Smt Muthamma Vs State of Karnataka

QUASH ORDER DATED 31.12.2015 IN REVENUE APPEAL NO.401 OF 2006 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶38

IN WP NO. 4571/2025

¶39

BETWEEN:

¶40

SRI. SHIVANNA S/O LATE MALLASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KOOTHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, VENKATARAYANA DODDI POST, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562132.

¶41

SRI. CHANNAMALLA S/O LATE MALLASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KOOTHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, VENKATARAYANA DODDI POST, KASABA HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562132.

¶42

SRI. PRASAD S/O LATE MALLASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KOOTHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, VENKATARAYANA DODDI POST, KASABA HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562132.

¶43

...PETITIONERS

¶44

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. KEERTHI PRASAD D.C., ADVOCATE)

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29430 WP No. 21819 of 2016 C/W WP No. 4571 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

AND:

¶48

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶49

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA -562159.

¶50

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA -562159.

¶51

THE TAHSILDAR KANAKAPURA TALUK, KANAKAPURA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562117.

¶52

...RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶54

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 04.09.2024 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, IN RA NO. 497/2024-25 ANNEXURE-A.

¶55

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29430 WP No. 21819 of 2016 C/W WP No. 4571 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶58

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶59

ORAL ORDER

¶60

The petitioners in W.P.No.21819/2016 are assailing the order dated 31.12.2015 in Appeal No.401/2006 on the file of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (Annexure-F).

¶61

Relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition are that, the respondent No.4 was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.39/1 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas in an extent of Sy.No.41/1a measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.83 measuring 12 guntas situate at Kuttagondanahalli, Kanakapura Taluk. It is further stated that, mother of the petitioners was cultivating the land in question for more than three decades and as such, mother of the petitioners filed Form-7A under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), seeking occupancy rights in respect of the subject land.

¶62

6 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:29430 WP No. 21819 of 2016 C/W WP No. 4571 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

It is further stated that, the Land Tribunal, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 08.11.2005, granted occupancy rights in favour of the mother of the petitioners, as per Annexure-A. Thereafter, the revenue records mutated in favour of the mother of the petitioners. The respondent No.4 filed W.P.No.2590/2006, challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal and this Court, vide order dated 23.03.2006, directed the respondent No.4 to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. It is also stated that, the petitioners have filed O.S.No.416/2006 against the respondent No.4, seeking relief of permanent injunction which came to be decreed in favour of the petitioners as per the Judgment and Decree dated 11.08.2015 (Annexure-E). It is further stated in the Writ Petition that, the petitioners herein were not heard in the matter and as such, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 31.12.2015, set aside the order of the Land Tribunal as per Annexure-F. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented this Writ Petition.

¶66

In W.P.No.4571/2025, petitioners are assailing the order dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent

¶67

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29430 WP No. 21819 of 2016 C/W WP No. 4571 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

No.3, rejecting the claim for entering the name of the petitioners in the revenue records.

¶70

Heard Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Keerthi Prasad D.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions, Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.No.21819/2016, and for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.4571/2025 and Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in W.P.No.21819/2016 and for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.4571/2025.

¶71

Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that, the petitioners' mother was cultivating the land in question and has filed Form-7A, seeking occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal, after considering the material on record, granted occupancy rights in favour of the mother of the petitioners, however, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned order, despite the fact that, the respondent No.4Ramachandra has sold the schedule property in favour of one

¶72

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29430 WP No. 21819 of 2016 C/W WP No. 4571 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Krishnappa and Ramaswamy, as per the registered Sale Deed dated 16.09.2005 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶75

Per contra, Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 / respondent No.5, and learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order.

¶76

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the records. It is forthcoming from the records, that the mother of the petitioners - Muthamma had filed Form-7A, seeking occupancy rights in respect of the subject land and the Land Tribunal after considering the material on record and spot inspection, conferred occupancy rights as per order dated 08.11.2005 (Annexure-A). It is also forthcoming that the respondent No.4 - Ramachandra had challenged the same before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.401/2006, which came to be allowed. It is to be noted that, the said respondent No.4Ramachandra had sold the schedule property in favour of Krishnappa and Ramaswamy as per the registered Sale Deeds

¶77

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:29430 WP No. 21819 of 2016 C/W WP No. 4571 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

dated 16.09.2005 (Annexure-R1 and R2). In that view of the matter, the said Ramachandra has no legal right to challenge the order passed by the Land Tribunal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by suppressing the sale deeds referred to above. It is also forthcoming from paragraph 15 of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.416/2006 (Annexure-E), wherein, it is observed that mother of the petitioners is in cultivation of the land in question. The said aspect of the matter was ignored by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and has erroneously passed the impugned order, without considering the material on record and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶80

Nextly, as I have arrived at the conclusion that the impugned order dated 31.12.2015 in Appeal No.401/2006 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru is contrary to the records and therefore, there is no impediment for the jurisdictional revenue authorities to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records.

¶81

In the result, I pass the following:

¶82

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:29430 WP No. 21819 of 2016 C/W WP No. 4571 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

ORDER

¶85

(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed.

¶86

(ii) The Order dated 31.12.2015 in Appeal No.401/2006

¶87

on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (Annexure-F) in W.P.No.21819/2016 is accordingly quashed and thereby the Order dated 08.11.2005 (Annexure-A) passed by the Land Tribunal, Kanakapura is hereby confirmed.

¶88

(iii) The Order dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure-A) in R.A.No.497/2024-25 in W.P.No.4571/2025 is accordingly, quashed.

¶89

(iv) The Tahsildar, Kanakapura Taluk, is directed to

¶90

mutate the name of the petitioners in the revenue records within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶91

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶92

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Smt Muthamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Muthamma v. 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 Saganappa Vs State of Karnataka

Shanthamma Vs Tahsildar

Sri.R.Munikrishnappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Siraj Unnisa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T R Lakshminarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Thippeswamy Vs the State of Karnataka