- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16883-DB WA No. 865 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. K. DEVAPPA SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2. SMT. VASANTHI AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.K. DEVAPPA SUVARNA BOTH THE APPELLANTS ARE THE CHILDERN OF THE RADHA & SHEENA MENDON RESIDING AT RIVERSIDE, MOODUTHONSE VILLAGE, KALLIANPUR POST, UDUPI - 576114 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL.A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-1 REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16883-DB WA No. 865 of 2025 3. SMT. T. VINODA PAI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 4. SRI. T. RAMDAS PAI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 5. SRI. T. MADHAV PAI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 6. SRI. T. SURESH PAI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 7. SRI T. RAMESH PAI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 8. SMT. T. SHAILAJA PAI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESPONDENTS NOS.3 TO 8 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE T.G.PAI NOS.3 TO 8 ARE ALL R/A NO.2-55, KOTE ROAD KALLIANPUR, UDUPI - 576 114. 9. BHAVANI SHANKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS EMPLOYED IN UDUPI WEAVER'S COOPERATIVE SOCIETY R/O NITTUR, PUTTUR TQ., D.K. DIST - 576 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3, R5, R6, R7, R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2025 IN WP No. 20674/2024 (GM-TEN) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16883-DB WA No. 865 of 2025 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 D K SINGH) 1. This writ appeal is filed challenging the order passed in W.P. No. 20674/2024 dated 04.04.2025 by the appellants/petitioners. 2. The two applicants, namely, Sri. T. Gopalakrishna Pai, since deceased and Mrs. Radha, wife of Shgeena Mendan, since deceased filed application under Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (KLR Act) claiming occupancy rights for 1 acre of land in survey No. 19/7 of Mooduthonse village. 3. The Tribunal rejected the application of Sri. T. Gopalakrishna Pai who was represented by his legal heirs on the ground that the said land was no longer an agricultural land. Enquiries regarding the land was conducted on different dates and finally, the matter was heard on 21.01.2015. The first applicant, Sri. T. Gopalakrishna Pai had purchased 0.05 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16883-DB WA No. 865 of 2025 acres of land in survey No. 19/7 of Mooduthonse village on 09.11.1971 from Sri. Purushotham Kini vide moolageni registered deed and since then he was in possession and enjoyment of this property. He had constructed dwelling house, shop and building and he also claimed that he was carrying out agricultural activities by growing plantation of coconut, banana, vegetables and that was in possession prior to 01.03.1974. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties framed the following issues for consideration: i) Whether the disputed land comes within the meaning of `land’ under Section 2A(18) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 (Amended Act 1974)? ii) Whether the disputed land is using for the agricultural purpose prior to 01.03.1974? its crops? iii) Whether the 1st and 2nd applicants are entitled for occupancy rights? 5. The Land Tribunal, considering the documentary evidence produced by the legal heirs of Sri. T. Gopalakrishna Pai, moolageni document Nos. 4, 5, 19, 20 dated 25.03.1920 and other documents mentioned in the impugned order, came - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16883-DB WA No. 865 of 2025 to the conclusion that the disputed land was no longer an agricultural land as there were shop, building on it and therefore, it would not come within the definition of Section 2- A(18) of the KLR Act for grant of occupancy rights. Therefore, the claim of legal heirs of Sri. T. Gopalakrishna Pai was denied for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. 6. Insofar as the case of the appellants is concerned, the Tribunal considered the issues and on their admission that there is building, godown and bandasale, held that the land was no longer an agricultural land. It was also stated that besides building, godown and bandasale, there was no land left out in respect of the said survey number for grant of occupancy rights. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that as the land in question would not come under the definition of agricultural land under Section 2-A(18) and 2-A(i) of the KLR Act, held that neither applicant No. 1 nor applicant No. 2 were entitled for grant of occupancy rights. 7. The learned single Judge having noted the findings of the Tribunal has dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16883-DB WA No. 865 of 2025 8. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, the writ appeal stands dismissed. All/any pending interim application(s) are also disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE LRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5