Smt.Shashikala Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt.Shashikala Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; all three writ petitions dismissed and the Land Tribunal's order dated 10.03.2015 conferring occupancy rights on the legal representatives of Hanumanthappa, with the consequential Form No.10 direction, left undisturbed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the land was held on tenancy under Smt. Sharadamma and cultivated by Hanumanthappa (and thereafter his legal representatives), entitling them to occupancy rights under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. +2 more

Court's answer

On consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal's findings and the record, the Court found it evident that the land in question was tenanted land and that Hanumanthappa and, thereafter, his legal representatives were cultivating it.

Ratio / Principle

The material on record indicated that wara was being paid to Smt. Sharadamma by Hanumanthappa, corroborating the tenancy.

Key takeaways

The Court accepted the Tribunal's record findings that Hanumanthappa's name was reflected in the RTC extracts for 1965-66 to 1975-76 and that a spot inspection on 18.11.2014 found his legal representatives in possession and cultivation of the land.ratio¶160
There being no dispute that the land was held on tenancy under Smt. Sharadamma, the evidence sufficiently established that Hanumanthappa was a tenant in cultivation and that, after his demise, his legal representatives continued in possession and cultivation.ratio¶161

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (E.S. Indiresh, J.), order dated 06.07.2026, dismissing W.P. Nos. 47660, 24583 and 25189 of 2015 filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, claiming under registered sale deeds tracing title from an original grant to Dasappa through Muniverappa (sale deed dated 05.05.1958), Smt. Sharadamma (sale deed dated 31.12.1962, acting through a GPA holder) and Smt. Vijaya Prabhu (sale deed dated 05.09.1994), challenged the order dated 10.03.2015 of the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk, in LRF Nos. 3206 and 3206A/1976-77 conferring occupancy rights on the legal representatives of Hanumanthappa under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Court, concurring with the Tribunal's findings, held that the land stood tenanted under Smt. Sharadamma; that Hanumanthappa cultivated it as a tenant paying wara; that his name appeared in the RTC extracts for 1965-66 to 1975-76; and that a spot inspection on 18.11.2014 found his legal representatives in possession and cultivation. The findings being grounded in the evidence, no interference was warranted under Articles 226 and 227; the Tribunal's direction to the Special Tahsildar to issue Form No.10 in favour of the occupants was upheld. Petitions dismissed.

NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

WRIT PETITION NO.47660 OF 2015 (LR)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO.24583 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION NO.25189 OF 2015

IN WP No. 47660/2015

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAMESH N. S/O D.NARAYANA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NARASAPUR, VEMGAL HOBLI,

KOLAR DISTRICT-563 133.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. J.R. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. GANESHAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

SRI. RAMANJINAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT SREERAMANAHALLI, HESARAGATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 088.

SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT KONDAPPA EXTENSION, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, BENGALURU -560 064.

SMT. PUSHPA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT VEERAPURA, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105.

SRI. JAKAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, KARENAHALLI, II DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA-561 203.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, KARENAHALLI, II DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA-561 203.

SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, RAJANUKUNTE, BANGALORE (NORTH) ADDITIONAL TALUK-560 064.

SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O SRI.SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NAGENAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE (NORTH) ADDITIONAL TALUK-560 064.

SRI. P. TARACHAND S/O PRATAP CHANDJI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT #80, DIAGONAL ROAD, V.V.PURAM, BENGALURU -560 004.

DR. KISHANLAL OSWAL S/O LATE SOGMALJI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, #3231, CHURCH ROAD, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU.

THE LAND TRIBUNAL BENGALURU (NORTH) ADDITIONAL TALUK KANDHAYA BHAVANA K.G. ROAD BENGALURU.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SUSHEELA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. KEERTHI KRISHNA REDDY AND SRI. PADMANABHA T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3, 5 & 6; SRI. NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R11 & R12; SRI. G.C. YOGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. B.R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R10)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2015 PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE NORTH(ADDL.) TALUK, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-T TO THIS WRIT PETITION.

IN WP NO. 24583/2015

BETWEEN:

SMT.SHASHIKALA W/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.62,4^TH CROSS, ASWATHAPPA COMPOUND, PATEL MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, VISWANATHA NAGENAHALLI,

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

R T NAGAR POST,

BENGALURU -560 032.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

THE LAND TRIBUNAL BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU -560 009 BY ITS SECRETARY.

HANUMANTHAPPA

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

3(i) SMT. GANESHAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT SREERAMANAHALLI HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 088.

3(ii). SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT SREERAMANAHALLI HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 088.

3(iii). SRI. RAMANJINAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT SREERAMANAHALLI HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 088.

3(iv). SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT SREERAMANAHALLI HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 088.

3(iv). SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT KONNADAPPA EXTENSION NEAR RAILWAY STATION, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, BENGALURU -560 064.

3(v). SMT. PUSHPA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT VEERAPURA, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105.

SRI. JAKKAPPA

NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

7 -

HC-KAR

S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT YEARS KR/AT KARENAHALLI, SECOND DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA-561 203.

SRI. CHANDRAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RA/T KARENAHALLI, SECOND DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203.

SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, RAJANKUNTE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064.

SRI. V.P. RAMESH S/O NARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NARASAPURA, VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 102.

RESPONDENTS NO.6 & 7 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR SPA HOLDER SIR DARSHAN RATHOD, S/O P THARACHAND, R/AT 80 DIAGONAL ROAD, V V PURAM, BENGALURU -560 004.

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

SRI. P. THARACHAND S/O PRATHAPCHANDJI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 80 DIAGONAL ROAD, V V PURAM, BENGALURU -560 004.

DR. KRISHNLAL OSWAL S/O LATE SOGMALJI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.3231, CHARCH ROAD, BANGARPET KOLAR DISTRICT -563 114.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SUSHEELA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. KEERTHI KRISHNA REDDY A/W SRI. PADMANABHA T., ADVOCATE FOR R1, 3, 5 & 6; SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE FOR R8 AND R9; V/O DATED 19.11.2015 NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 12.02.2016 NOTICE TO R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTNO.2, LAND TRIBUNAL IN CASE NO.LRF 3206 & 3206A OF 1976-77 DATED 10.03.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 25189/2015

BETWEEN:

SRI. JAKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

R/O KARENAHALLI, ELEVENTH DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

SMT. CHANDRAMMA D/O SRI.JAKKAPPA, W/O SRI.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O KARENAHALLI, ELEVENTH DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

SMT.SHIVAMMA D/O SRI JAKKAPPA, W/O SRI SIDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, RAJANAKUTE HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. G.C. YOGISH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

THE LAND TRIBUNAL BANGALORE NORTH (ADL.) TALUK, KANDHYA BHAVAN,

10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

K.G.ROAD,

BENGALURU -560 009. REPRESENTD BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

HANUMANTHAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

3(a). SMT.GANESHAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT SRIRAMANAHALLI, HESARAGHATA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 088.

3(b). MUNIRATHANAMMA

D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT SRIRAMANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 088.

3(c). SRI. RAMANJINAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SRIRAMANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 088.

3(d). SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. R/AT SRIRAMANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 088.

11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

3(e). SMT.MANJULA

D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O KONDAPPA EXTENSION, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, BENGALURU -560 064.

3(f). SMT.PUSHPA

D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VEERAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, SIDLAGATTA TALUK, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105.

SRI. V.P.RAMESH S/O SRI.B.NARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NARASAPURA VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 102.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHARADA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. SUSHEELA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. KEERTI KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. PADMANABHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a TO c & e, f; R3(d) AND R4 SERVED )

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL DATED 10.03.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

In these writ petitions, the petitioners have

assailed the order dated 10.03.2015 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North, in LRF Nos. 3206, 3206A/1976-77.

It is the case of the petitioners that, they

are the absolute owners in possession of the land in

question, having acquired the same by virtue of a respective registered Sale Deeds. It is further stated that the petitioners' vendor, Smt Vijaya Prabhu, had acquired title to the property under a registered Sale Deed dated 05.09.1994. It is also stated that Smt. Sharadamma, acting through her General Power of Attorney holder under the General Power of Attorney dated 15.12.1993, had purchased the property from

13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

Sri Muniverappa, son of Hanumanna, by a registered Sale Deed dated 31.12.1962. It is further averred that the said Muniverappa had purchased the property from one Dasappa, under a registered Sale Deed dated 05.05.1958.

It is further case of the petitioners that the land in question had originally been granted in favour of Dasappa, son of Muddaiah, as evidenced by Annexure-F in W.P.No.47660 of 2015. It is contended that, Sri Hanumanthappa, son of Anjinappa, husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent Nos.2 to 6 and nephew of respondent No.7 in W.P.No.47660 of 2015, filed an application under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 seeking grant of occupancy right in respect of the land in question. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 10.03.2015, conferred occupancy rights in favour of legal

14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

representatives of Hanumanthappa. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have presented these writ petitions.

I have heard Sri. J.R. Jagadish, Sri. B.R. Srinivasa Gowda, Sri. G.C. Yogish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Smt. Sharada H.v. learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Smt. S. Susheela, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Keerthi Krishna Reddy, and Sri. Padmanabha T., for the respondentHanumanthappa and his legal representatives. Sri. Nishanth A. V., learned counsel appearing for other respondent Nos. 11 and 12 in W.P.No47660 of 2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners had acquired the property through the respective registered Sale Deeds and that the Land Tribunal committed a serious error

15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

in conferring occupancy rights in favour of legal representatives of Hanumanthappa, without there being any material on record to establish his tenancy. It was further contended that the name of

Hanumanthappa did not find place in the RTC extracts for the relevant period. Accordingly, learned counsel sought interference by this Court.

It is further submitted that, the judgment and decree had been passed by the competent Civil Court in O.S. No. 955 of 1964 (Annexure-L in W.P.No.47660 of 2015), wherein it was recognized

that Muniverappa had purchased the property from Dasappa and thereafter, sold the land in question to Smt. Sharadamma. On the strength of the said judgment and the chain of title, learned counsel sought quashing of the impugned order.

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

7. Per contra, Smt. S. Susheela, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the legal representatives of Hanumanthappa, contended that, the land in question was a tenanted land and that Hanumanthappa had

been cultivating the same as a tenant. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that sufficient material had

been produced before the Land Tribunal to establish that, the cultivation of the land by Hanumanthappa. Referring to the statement of objections, learned Senior Counsel submitted that Hanumanthappa had been cultivating the land as a tenant under Sharadamma since 1965 and that the RTC extracts, produced as Annexure-R3 in Statement of Objections in W.P.No.24583 of 2015, clearly demonstrate Sri. Hanumanthappa, was in cultivation of the land in question. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel sought dismissal of the writ petitions.

17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

Smt. Sharada H.V., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondentState sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal.

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and upon careful consideration of the findings recorded by the Land Tribunal as well as the material available on record, it is evident that the land in question was a tenanted land and that Hanumanthappa and, thereafter, his legal representatives were cultivating the same. The material on record further indicates that wara was being paid to Smt. Sharadamma by Hanumanthappa.

It is also evident from the findings recorded by the Land Tribunal that, the name of Hanumanthappa is reflected in the RTC extracts for

18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

the period 1965-66 to 1975-76 produced along with Statement of Objections in W.P.No24583 of 2015. The Tribunal has further recorded that a Spot Inspection was conducted on 18.11.2014, during which it was found that the legal representatives of late Hanumanthappa were in possession and cultivation of the land in question.

Having carefully considered the findings recorded by the Land Tribunal, this Court finds that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the land was held on tenancy under Smt. Sharadamma, the erstwhile owners of the property. The evidence on record sufficiently establishes that Hanumanthappa was tenant and was in cultivation and that, after his demise, his legal representatives continued in possession and cultivation of the land. The said findings are based on the evidence available on record

19 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33548 WP No. 47660 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24583 of 2015 WP No. 25189 of 2015

HC-KAR

and therefore, I am of the opinion that, impugned

order does not call for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

In that view of the matter, the Land Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion of granting

occupancy rights in favour of legal representatives of Hanumanthappa. The consequential direction issued to the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore North (Additional)

Taluk, to issue Form No.10 in favour of the occupants in accordance with law and same is justified.

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in these writ

petitions. The writ petitions stand dismissed .

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

SB

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1