Venkappa Malekudiya Vs Smt Eramma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Venkappa Malekudiya Vs Smt Eramma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The writ appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit and substance; although the Court was inclined to dismiss with heavy costs given the appellants' litigation since 2005, it refrained from imposing costs considering the labour of the appellants' counsel.

Issue for consideration

Whether Venkappa Malekudiya satisfied the basic requirement of a revenue entry showing him as tenant in actual cultivation of the land as on 01.03.1974, so as to sustain the grant of occupancy rights on his Form No.7 application under Section 48A of the KLR Act. +1 more

Court's answer

Where a claimant seeks occupancy rights on a Form No.7 application under Section 48A of the KLR Act, the basic requirement is a revenue entry that the claimant was a tenant in actual cultivation of the land as on 01.03.1974, and the claim must be substantiated by cogent and corroborative evidence; in the present case this basic requirement is missing.

Ratio / Principle

Despite there being no report in respect of the appellant's claim of tenancy or personal cultivation of the land as on 01.03.1974 (which the Assistant Commissioner had to apprise all Tribunal members of), the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Venkappa Malekudiya.

Key takeaways

The learned Single Judge rightly set aside the Land Tribunal's order as wholly unsustainable in law, being contrary to the provisions of the KLR Act and against the evidence and the basic foundation required in the case.ratio¶83

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Division Bench: D K Singh and T.M.Nadaf, JJ.; judgment per D K Singh, J.) in Writ Appeal No. 1053 of 2016 (LR) filed under S.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act — Dismissed. The appeal challenged the learned Single Judge's order dated 11.03.2016 in W.P.No.26101/2005, which had set aside the Land Tribunal, Belthangady's order dated 13.05.2005 granting occupancy rights to Venkappa Malekudiya over Sy.Nos.141/1 to 141/7 (7 acres 87 cents), Machina Village, Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, pursuant to his Form No.7 application under S.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 filed on 30.06.1976. Held: for a Form No.7 claim under S.48A, the basic requirement is a revenue entry showing the claimant as tenant in actual cultivation as on 01.03.1974, substantiated by cogent corroborative evidence; no such entry existed (only a 1980 entry, insufficient), and the Tribunal nonetheless granted occupancy rights. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit; costs were refrained from despite inclination to impose heavy costs.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:36363-DB WA No. 1053 of 2016

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010058692016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1053 OF 2016 (LR)

BETWEEN:

VENKAPPA MALEKUDIYA

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

BHARATHI, D/O. LATE VENKAPPA MALEKUDIYA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT MACHINA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214.

RAGHU

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

S/O. LATE VENKAPPA MALEKUDIYA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT MACHINA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214.

ARUNA KUMARI, W/O CHINNAYA MALEKUDIYA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT ALANGAYA, GUNDIBAGILU VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. ANIKETH K.U., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36363-DB WA No. 1053 of 2016

CNR: KAHC010058692016

AND:

SMT ERAMMA

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS,

1(A) SEETHAMMA, W/O. OBAYYA MALEKUDIYA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

1(B) VASANTHA ALIAS DHOMMA S/O CHANNA MALEKUDIYA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

BOTH ARE R/AT MACHINA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT

HONNAMMA W/O. SOMA MALEKUDIYA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PERIYADKE POST, CHIBIDRE VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214.

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

ADDITIONAL LAND TRIBUNAL BELTHANGADY TALUK, BELTHANGADY BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 574 214.

NARAYANA MALEKUDIYA S/O LATE AITHAPPA MALEKUDIYA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36363-DB WA No. 1053 of 2016

CNR: KAHC010058692016

R/AT COLONY, SHISHULA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TQ. D.K. MANGALURU - 574 214.

VENKAPPA MALEKUDIYA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,

6(A) KALYANI, W/O LATE VENKAPPA MALEKUDIYA, ADULT, MACHINA VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADY TQ. D.K. MANGALURU - 574 214. SINCE DEAD BY LR'S VIDE ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026

6(B) JANAKI, ADULT, RESIDING AT MACHINA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 214

DHOMMA MALEKUDIYA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

7(A) HONNAMMA D/O DOMMA MALEKUDIYA ADULT, PALACKA HOUSE, MACHINA VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADY TQ., D.K., MANGALURU - 574 214.

SMT. THIMAMLU SINCE DEAD BY LRS

7(A) KOTYAPPA S/O THIMMALU, ADULT, R/AT BAREMALU, ODILNALA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TQ., D.K., MANGALURU - 574 214.

4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36363-DB WA No. 1053 of 2016

CNR: KAHC010058692016

THOMA MALEKUDIYA S/O DUGGAMMA MALEKUDIYA, ADULT, R/O KUKKE MALEKUDIYA PERNAL, TOTADHADI VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TQ., D.K., MANGALURU - 574 214.

…RESPONDENTS

(V/O DTD. 11/3/2019 SARAT CHANDRA BIJAI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1(A), R1(B), & C/R2 SRI. S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R3 & R4. R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DTD. 10/02/2025 NOTICE TO R8(A), R7(A) AND R9 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 26101/2005 DATED 11/3/16.

THIS WRIT 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)

Heard Mr. Aniketh K. U., learned counsel appearing for

the appellants and Mr. S H Raghavendra, learned Additional

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:36363-DB WA No. 1053 of 2016

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010058692016

Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26101/2005 instituted by the deceased respondent No.1, who is now represented by her legal heirs.

The appellants claim occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.141/1 to 141/7 measuring in all, 7 acres 87 cents of Machina Village, Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District on the ground that the legal heirs of Venkappa Malekudiya who filed an application in Form No.7 under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the KLR Act') claiming occupancy rights stating that he was the tenant of the land and that one Dhooma Malekudiya was the Yajaman of the Aliyasanthana Family.

Interestingly, after the demise of Aithappa Malekudiya who is the father of Venkappa Malekudiya, his

6 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36363-DB WA No. 1053 of 2016

CNR: KAHC010058692016

mother namely, Lakshmi Malekudiya married one Dhooma Malekudiya.

In a design to divert the real legal heirs of Dhooma Malekudiya over the properties, an application under Section 48A of the KLR Act came to be filed by Venkappa Malekudiya on 30.06.1976. The said application was allowed on 13.05.2005 by the Land Tribunal, Belthangady. The said order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the daughter of Dhooma Malekudiya by filing W.P.No.26101/2005.

The learned Single Judge has noted that what is relevant to consider at the first instance is the revenue entry of the claimant as tenant of the land under his personal cultivation as on 01.03.1974. It is held that there is no entry of Venkappa Malekudiya being the tenant of the land in question under his cultivation either prior to or on 01.03.1974 or even thereafter except for one of the entries of the year 1980 which cannot establish the claim of tenancy.

It is well settled that where a claimant seeks occupancy rights on the basis of an application in Form No.7

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:36363-DB WA No. 1053 of 2016

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010058692016

under Section 48A of the KLR Act, the basic requirement is the revenue entry to the effect that the claimant was a tenant and in actual cultivation of the land as on 01.03.1974. The said claim has to be substantiated by leading cogent and corroborative evidence. In the present case, this basic requirement is missing.

Further, the Assistant Commissioner had to apprise

all other members of the Tribunal that there was no report in respect of the claim of tenancy by the appellant of the land in question or personal cultivation of the land in question as on 01.03.1974. Despite this, strangely the Land Tribunal had granted the occupancy rights in favor of Venkappa Malekudiya.

The learned Single Judge, therefore, has rightly set aside the order as being wholly unsustainable in law being contrary to the provisions of the KLR Act as well as against the evidence and the basic foundation as required in the case.

The appellants have been engaging this Court since the year 2005. Though we are of the view that the appeal should be dismissed with heavy costs, considering the labour

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36363-DB WA No. 1053 of 2016

8 -

CNR: KAHC010058692016

put in by the learned counsel for the appellants and the arguments advanced against imposition of costs, we refrain from imposing costs.

Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit and

substance, stands dismissed .

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

RKA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7