(Prayer: This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to setting aside the order of the learned single judge in w.p. no.10441/2020 (lr) dated 16.06.2025 and dismiss the writ petition no.10441 of 2020. )

Cav Judgment

Vibhu Bakhru, C. J.

1. The appellant has filed the present intra-court appeal impugning an order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10441/2020 (LR).

2. Respondent No.1 (hereafter, referred to as 'the respondent') had filed the aforementioned writ petition assailing an order dated 24.08.1981 [hereafter referred to as ‘Order A’] passed by respondent No.2 [the Land Tribunal] in case No.LRF(B)1796/1974-75.

3. In terms of the impugned order– Order A –the Land Tribunal had rejected the application of the respondent's father to register him as Adhibhogadar in respect of land measuring 2 acres and 4 guntas falling in Survey No.69 and 14 guntas falling in Survey No.64 in Dommasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk [subject land]. The Land Tribunal held that the subject land was covered under the Inams Abolition Act, 1977 and an order was passed in Case No.4043/67.

4. It is the respondent's case that he was cultivating the subject land as a tenant under the Jodidhar namely, late Y.Thimmaiah, Y. Appaji and others. He had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights, which was allowed by the Land Tribunal in terms of an order 24.08.1981 in proceedings bearing No.LRF(B)1796/1974-75. The respondent claimed that the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights in respect of land falling in Survey No.69 to the extent of 1 acre 32 guntas and in Survey No.64 to the extent of 6 guntas, in his favour. Thus, the controversy essentially revolves around two orders dated 24.08.1981: Order A, which was annexed as Annexure-A to the petition, and another order of the same date (annexed as Annexure-B to the petition) [hereafter, referred to as 'Order B']. Whereas in terms of Order A, the respondent's application was accepted in terms of Order B.

5. The learned Single Judge had observed that Order B (order dated 24.08.1981 annexed as Annexure B to the writ petition) is part of the original records and the grant of occupancy rights were also reflected in the RTC extracts. On the aforesaid basis, the writ petition was allowed.

The Context

6. The appellant claims that one Sri Yele Narayanappa was the original Jodidhar. The appellant relies on an order dated 03.01.1964 passed by the court of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Kolar, under Section 10 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 in Case No.4043/63-64. In terms of the said order Sri Yele Narayanappa, was registered as an occupant in respect of lands falling in Survey No.69 to the extent of 1 acre and 17 guntas, which included 13 guntas of Kharab land. Copy of the said order dated 03.01.1964 has been produced and indicates that Sri Yele Narayanappa was registered as an occupant of certain lands, which included the lands to the extent of 2 acres and 4 guntas falling in Survey No.69 of the village in question. The appellant claimed his rights through Sri Yele Narayanappa. He states that Sri Yele Narayanappa expired intestate and was survived by his six sons: Y. Appaji, Y. Thammaiah, Y. Shivappa, Y. Rajshekhar, Y. Chandrasekhar and Y. Puttaiah.

7. It is the appellant's case that the application filed by the respondent in Form No.7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [the Land Reforms Act] was rejected by the Land Tribunal in terms of Order A (order dated 24.08.1981). However, it appears that the name of the respondent was entered in the RTC records. The sons of Sri Y.Appaji, that is, the grandsons of Sri Yele Narayanappa, filed an appeal before respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner – being Appeal No.RRT-(BE) 929/2018-19 under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964 [KLR Act] seeking rectification of the revenue entries in respect of land measuring 1 acre 32 guntas falling in Survey No.69/1 of Dommassandra Village. According to the said applicants, the change in the land records to reflect the name of the respondent, was erroneous.

8. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the said appeal by an order dated 21.01.2019 and directed the deletion of the respondent's name and for entering the name of respondent Nos.5 to 7 (sons of Late Sri. Y.Appaji and grand sons of late Sri Yele Narayanappa) in the land records in respect of land measuring 1 acre 32 guntas falling in Survey No.69/1 of Dommasandra Village.

9. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, being R.P.No.78/2019. However, the same was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 07.02.2020. It is material to note that the respondent did not assail the decision of the Deputy Commissioner.

10. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.5 to 7 (sold 12 guntas of land falling in Survey No.69 (New Survey No.69/2) to one Sri Narendra Babu) in terms of a registered sale deed dated 24.11.2014. The respondent filed a suit being O.S.No.1149/2015 inter alia praying that the respondent be declared as an absolute owner of the scheduled property. It is material to note that the scheduled property was described as under:

                  "All that piece and parcel of land measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy.No.69, New Sy. No.69/2 of Dommasandra village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, and bounded on:-

                  East by  : Land in Sy.No.65 belongs to Jayaram,

                  West by  : Land in Sy. No.76,

                  North by  : Yellamallappa Water Channel,

                  South by       : 80 feet Road in Sy. No.69."

11. The Court returned the plaint and the same was not represented by the respondent (plaintiff therein).

12. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 sold the subject land measuring 1 acre 32 guntas along with accompanying Kharab land in favour of the appellant by a registered sale deed dated 13.02.2020. Pursuant to the said sale deed, the subject land was mutated in the name of the appellant.

13. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the respondent filed the impugned writ petition assailing Order A whereby, the respondent's application for seeking occupancy rights in respect of the subject land was rejected. The respondent claimed that he was in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and had been notified as a registered occupant in terms of Order B – order dated 24.08.1981 under Sections 45 and 48(A) of the Land Reforms Act. The respondent claimed that Order A had been disclosed recently and the same had been created by respondent Nos.5 to 7 in collusion with the authorities.

Submissions

14. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also called for the original records.

15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no dispute that the subject land was a part of the Inam land. He contended that although the learned Single Judge had referred to Order B, the original files do not contain the original of the said order. He submitted that the file also does not contain the proceedings of the Land Tribunal. He contended that although the learned Single Judge had allowed the petition on the strength of Order B, there is no adjudication whether the lands in question were Inam lands. There is no cavil that the order dated 03.01.1964 accepting the lands falling under Survey No.69 as Inam land, was issued under Section 10 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. He contended that in view of the said order, the application filed by the respondent to be declared as a registered occupant of the subject land under the KLR Act would not be maintainable. Thus, in any event, the respondent could not have succeeded in claiming any occupancy rights in respect to the subject land. He also contented that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.P. No.78/2019 had become final as the respondent had not challenged the same.

16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7 supported the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and contented that Order B was not in existence.

17. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is evident that Order A did not exist at the material time, as the land records clearly reflected that the occupancy rights were granted to the respondent in terms of Order B. He submitted that Order B is part of the records and the fact that it not only reflected in the records but was also acted upon by the concerned authorities at the material time. He also referred to the sale deed 24.11.2014 executed by respondent Nos.5 to 7 in favour of Sri Narendra Babu in respect of 12 guntas of land. He submitted that the schedule to the said sale deed described the 12 guntas of land sold pursuant to the said deed described that it was bounded on the east by the remaining portion of the said survey number belonging to the respondent. He submitted that since the said deed was the clear admission on the part of respondent Nos.5 to 7 that the subject land belonged to the respondent.

Reasons and Conclusion:

18. As is apparent from the rival contentions as noted above, the controversy essentially relates to whether Order A was fabricated and Order B was a genuine copy of the order passed at the material time.

19. The learned Single Judge had proceeded on the basis that the original Order B existed in the original file and that the entries in the land records reflected the same. However, we find that the original document of Order B does not exist in the original file and the learned Single Judge’s finding in this regard is erroneous. We have examined the original file and we find that it contains the copy of Order B. The said order does not bear the signatures of the Chairman or the Members of the Land Tribunal. Since, it is a copy, it merely reflects as "Sd:-" (Translated from Kannada)

20. Since, the impugned order is based on the said erroneous premise, it liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

21. The learned Single Judge had proceeded to hold that the mutation entries deleting the name of the respondent had been made without considering the grant made in favour of the respondent in terms of Order B. However, if the existence of Order B is itself in doubt and therefore, no order could have been passed without establishing its authenticity. The learned Single Judge also observed that Order A is handwritten and does not reflect the signatures of the members of the Land Tribunal.

22. This finding is also contrary to the record, the original document of the impugned order, as is available on the original file, does indicate that it has been signed by the Chairman and a member of the Land Tribunal. The learned Single Judge faulted the respondent-concerned authorities for not producing the order sheets of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and had noted that the learned Additional Government Advocate reported the same to be missing. The fact that order sheets are missing does not support the case of the respondent.

23. We are of the view that interference in the impugned order is called for several reasons:

                  23.1    First, there is no serious disputes regarding the genuineness of the order dated 03.01.1964 which reflects that the lands falling in Survey No. 69 of Dommasandra Village, measuring 2 acres and 4 guntas were Inam land. In terms of the said order, Sri Yele Narayanappa was declared as the occupant of the said land. There is no dispute that in view of the said lands being inam lands, the respondent's application for grant of occupancy rights under the KLR Act, could not be entertained.

                  23.2    Second, that the respondent had filed a suit being O.S.No.1149/2015 against respondent Nos.5 to 7, inter alia, seeking a declaration that he was the owner of the subject land. However, the said proceedings were abandoned. As noted earlier, the plaint was returned and was not represented. Having abandoned his claim for declaration of ownership of the subject land, the respondent's writ petition premised on the said claim ought not to have been entertained in absence of any explanation as to why the suit was abandoned.

                  23.3    Third, that the respondent had filed an appeal against the order dated 21.01.2019 of the Assistant Commissioner being Appeal No.R.R.T.(B.E.)929/2018-19. However, the same was dismissed. The respondent had accepted the same and had not challenged the said order in any proceedings. It would be relevant to note that the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.01.2019 was premised on the finding that the respondent's application for grant of occupancy rights had been dismissed in terms of Order A. The relevant extract of the said is reproduced below:

                  "The above appeal has been registered and notice has been issued to the respondent who has sent the entire original file pertaining to case No.BRF(B) 1796/1974-75.  Heard arguments  addressed on behalf of the appellants and perused all the records filed before this Court. It is crystal clear that the case in LRF (B) 1796/1974-75 has been dismissed by the Land Tribunal. By virtue of a registered partition father of the appellants have derived title to the said land and naturally on his death the appellants herein have derived title to the said land."

                  23.4    Whilst the respondent was not a party to the said proceedings, yet he had filed an appeal against the said order before the Deputy Commissioner. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground that the respondent had not produced the order of the Land Tribunal in original. The respondent had only produced a xerox copy of the order (Order B) whereas, the contesting respondents (respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein) had produced the certified copy of the order (Order A) passed by the Land Tribunal.

                  23.5    This Court had pointedly asked the learned counsel for the respondent as to why the challenge to the impugned order should not be rejected since the respondent had accepted that the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner dismissing his appeal. In response, the learned counsel contented that the respondent had not challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner as it was premised on Order A. The respondent had decided to prefer the writ petition challenging the same.

                  23.6    The aforesaid contention is unpersuasive for the reason that the respondent had taken no immediate steps to challenge Order A after the Deputy Commissioner had dismissed R.P.No.78/2019 by accepting Order B.

                  23.7    It is also material to note that the findings of the Assistant Commissioner were based on the verification of the original record. Therefore, if the respondent desired to pursue his claim that the original records contain Order B and Order A was fabricated, it would have been apposite to assail the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner at the material time. However, as noted above that the said orders are final as they were not assailed.

24. The original file has been produced and it contains the original document of the Order A. The same also bears the original signatures of the Chairperson of the Land Tribunal as well as the signature of        one SriH.V.Nanjaiah,presumably, one of   the members of the Land Tribunal.

25. We are also of the view that the writ petition was filed at a highly belated stage. Indisputably, the respondent was aware of Order A as the same was on the basis of the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 21.01.2019. But the respondent had not taken any steps to challenge the same at the material time.

26. The sale deed dated 24.11.2014 whereby, 12 guntas of the land falling in Survey No.69 was sold by respondent Nos.5 to 7 to Sri Narendra Babu reflected that 12 guntas of land were bounded on the east that is, the land belonging to the respondent. The same has been sought to be explained on the ground that the land records so reflected the same and therefore, the same was entered in the sale deed.

27. We are sceptical about this explanation. However, the same at best, indicates that the controversy raised involves certain disputes regarding questions of facts. However, as noted above, the respondent had not taken any steps to challenge the same. The writ petition was also filed on 05.08.2020 after a considerable delay, which in the given facts ought not be countenanced.

28. In view of the above, we cannot concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that the writ petition ought to have been entertained and the relief as sought for ought to have been granted to the respondent.

29. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

30. The Pending application is also disposed of.

31. The original file furnished by the learned Additional Government Advocate be returned.