- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:22 WP No. 66728 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 66728 OF 2010 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: MAHABALESHWAR GOVIND HEGDE, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, BOGRIMAKKI, POST. SOVINKOPPA, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: NORTH KANARA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANAT HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VENKATRAMAN NARAYANA HEGDE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs., 1(A). LAMBODHAR VENKATRAMAN HEGDE AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOGRIMAKKI, PO: SOVINAKOPPA, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581322. 1(B). SATYANARAYAN VENKATRAMAN HEGDE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOGRIMAKKI, PO: SOVINAKOPPA, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581322. 1(C). ANASUYA NARAYAN HEGDE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KYADGI, PO: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581355. 1(D). GEETA N.BHAT AGED MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. VIJAGAR, PO: HEGGARANI, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581331. 1(E). SHRIMATHI SHRIDHAR BHAT AGED MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KARGOD, PO: DODDAMANE, MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.08 11:13:17 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:22 WP No. 66728 of 2010 TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581322. 2. VENKATRAMAN GOVIND HEGDE SINCE DECEASED BY LR, YAMUNA W/O. VENKATRAMAN HEGDE, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SOVINAKOPPA, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: NORTH KANARA. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGLORE. 4. LAND TRIBUNAL, SIDDAPUR DIST: NORTH KANARA, BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R3 AND R4; NOTICE TO R1(A) TO R1(C) ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R1(D) AND R1(E) IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2025; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT TNC/DSR/11/6306 ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.4, THE LAND TRIBUNAL SIDDAPUR AND TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08/07/2010, PASSED BY 4TH RESPONDENT AT TNC/DSR/11/6306 AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:22 WP No. 66728 of 2010 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question the order dated 08.07.2010 passed by the Land Tribunal, Siddapur, in proceedings bearing No.TNC/DSR/11/6306, whereby Form No.7 filed by the petitioner seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.94/3, measuring 2 guntas 1 anna of Sovinkoppa Village, Siddapur Taluk, came to be rejected. Brief facts: 2. One Gopal Vasudev Pai, who died on 25.10.1964, was the owner of the several properties including part of Sy.No.94/3, which devolved upon his heirs as reflected in the mutation entry No.814. Name of Mahabaleshwar Mablayya was shown as a cultivator of Sy.No.94/3 to an extent of 2 guntas 1 anna and for the year 1969-70, the name of respondent No.1 appeared as a possessor and cultivator. Subsequently, in 1970-71, the name of the petitioner's father Govind Jatappa Hegde, who claims to be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:22 WP No. 66728 of 2010 a sub-tenant was entered in the RTC for the entire extent of 4 guntas 2 annas. After the death of Govind Jatappa Hegde, the petitioner's name was entered in the RTC in 1974-75 as his legal heir. 3. The case of the petitioner is that such entries continued uninterrupted and the petitioner’s owned adjoining lands in Sy.No.94/1 and 94/2, whereas respondent No.1 owns no adjoining lands nor has access to the disputed land. Further the petitioner filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights as a sub-tenant. The Land Tribunal initially granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner. However, on writ petition filed by respondent No.1, the matter was remanded on two occasions. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 08.07.2010, the Land Tribunal rejected the petitioner's claim, hence this writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:22 WP No. 66728 of 2010 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused the material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Land Tribunal failed to give due weightage to the long standing RTC entries, which consistently recorded the petitioner's father name and thereafter the petitioner as cultivator prior to and immediately after 01.03.1974 giving rise to a statutory presumption of lawful possession and tenancy. It is contended that oral tenancy is permissible under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) and that a mutation entry specifying regarding tenancy is not a condition precedent for the grant of occupancy rights which the Land Tribunal failed to appreciate. It is contended that respondent No.1 neither owns adjoining lands nor had possession or access to the disputed land, whereas the petitioner was in continuous possession, cultivation and thereby establishing tenancy. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:22 WP No. 66728 of 2010 6. Respondent No.1 died during the pendency of the writ petition, the application filed to bring the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.1 on record is allowed. 7. Though the legal heirs of respondent No.1 have been served with a notice, they have chosen to remain absent. 8. Learned AGA for the State justifying the order of the Land Tribunal and contends that the petitioner has failed to establish tenancy as on the relevant date and the Land Tribunal was justified in rejecting Form No.7. 9. Upon careful consideration of the rival contentions and on perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner's claim is founded on the assertion that he is a sub-tenant. In law, a sub-tenancy can exist only if there is a subsisting and lawful tenancy. However, the material on record does not clearly establish who the principal tenant was, nor does it disclose the nature of tenancy between the landlord and such alleged tenant. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:22 WP No. 66728 of 2010 10. The Land Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish that he or his predecessor was cultivating the land as a tenant or sub-tenant on the appointed date i.e., 01.03.1974, which is a mandatory requirement under the Act for grant of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal found that since the claim of the petitioner was one of sub- tenancy, there was no clear and acceptable evidence to show that who was the principal tenant, and that such principal tenancy was lawful and subsisting and in the absence of proof of a principal tenancy, the derivative claim of sub-tenancy was held to be unsustainable. The Land Tribunal further found that the applicant has not produced any convincing oral or documentary evidence to establish the origin, continuity and legality of the alleged sub-tenancy and concluded that the applicant/petitioner has failed to satisfy the statutory requirements prescribed under the Act for grant of occupancy rights. 11. Though the RTC entries reflect the name of the petitioner's father and subsequently petitioner as cultivator, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:22 WP No. 66728 of 2010 such entries do not by themselves conclusively established the existence of a tenancy or sub-tenancy. Revenue records carry presumptive value. But they cannot substitute proof of a legally established tenancy relationship. The decisive factor under the Act is cultivation as on 01.03.1974. The evidence produced by the petitioner does not conclusively demonstrate that he or his predecessor was cultivating the land as a lawful sub-tenant on the appointed date. While oral tenancy is permissible in law, the existence of sub- tenancy must still be proved by cogent and convincing evidence. The Land Tribunal has rightly found that the petitioner failed to establish the origin, continuity and legal recognition of the alleged sub-tenancy. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon him under the statute. 12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:22 WP No. 66728 of 2010 warranting any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT/CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31