Dismissed¶110

Ramakrishnappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2026WA/223/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC DB, WA No.223 of 2026 (KLR-RES), decided 10-03-2026, per D K Singh J.; writ appeal dismissed; occupancy rights Land Tribunal Form 10/Form 7; Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 S.136(2); mutation MR No.12/1994-95 dated 23.02.1994; Survey No.3/3 vs Survey No.3/4 Choodenapura Village Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluk; Assistant Commissioner RA(S)No.35/2006-2007 order 03.12.2007; Deputy Commissioner common revision order 01.08.2014 (RP 136/2009-2010, RP 146/2008-2009); Single Judge W.P.No.53320/2014 order 11.12.2025; suits OS No.173/2000 (dismissed) and OS No.1742/2006 (pending); parties Ramakrishnappa/Jayamma LRs; Nabi Sab legatees; Shaik Bheeramsab heirs.

What did the court decide?

This Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. ¶110

Ramakrishnappa Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14190-DB WA No. 223 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAMAKRISHNAPPA,

¶10

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs

¶11

JAYAMMA,

¶12

W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs

¶13

(NOTE JAYAMMA IS DEAD DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT/WRIT PETITION AND THEIR LRs ALREADY ON RECORD

¶14

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

¶15

IN THE APPEAL HENCE SEPARATE APPLICATION IS NOT NECESSARY)

¶16

SMT. HONNAMMA.R D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶17

SMT. MANGALA.R, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶18

SHRI. K.R. NAGARAJ, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶19

SHRI. K.R. KUMAR,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:14190-DB WA No. 223 of 2026

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶24

ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT NO.21, K.N.R. NIVAS, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, KENGERI FORT, BENGALURU-560060.

¶25

…APPELLANTS

¶26

(BY SRI. V B SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶29

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶30

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶31

SMT. FATHIMA, W/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, R/A NO. 75, 6TH CROSS, PADARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560026. CHAND PASHA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs

¶32

SMT. KHURSHEED W/O LATE CHANDPASHA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶33

SHRI. IMRAN, S/O LATE CHANDPASHA,

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:14190-DB WA No. 223 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶38

SMT. RESHMA, W/O LATE CHANDPASHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶39

SMT. FOUZIA, D/O LATE CHANDPASHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶40

R-5 TO 8 ARE ALL R/AT NO. 101, 5TH CROSS, SHAMANNA GARDEN, BENGALURU-560026.

¶41

SHRI. SHATAJ, S/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶42

SHRI. ASLAM, S/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶43

SHRI. BAKASH, S/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶44

SHRI. AFZAL, S/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶45

R9 TO R12 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO. 75, 6TH CROSS, PADARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560026.

¶46

SMT. AZEERA BEE, W/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶47

SHRI. BABU, S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶48

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14190-DB WA No. 223 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

SMT. PARVEEN, D/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶51

SMT. FARIDA, D/O LATE GAFFAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶52

SMT. ABIDA, D/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶53

R13 TO R17 ARE ALL R/A LAYARAPALYA, NAYANDAHALLI, BENGALURU-560039.

¶54

SMT. SHAKEERA BEE, W/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶55

SHRI. SYED SALEEM, S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶56

SMT. SYED SHIRAJ, D/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶57

SMT. SHABANA, D/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶58

SMT. MUBINA, D/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶59

SMT. MAAJAN BEE, W/O LATE SYED ZALEEL, D/O LATE NABI SAB, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶60

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14190-DB WA No. 223 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

SHRI. SYED ANSAR S/O LATE SYED ZALEEL, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶63

SHRI. SYED AFSAR, S/O LATE SYED RADEEL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶64

SHRI. SYED AFZAL, S/O LATE SYED ZALEEL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶65

SMT. KAUSAR, S/O LATE SYED ZALEEL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶66

R18 TO 27 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 26, B MAIN ROAD, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560069.

¶67

SMT. ASMATHBI, W/O LATE BEERAMSAB, AGED MAJOR,

¶68

SMT. SHATAJ, W/O LATE BEERAMSAB, AGED MAJOR,

¶69

SMT. KHAMARTHAJ, D/O LATE BEERAMSAB, AGED MAJOR,

¶70

SMT. SHAMSHAD, D/O LATE BEERAMSAB, AGED MAJOR,

¶71

SHRI. ALLABAKASH, S/O LATE BEERAMSAB, AGED MAJOR,

¶72

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14190-DB WA No. 223 of 2026

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

SHRI. SHAIKH HYDER, S/O LATE BEERAMSAB, AGED MAJOR,

¶75

SHRI. KHALEEL, S/O LATE BEERAMSAB, AGED MAJOR,

¶76

SHRI. AFZAL, S/O LATE BEERAMSAB, AGED MAJOR,

¶77

R28 TO R35 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO. 554/A-555, VIDYAPEETH ROAD, NEW ANNIS SCHOOL, KENGERI, BENGALURU-560060

¶78

…RESPONDENTS

¶79

(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. T.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R9-R27)

¶80

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.53320/2014, ETC.

¶81

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶82

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶83

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:14190-DB WA No. 223 of 2026

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶87

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶88

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.53320/2014(KLR-RES) instituted by the petitioners/appellants.

¶89

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶90

The petitioners contend that petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are the legal representatives of one Sri Ramakrishnappa, who had been granted occupancy right by the Land Tribunal vide order dated 15.10.1976 in respect of 1 acre 03 guntas of land (for brevity 'the subject land' ) in Survey No.3/3 situated at Choodenapura Village, Bangalore South Taluk. The occupancy certificate in Form 10 was issued by Tahsildar on 16.08.1982. Based on the Form 10 certificate issued by Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, the mutation entry

¶91

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14190-DB WA No. 223 of 2026

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

was effected in the name of Ramakrishnappa vide MR No.12/1994-95 dated 23.02.1994 and ever since then the said Ramakrishnappa claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the subject land in Survey No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas.

¶94

One Shaik Bheeramsab had filed suit in OS No.173/2000 for declaration of title against Ramakrishnappa in respect of land in Survey No.3/3. The said suit however, came to be dismissed. Another suit in OS No.1742/2006 was filed by respondent Nos.4 to 24, who claimed to be legatees of late Nabi Sab, claiming ownership of the land in Survey No.3/3 and it appears the said suit is still pending for final decision.

¶95

The respondent Nos.4 to 24 have also filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'), challenging the mutation entry in MR No.12/19941995 dated 23.02.1994 in RA(S)No.35/2006-2007. The

¶96

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:14190-DB WA No. 223 of 2026

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

Assistant Commissioner had allowed the said appeal vide order dated 03.12.2007.

¶99

Petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner had filed Revision Petition No.136/2009-2010 before the Deputy Commissioner and similarly the legal heirs of late Shaikh Bheeramsab had also challenged the said order before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.146/2008-2009. The Deputy Commissioner had passed the common order dated 01.08.2014 and allowed the revision petition filed by legal heirs of late Shaikh Bheeramsab. The said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner came to be challenged by the petitioners before the writ Court in the present W.P.No.53320/2014 (KLR-RES).

¶100

The Learned Single Judge has recorded the finding that one Nabi Sab was the landlord of land bearing Survey No.3/3 of Chudenapura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and Ramakrishnappa had filed Form No.7 in

¶101

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:14190-DB WA No. 223 of 2026

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

respect of the said land claiming occupancy right in the year 1975 i.e., in LRF 1512/74-75, and the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy right in respect of the said land by rejecting his claim in respect of Sy.No.4 vide order dated 15.10.1976. However, on 13.11.1976, Ramakrishnappa had approached the Land Tribunal and gave a statement that he was cultivating land bearing Survey No.3/4 measuring 34 guntas and mistakenly he had filed application with respect to Survey No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas. The landlord also gave a statement to that effect. On enquiry by the Land Tribunal it was revealed in the survey report that Ramakrishna was in cultivation of the land bearing Survey No.3/4 and as such the Land Tribunal modified its order dated 15.10.1976. Thus, the petitioner's right, if any, would be only in respect of the land in Survey No.3/4. His claim for

¶104

mutation in respect of the land in Survey No.3/3 is without any basis inasmuch as the order dated 15.10.1976 by which the occupancy right was conferred in favour of

¶105

11 -

¶106

NC: 2026:KHC:14190-DB WA No. 223 of 2026

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

Ramakrishnappa in respect of the land in Survey No.3/3

¶109

got modified by the Order dated 09.12.1976 on the application filed by Ramakrishnappa. In view thereof, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition.

¶110

We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶111

In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending

¶112

interlocutory applications, if any do not survive for consideration, hence stand disposed of.

¶113

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶114

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶115

NG CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Ramakrishnappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vijaya Venkatesh Vs Sri Thiammarayappa

The Commissioner Vs Hanumantharayappa

Mrs. Renu Kapoor Vs Mr. T R Ramachandra

Sri S C Ramachandra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Munihanumaiah Vs the State of Karnataka