Writ Petition No. 100 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15322 WP No. 100 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2017 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. B.KARIYAPPA., S/O CHOWDAPPA., SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs., 1(a) GIRIJAMMA., W/O LATE B.KARIYAPPA., AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 1(b) THARAMMA., D/O LATE B.KARIYAPPA., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 1(c) H.K.MANJUNATHA., S/O LATE B.KARIYAPPA., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 1(d) ANNAPPA., S/O LATE B.KARIYAPPA., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, P-1(a) TO 1(c) ARE R/O HOLEHONNUR VILLAGE-577227 BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. (AMENDED AS PER THE ORDERS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 12.07.2022) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15322 WP No. 100 of 2017 …PETITIONERS 2. SUSHEELAMMA., W/O LATE H.D.KARIYAPPA., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O HOLEHONNUR VILLAGE 577 227, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. P.N.HARISH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. LAND TRIBUNAL BHADRAVATHI-577301. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN JUMMA MASJID, HOLEHONNUR VILLAGE-577227 BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MUTHAVALLI. (BYSMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SMT. VIJETHA R.NAIK., ADVOACTE FOR R-3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-2 DATED:18.11.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ORDER FOR CONFERMENT OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONERS FOR AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 17 GUNTAS EACH OF THE LAND IN SY.No.91 OF KOPPA VILLAGE, HOLEHONNUR HOLBI., BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR 19.03.2025, COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15322 WP No. 100 of 2017 PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA 1. 2. CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed by the tenants questioning the rejection of their Form No.7. The Land Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the tenants had not established that they were in possession of the lands in question, which had been gifted to Jumma Masjid and therefore, would not be entitled for confirmation of Occupancy Certificate. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the RTCs for the years from 1969-70 to 1973-74 clearly indicate that the lands were being cultivated by one B.Kariyappa i.e., petitioner No.1 herein and H.D.Kariyappa— husband of petitioner No.2. 4. It is contended that these RTCs clearly indicate that the mode of cultivation recorded in the RTC was “Tenancy” and in light of this particular record, it - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15322 WP No. 100 of 2017 was absolutely clear that the lands in question were tenanted lands and stood vested in the State. 5. It is also sought to be contended that since petitioner No.1 and the husband of petitioner No.2 were admittedly shown as tenants, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application for confirmation of occupancy rights. 6. It is however the case of the respondents that mere revenue entries would not have any bearing since it was the case of the tenants that they were paying rents to one Khadar Mohiuddin who was the Muthawalli of the Masjid till 1967 and from 1968, one Abdul Rehman Sab was the Muthawalli. 7. It is stated that since, admittedly, it was not the case of the petitioners that they were the tenants under Khadar Mohiuddin, who was the Muthawalli, the entire arguments advanced by the petitioners cannot be accepted. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15322 WP No. 100 of 2017 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record the original records which indicate that B.Kariyappa—petitioner No.1 and H.D.Kariyappa had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.91 measuring 01 acre 17 guntas each. In Form No.7 filed by them, they have indicated that Jumma Masjid i.e., respondent No.3 herein was the owner of the lands in question. 9. The records indicate that, Mohammed Madar s/o. Khadar Mohuddin, who was the President of the Jumma Masjid Committee, had deposed stating that his father had gifted the lands in question to the Jumma Masjid and the lands have been cultivated by the tenants. 10. Though said Mohammed Madar admits that the tenants were cultivating the lands, he requested the Tribunal to ensure that the lands were retained with the Masjid. This evidence, by itself, would indicate that the son of the person, who had donated the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15322 WP No. 100 of 2017 lands, himself admitted that the lands in question were tenanted and were being cultivated by the applicants. The tenants also adduced the evidence of the other witnesses to establish their contention that they were in possession of the lands as tenants. 11. More importantly, in respect of the revenue entries for the year 1973-74 categorically state that the lands were being cultivated by B.Kariyappa and H.D.Kariayappa for the years commencing from 1971-72 and till 1983-84 and the mode of cultivation is shown as Tenanancy (Guttige). Since, the name of the tenants has been indicated in the RTCs continuously and it is also indicated that the mode of cultivation was tenanted, it is clear that the lands in question are tenanted and there are clear records to that effect. 12. It may be pertinent to state here that the fact that the entries were standing in the name of the tenants, was not in serious dispute. In fact, in the deposition - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15322 WP No. 100 of 2017 of Mohammed Madar—who incidentally was the son of Khadar Mohiuddin—had deposed admitting the tenancy, has averred in his statement that he was unable to explain as to how the names of the tenants have been entered in the RTCs. This, by itself, indicates that the RTCs were never questioned by the Masjid and therefore, the presumptive value that the entries in the RTCs, especially when it was also recorded that the tenants were cultivating the lands as tenants, will have to be accepted. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the land-lord sought to put forth an argument that one Mohammod Ghouse was cultivating the land on behalf of the Masjid. 14. Mohammod Ghouse had been examined as RW-7 (as indicated in Annexure ‘R7’ to the objections filed by the Masjid). In his deposition, Mohammod Ghouse states that he was cultivating the lands through coolies, and he states that he was looking after the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15322 WP No. 100 of 2017 lands on behalf of the Masjid and the coolie was being paid by the Masjid itself. 15. It is inconceivable that a Masjid would engage the services of any individual without any documentation and without maintaining any record for having paid the coolie. A Masjid, even if it is situated in a village, would obviously maintain some records to indicate the manner in which it controlled its affairs/accounts, to indicate its income and expenditure. The Masjid, however, for the reasons best known to it, has not produced any records to indicate that they were paying coolie and that they had engaged any employees to manage the affairs of their lands. 16. In my view, in light of the fact that there are absolutely no records produced by the Masjid to indicate that it was cultivating the lands, the presumption that is available in law and the revenue records, which is to the effect that the petitioners - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15322 WP No. 100 of 2017 herein were cultivating the lands as tenants, will have to be accepted. 17. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. 18. The Tribunal shall register the petitioners as tenants and issue necessary the Certificate of Registration to them within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Decision
19. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 115