Smt. Mary Montheiro v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2026WA/546/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WA No. 546 of 2016 (LR), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, decided 04.02.2026 (Jayant Banerji and T.M. Nadaf JJ.) — Land Tribunal Mangalore — Form No.7 occupancy rights — oral Chalgeni — rent receipts signature — non-consideration of material objections — non-application of mind — Single Judge order in W.P. No.9485/2004 set aside — remand for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.02.2016 set aside; matter remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal after due application of mind. ¶¶77

Smt. Mary Montheiro Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.02.2016 set aside; matter remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal after due application of mind.

¶¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the Land Tribunal's order dated 12.12.2003 rejecting the Form No.7 application could stand when it failed to consider the appellant's statement that she was forced to affix her signature to the rent documents and her claim of cultivating the land. +1 more

¶¶69

Court's answer

For the reasons stated, the Land Tribunal's order dated 12.12.2003 cannot stand.

¶¶70

Ratio / Principle

Non-consideration of material objections denotes non-application of mind, particularly those objections that may have a material bearing on the outcome of the case; the Tribunal's failure to consider the appellant's statement regarding the rent receipts prejudiced her, and the order of 12.12.2003 could not have been passed without considering her case in its totality.

¶¶69

Key takeaways

The impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.02.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal to consider the matter afresh after due application of mind, considering the documents and statements made by both parties.ratio¶¶75
The observations made in the appeal are only for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal and are not an opinion by the Court on the merits of either party's case.obiter¶¶76

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal under S.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 against the learned Single Judge's order dated 08.02.2016 in Writ Petition No.9485/2004 (LR) dismissing the challenge to the Land Tribunal, Mangalore's order dated 12.12.2003 rejecting the appellant's Form No.7 claim to occupancy rights over land measuring 02 acres 14 cents in Survey No.137/1 of Idya Village, based on an alleged oral Chalgeni at an annual rent of Rs.175/- (later Rs.180/-). Held: the Tribunal failed to consider the appellant's categorical statement that she did not know how to read and write Kannada and was forced to affix her signature to the rent documents, and her claim of growing crops on the land; non-consideration of material objections denotes non-application of mind and prejudices the party; the order dated 12.12.2003 cannot stand. The Single Judge's order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Land Tribunal to decide afresh after due application of mind, considering the documents and statements of both parties. Observations confined to the adjudication of the appeal; no opinion expressed on merits. Appeal allowed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 546 OF 2016 (LR)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. MARY MONTHEIRO D/O MAGDALENENA MONTHEIRO AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT IDDYA VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK

¶12

INCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS

¶13

1(a) MAXIM D'SOUZA S/O LATE MARY MONTHEIRO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶14

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

1(b) RITA S'SOUZA D/O LATE MARY MONTHEIRO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶16

1(c) LUCY PINTO D/O LATE MARY MONTHEIRO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶17

1(d) PHILOMINA D'SOUZA D/O LATE MARY MONTHEIRO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶18

ALL APPELLANT NOS. 1(A) TO 1(D) ARE R/AT IDDYA VILLAGE, SURATHKAL MANGALORE TALUK-575 014.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

APPELLANTS NO. 1(A) TO 1(D) ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER APPELLANT NO.1(A) SRI. MAXIM D’SOUZA.

¶22

…APPELLANTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

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

¶26

THE LAND TRIBUNAL MANGALORE-575 001, BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶27

SRI B NARAYANA RAO S/O NARASAPPAYYA,

¶28

NOW DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

¶29

3(A) SRI B SRIDHAR RAO S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.

¶30

3(B) SRI RADHAKRISHNA RAO S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.

¶31

3(C) SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

¶32

3(D) SRI DIVAKARA RAO S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

3(E) SMT. YESHODA R RAO D/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

¶36

3(F) SMT. SEETHARTHNA H BHAT D/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

¶37

3(G) SMT. SHAMALA R RAO D/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶38

3(H) SMT. MANORAMA KEDILAYA D/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶39

3(I) SMT. VIJAYA H RAO D/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶40

RESPONDENTS 3(A) TO 3(I) ARE RESIDING AT IDDYA VILLAGE, SURATHKAL, MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 014.

¶41

3(J) SMT. SAROJA H RAO SINCE DECEASED, RESPONDENTS 3(A) TO 3(I) ARE TREATED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF RESPONDENT NO. 3(J)

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SMT. PRATHIBA R. K, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. PRASANNA V. R., ADVOCATE FOR R3(A AND D); R3(B) - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O/DTD. 01.03.2023 R3(C), R3(E), R3(F), 3(G), R3(H) AND R3(I) ARE SERVED THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION)

¶44

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08/02/2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.9485/2004 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND ETC.

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

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

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶49

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶50

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶52

This intra-court appeal is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9485/2004 (LR).

¶53

By means of the impugned order, the petition filed by the appellant seeking to challenge the order dated 12.12.2003 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore, was dismissed holding that if the petitioner was only an occupant of the non-agricultural portion of the land, the Tribunal would not even have jurisdiction to decide the claim for occupancy rights.

¶54

The background of the case as appears from the

¶55

record is that, the appellant claimed to be in possession of the land measuring 02 acres 14 cents in Survey No.137/1 of

¶56

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Idya Village of Mangalore Taluk, by virtue of an oral Chalgeni with the owner of the land one Sri. Narayana Rao on an annual rent of Rs.175/-, which rent was later increased to Rs.180/- per annum. The appellant was paying the rents to the Landlord and constructed a house on the said land in the year 1970 and also fenced the property. The appellant was growing vegetable crops and rice crops on the said land which was being cultivated by her since 1970. An application in Form No.7 was filed by the appellant claiming occupancy rights in respect of the house. The Land Tribunal declared the appellant as an occupant of the land. The Respondent No.3 challenged the order of the Tribunal in Writ Petition No.21947/1982, which was allowed by an order dated 18.11.1985 and the order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal.

¶59

It was contended before the learned Single Judge that, not only the petitioner was claiming occupation of the house existing on the land, but was also cultivating the land and therefore, by the order aforesaid dated 12.12.2003 passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting Form No.7, holding

¶60

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

that the petitioner was not a tenant in respect of the agricultural land, deserves to be set aside.

¶63

The respondent’s counsel contended that the appellant herself had admitted that she was occupying only the house portion, which was a portion converted to nonagricultural land, on which the house has been constructed and she had been inducted as a tenant in respect of that premises. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for occupancy rights.

¶64

Considering the aforesaid submissions, the learned Single Judge held that it is not open for the petitioner/appellant to have resiled from her stand as an after-thought and the admission made by her at the first instance would certainly have to be given credence. The petition was therefore dismissed.

¶65

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, a categorical statement was made by the appellant before the Tribunal that, she did not know how to read and write and to speak properly in Kannada and that

¶66

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

she was forced to affix her signature to the documents in respect of which she was paying the monthly rent. It is further stated that she was growing potatoes, vegetables and other crops on the land. She had also named various neighbours who could be questioned in this regard.

¶69

We find from perusal of the order of the Land Tribunal that there is no consideration of the aforesaid statement made by the appellant in respect of the rent receipts. Under the facts and circumstances, without considering the case set up by the appellant in its totality, the impugned order of 12.12.2003 could not have been passed by the Land Tribunal. Non-consideration of material objections denote non-application of mind, particularly those objections that may have a material bearing on the outcome of the case. The appellant would be prejudiced by nonconsideration of the aforesaid stand of hers.

¶70

For the reasons aforesaid, in our considered opinion, the order dated 12.12.2003 cannot stand. Thus, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:6501-DB WA No. 546 of 2016

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

08.02.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the

¶75

Land Tribunal to consider the matter afresh after due application of mind, and considering the documents and statements made by both the parties.

¶76

It is made clear that the observations made in this appeal are only for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal and should not be taken as an opinion by this Court on the merits of the case of either of the parties.

¶77

12. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶78

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶79

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶80

KGR

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt. Mary Montheiro v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mary Montheiro 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

Sri Lokesh S Vs Smt Amaravathi C

Smt. Hemavathi, Vs Sri. R Sathish

Shivalinga Vs Mamatha

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs Smt Aishwarya S

Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Fahim Taj S Vs Sri. Javeed Pasha