As per case facts, the petitioner challenged a Land Tribunal order confirming occupancy rights for respondents over specific land. The petitioner contended the land was 'punja land', incapable of cultivation, ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2
ND
DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 15374 OF 2022 (LR)
BETWEEN:
DR. VISHWANATH SHETTY
S/O SRINIVAS SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
R/A NEXT TO VISHAL CHILDREN
AND MATERNITY HOSPITAL
KODIALGUTHU, MANNAGUDDA
MANGALORE - 575003.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M. S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BRAHMAVARA TALUK
BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. NARASIMHA ACHARYA
S/O GANAPAIAH ACHARYA
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT AVARSHE VILLAGE
BRAHMAVARA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
SINCE DEAD BY LRs.
3(a)
SARASWATHI ACHARTHI
W/O LATE NARASIMHA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NEAR AVARSHE BHANDSALE
AVARSHE POST, UDUPI TALUK.
3(b) RATHNA DAS
W/O DASA
D/O LATE NARASIMHA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO.105, 4TH CROSS
VENKATESHWAS LAYOUT, B.K. CIRCLE
KOTHANOOR DINNE MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560075.
3(c) GANAPATHI ACHARI
S/O LATE NARASIMHA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/A NO.60, 3RD CROSS
1
ST
MAIN, MANGALORE STICHWARE
B.T.M 2
ND
STAGE
NEAR SHANTHINIKETHAN SCHOOL
BENGALURU - 560078.
3(d)
CHANDRA ACHARI
S/O LATE NARASIMHA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NEAR AVARSHE BHANSALE
AVARSHE POST, UDUPI TALUK.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. K. CHANDRANATHA ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A TO D))
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER IN NO.LRY-30-114-TRI-4460/1980-81
PASSED BY THE 2
ND
RESPONDENT LAND TRIBUNAL DTD
19.07.2022, THEREBY CONFIRM THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
INFAVOUR OF R3 LEGAL HEIRS - R3(a) TO 3(d) HEREIN T O
THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.113/2B1, MEASURING 0.57 ACRE
AND LAND BEARING SY.NO.113/2D, MEASURING 0.46 ACRE
SITUATED AT AVARSHE GRAMA, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI
DISTRICT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 05.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CAV ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challengi ng
the order of the Land Tribunal dated 19.07.2022
confirming occupancy rights in favour of the respondents
who were tenants and had filed Form No.7 before the
Tribunal.
2. The facts that are made out are that the
properties in Sy. No.113/2B1 measuring 0.57 acre and
Sy. No. 113/2D measuring 0.46 acre fell to the shar e of
the petitioner in terms of the registered partition deed
dated 30.09.1965; that there was a building constru cted
by the joint family of the petitioner which was occupied by
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
the workmen of the joint family and it is in that capacity
the claimant Late Narasimha Acharya was allowed to stay
in the building. It is further stated that except s uch
permissive right to reside and occupy the building, Late
Narasimha Acharya did not possess any other rights.
3. It is further stated that Late Narasimha Acharya
filed a declaration before the Land Tribunal on 31.12.1976
claiming an extent of 1 acre of land in Avarshe Village of
Brahmavara Taluk, Udupi District. It is further stated that
in the said Form No.7 filed under Section 48-A(1) of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the Ac t')
Late Narasimha Acharya had not mentioned the survey
number of the property with respect to which tenanc y
rights were claimed nor had mentioned any measureme nt.
4. On 28.05.1981, it is stated that the Land
Tribunal granted 3 cents of property for the purpos e of
construction of house while holding that Late Narasimha
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
Acharya was not a tenant within the definition as
prescribed under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
5. W.P.No.4438/1988 was filed to quash the order
of the Land Tribunal which writ petition was transferred to
the Land Reforms Appellate Authority while numbering the
appeal as L.R.A.No. 429/1988. It is made out in the
petition that evidence was led in before the Land Reforms
Appellate Authority and upon it being abolished and
C.P.11962/1991 having been filed, appeal was conver ted
into W.P.No. 28424/1997.
6. It is further averred that the order of the
Tribunal dated 28.05.1981 came to be set aside and the
matter was remanded while reserving liberty for the
parties to produce documents and adduce evidence.
7. Finally, the Land Tribunal by order dated
19.07.2022 confirmed occupancy rights in favour of
respondents with respect to an extent of 0.57 acre in Sy.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
No. 113/2-B1 and 0.46 acre in Sy. No. 113/2D. It is the
said order that is challenged before this Court.
8. The Tribunal had framed 2 points for
consideration, viz.,
(i) Whether the land which is the subject matter of
the present case would fall within the category of
'land' in terms of Section 2(A)(18) of the amendment
made to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961?
(ii) Whether the claimant had proved that he was
cultivating the land as on 01.03.1974 and earlier to
such date, by way of tenancy?
9. Both the points for consideration were held in
the affirmative.
10. As regards point No.(i) for consideration, the
Tribunal has specifically held that though the land was
punja land the same was brought under cultivation a nd
accordingly, it could be stated that land which is the
subject matter of claim of tenancy rights would fall within
the definition of Section 2(A)(18) of the Act.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
11. As regards point No.(ii), the Tribunal though
noted that Form No.7 filed did not mention any surv ey
number, however held that by itself was no reason f or
rejection of the claim. The Tribunal noticed the mo ney
order receipts stated to be the evidence for paymen t of
lease amount which were produced during the earlier
proceedings. Further, the Tribunal also relied on the report
of the surveyor which according to the Tribunal indicated
the claimant to be in possession of land in Sy. No.113/2-
B1 as well as Sy. No. 113/2D including the house situated
in the said land. Further, the Tribunal noticed the entries
in the revenue records indicating cultivation and allowed
the claim by confirming grant of tenancy rights.
12. Heard both the sides.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Pavan
Chandra Shetty, has raised various contentions: that the
name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the
appropriate column of Form No.7 though petitioner's name
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
was found in the RTC from 1967-68 and that the natu re of
land was shown as 'gudde land' which was incapable of
cultivation and would not fall within the definition of land
under Section 2(A)(18) of the Act, that the land wa s in
effect Punja land and could not have been the subje ct
matter of claim of tenancy. It was further submitted that
mere presence of few trees, which is common in the
region would not be sufficient to infer that the land with
respect to which Form No.7 was filed was land in terms of
Section 2(A)(18) of the Act. It was also contended that
claim with respect to specific survey number if not made,
then the Form No.7 could not have been considered. It
was also submitted that the Form No.7 was not amend ed
despite opportunity for curing the defect.
14.
Learned counsel for the respondents
Sri. K. Chandranath Ariga, had argued that the RTC with
respect to Sy. No.113/2D refer to cultivation of 'paddy'
and 'coconut' and accordingly, it is submitted that even if
the land was punja land if it was shown to have bee n
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
brought under cultivation, the same could still be the
subject matter of claim of tenancy rights. It is further
contended that as the parties have understood the c laim
made by Late Narasimha Acharya and that the
non-description or non amendment would not vitiate the
application. It is further submitted that the surve yor's
report having been relied upon does not call for
interference in the order of the Tribunal.
15. It is to be noticed that for the purpose of
applicability of the Land Reforms Act and recognition of
right of the tenant, it is necessary that the land which is
the subject matter of dispute must fall within Sect ion
2(A)(18) of the Act. It is only thereafter that there could
be an enquiry into establishment of relationship of
tenancy. The Tribunal has accordingly, framed two p oints
for consideration on both such aspects as extracted above.
16. The Tribunal as regards the question of land,
which is the subject matter of the present petition
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
recorded a finding that the land in dispute would fall within
the definition.
17. The claimant tenant has asserted that the land
is 'gudde land' whereas the landlord would contend that
the land is 'punja land' and is not capable of being subject
matter of tenancy claim.
18. It is to be noticed that the definition of land
under Section 2(A)(18) of the Act would indicate that the
land is essentially used for agricultural purposes. It is to
be noticed that the Apex Court has dealt with the
contention of punja land in Dakshina Kannada vis-à- vis
definition of land under the Land Reforms Act. The
observations in the case of Subhakar and other v.
Harideesh Kumar and others
1
at Para Nos. 8 and 9
would be of relevance and the same are extracted as
below:
1
(2007) 9 SCC 561
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
"8. Section 2(A)(18) of the Act reads as follows:
"2. (A)(18) ‘land’ means agricultural
land, that is to say, land which is used or
capable of being used for agricultural
purposes or purposes subservient
thereto and includes horticultural land,
forest land, garden land, pasture land,
plantation and tope but does not include
house-site or land used exclusively for
non-agricultural purposes";
9. A bare reading of the provision shows that
land means agricultural land that is to say, land
which is used or is capable of being used for
agricultural purposes or purposes subservient
thereto and includes horticultural land, forest
land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and
tope but does not include house-site or land used
exclusively for non-agricultural purposes.
Therefore, it has to be established that the land
was capable of being used for agricultural
purposes or purposes subservient thereto. The
Tribunal and the High Court have categorically
noted the fact that the land being punja land is
not cultivable land and only grass is grown
naturally. If the appellants wanted to establish
that it was being used for agricultural purposes,
evidence should have been led in that regard.
The Division Bench has categorically noted that
no evidence in that regard was led. Mere
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
reference to the spot inspection to show the
existence of a few coconut trees does not
establish that the land was capable of being used
for agricultural purpose."
19. Thus, it becomes clear that even if the
contention of the landlord is accepted, that the land is
punja land, that by itself does not disentitle any claim and
it could be demonstrated that land has in effect be ing
brought under cultivation, which burden is upon the tenant
to establish.
20. The reference to few trees grown in the land by
reliance on the survey report dated 07.10.2017 would not
further the case of the tenant. The survey report refers
to:-
(i) existence of 5 mango trees, 6 coconut trees, 4
jack fruit trees, 3 teak trees and 2 tamarind trees in Sy.
No. 113/2B1.
(ii) existence of 5 coconut trees, 3 jack fruit trees, 1
tamarind tree and 10 cashew trees in Sy. No. 113/2D.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
21. Firstly, the survey report is of the year 2017.
The relevant date as on which the cultivation must be
shown is, as on 01.03.1974. Reliance on the report of
2017 which is about 43 years after the cut off date cannot
be taken note of to record a finding that there was
cultivation as on the relevant date. Further, the report
does not indicate any age of the trees so as to draw an
inference of existence of trees as on the relevant date. It
is also to be noticed that mere presence of few trees in a
vast extent of land would not by itself indicate that the
land was brought under cultivation.
Secondly, as noticed in Subhakar's case (supra) ,
the Apex Court has observed that mere existence of few
coconut trees would not establish that land was being used
for agricultural purpose.
22. The Tribunal has recorded positive finding that
there are entries in the pahani of 1973-74 and
subsequently, that paddy was being grown. Such finding is
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
not based on any evidence on record. The only document
which may throw some light in support of the case o f the
tenant is the RTC for the year 1967-68 till 1977-78 with
respect to Sy.No.113/2D. The said RTC merely has an
entry of 6 cashew trees and there is no reference t o
paddy. That by itself cannot be stated to be reflective of
active cultivation. The presence of few cashew tree s in
punja land would not indicate active cultivation and use for
agricultural purpose. The RTC of the year 1996-97 m akes
a reference to cultivation of paddy but that cannot be
taken note of to record a finding that as on the relevant
date, paddy was being cultivated and the same is the case
with the RTC of 2001-02 which also cannot be relied upon
on same grounds. Accordingly, it can be stated that the
finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding cultivation of
paddy is a perverse finding.
23. It is also seen from the records before the
Tribunal that the partition deed amongst the family
members of the landlord would indicate that the lan d in
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
113/2B and 113/2D are described as punja land and su ch
partition deed dated 30.09.1965 is registered as
Document No.380/1965. This would also throw light on the
contention of the landlord and lead to acceptance of the
contention of the landlord that the land is punja land.
24. Considering that Form No.7 enclosed at
Annexure-B would indicate the description of the land as
'gudde land', the contention of the landlord that land is
punja land could be accepted. The tenant not having led
any acceptable evidence that such land was brought into
cultivation, it could be stated that the tenant has failed to
prove that the land was brought into cultivation though it
was punja land and accordingly it can be stated that the
land which is the subject matter of dispute does no t fall
within the definition of land under Section 2(A)(18) of the
Act.
25. Insofar as the finding on Point No.2 regarding
establishment of tenancy relationship, the Tribunal though
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
has recorded a finding of existence of such relationship, it
has heavily relied on the survey report of 07.10.20 17
which was conducted pursuant to the order of the Hi gh
Court. The said report does not in anyway throw light on
the nature of relationship.
26. As regards the reliance on the money orders
regarding payment of amount evidencing tenancy
relationship, the money orders that are stated to evidence
payment of geni
(UÉÃtÂ) amount relate to the year 1962
(28.03.1962, 24.03.1962 and 05.04.1962). In the abs ence
of any other evidence to demonstrate payment of gen i
amount, the money orders of the year 1962 would be
weak evidence in order to record a finding as regar ds
continuance of such relationship during the relevan t
period. The money orders by themselves may not be
sufficient to establish the relationship.
27. Further, in light of the finding recorded that
the land which is the subject matter of claim canno t be
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:5815
WP No. 15374 of 2022
treated to be land under Section 2(A)(18) of the Act, the
finding as regards tenancy relationship would not b e
decisive nor help the tenant as the land itself does not fall
within the purview of the Land Reforms Act.
28. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is set
aside and the petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VP
Legal Notes
Add a Note....