Smt Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Digitally AND: signed by KAVYA R Location: High 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, Court of REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, Karnataka REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR - 572 128.

¶14

THE TAHASILDAR,

¶15

TUMKUR, DIST: TUMKUR - 572 128.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:1641 WP No. 159 of 2025

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 29.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN COMP.NO. 537097 FILE NO. TOTMK-ADM0LRF/108/2024 PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 29.11.2024, issued by respondent No.3-Tahsildar as per Annexure-A and consequently a mandamus is also sought to issue a 'no tenancy certificate' by considering the representation dated 21.11.2024 as per Annexure-L.

¶24

2. Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶25

Petitioner No.1's husband, asserting to be a tenant,

¶26

filed Form No.7, claiming occupancy rights. Similarly, petitioner No.2's father-in-law filed Form No.7 seeking a grant of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal, after due

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1641 WP No. 159 of 2025

¶28

enquiry, has confirmed occupancy rights vide common order dated 25.05.1982, which is evidenced at AnnexureB. Respondent No.3-Tahsildar, has accordingly issued Form No.10 dated 06.07.2023, which is evidenced at Annexure-C and D.

¶29

The petitioners have expressed their intention to sell the property in question and, to this end, submitted a single representation seeking both the conversion of the property and permission for its sale. While the petitioners may not have been permitted to directly file an application for conversion before respondent No.3—Tahsildar, it is noteworthy that respondent No.3, as the competent authority, is vested with the responsibility of issuing a 'No Tenancy Certificate.' In this context, respondent No.3 ought to have considered the sequence of events leading to the petitioners’ eligibility for the certificate. Specifically, the occupancy rights in favor of the petitioners were granted as far back as 1982, a fact that holds significant legal bearing. Although Form No.10, which reflects the

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1641 WP No. 159 of 2025

¶31

grant of occupancy rights, was issued only in 2023, the stipulations contained in the document such as the nonalienation clause must be understood to relate back to the original date of the grant, i.e., 1982. Consequently, both petitioners are entitled to seek the issuance of a 'No Tenancy Certificate' on this basis. In light of these facts, the endorsement issued by respondent No.3 is untenable and does not withstand scrutiny.

¶32

For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the

¶33

following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶36

ii. The impugned endorsement vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed;

¶37

iii. Respondent No.3-Tahsildar, hereby directed to reconsider the representation submitted by the petitioners and after verifying the records, shall issue individual 'no tenancy certificates' to both the petitioners in accordance with law by

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1641 WP No. 159 of 2025

¶39

considering fresh representation that would be tendered by the petitioner individually;

¶40

iv. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to apply for conversion before the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with law;

¶41

v. This exercise shall be accomplished by respondent No.3-Tahsildar within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of fresh representation submitted by the petitioners individually.

¶42

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶43

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 CT: BHK

Smt Gowramma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gowramma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puttappa Beturu Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Narayanaswamy Vs Technical Assistant to

Smt.Savithramma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Yogesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Kavitha K H Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Huccharayappa Vs State of Karnataka