questioned in this regard. 9. We find from perusal of the order of the Land Tribunal that there is no consideration of the aforesaid statement made by the appellant in respect of the rent receipts. Under the facts and circumstances, without considering the case set up by the appellant in its totality, the impugned order of 12.12.2003 could not have been passed by the Land Tribunal. Non-consideration of material objections denote non-application of mind, particularly those objections that may have a material bearing on the outcome of the case. The appellant would be prejudiced by non- consideration of the aforesaid stand of hers. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, in our considered opinion, the order dated 12.12.2003 cannot stand. Thus, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016 08.02.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal to consider the matter afresh after due application of mind, and considering the documents and statements made by both the parties. 11. It is made clear that the observations made in this appeal are only for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal and should not be taken as an opinion by this Court on the merits of the case of either of the parties. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE KGR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14