Dismissed¶¶46

Sri. Krishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Land revenue – Occupancy rights

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2026WA/963/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal (LR) No. 963 of 2023, High Court of Karnataka, decided 09-06-2026, per Anu Sivaraman J with Venkatesh Naik T. Occupancy rights; Form No.7A application dated 10.03.1999; Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT); RTC occupants column; cultivating tenant as on 01.03.1974; possession since 1973; illiteracy plea; spot inspection; Annexure-A; Annexure-K; finding of fact; judicial review; Dharmapura Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District; Sy. Nos. 1/2, 1/3, 1/8; WP No.40099/2012; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the appeal was dismissed and all pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of. ¶¶46

Sri. Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27359-DB WA No. 963 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 963 OF 2023 (LR)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE RANGASHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT DHARMAPURA, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 045.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. VIJAYA N. ARADHYA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, TV TOWER, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA @ RATHNAMMA W/O K RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 167, DEVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,

¶20

BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 - STATE; SRI. P.N. NANJAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27359-DB WA No. 963 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON 10/10/2022 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.40099/2012 AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent.

¶31

The appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge insofar as it refuses to interfere with the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as " KAT "), which held that the appellant is not entitled to occupancy rights in respect of the properties bearing Sy. Nos.1/2 measuring 2 acres, 1/3 measuring 2 acres, and 1/8 to an extent of 38 guntas of Dharmapura Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk.

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27359-DB WA No. 963 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been in possession of the properties in question since 1973. However, it is contended that, as the appellant was illiterate, his name was not entered in the RTC in the occupants’ column. It is further submitted that a spot inspection was conducted prior to the passing of the orders, during which the neighbouring landholders had specifically stated that the appellant had been in possession of the property for nearly 30 years. The learned counsel submits that, only on account of illiteracy and ignorance, the appellant did not realise the necessity of getting his name entered in the RTC as a cultivating tenant, and that occupancy rights cannot be denied to him on account of such lapse.

¶35

The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, points out that the appellant did not have a case that he was the cultivating tenant as on 01.03.1974. Relying upon Annexure-A, namely the application preferred by the appellant under Form No.7A on 10.03.1999, it is contended that the only plea raised therein was to the effect that the appellant had been in possession of the land for the preceding

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27359-DB WA No. 963 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

20 years. It is submitted that, even if the said contention that

¶39

the appellant had been cultivating the land for 20 years is taken into consideration, since the application was made in the year 1999, the period of possession would relate back only to the year 1979. Consequently, the application could not have been allowed.

¶40

The learned counsel appearing for the private respondent also contends that the land had never vested in the Government and that, as on 01.03.1974, the name of respondent No.3 was reflected in the RTC, as is evident from Annexure-K.

¶41

We notice that the learned Single Judge had considered these aspects of the matter and found that the Tribunal had considered the contentions advanced by the parties and arrived at a categorical finding on the facts of the case. The learned Single Judge further held that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:27359-DB WA No. 963 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Having considered the contentions advanced, the

¶46

nature of the pleadings, and the material on record, we are unable to differ from the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We find that the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶47

All pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

¶48

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶49

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶50

AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri. Krishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Krishnappa 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

Nandyappa (Dead His Lrs) Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Mallamma Vs Yashodamma

Smt. Ramya Anilshet @ Nagashree. R Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Satyadeva Builders Vs Competent Authority

Sri Gegin George Vs Sri Genoy George

Canara Bank Vs the Competent Authority