SMT. SEETHAMMA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY THE GPA HOLDER SRI. PUTTARAMEGOWDA S/O NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.14 GROUP-1, KHB COLONY HOOTAGALLI EXTENSION, MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 010. (BY SRI. K.R.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU …APPELLANT Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:2893-DB WA No. 1345 of 2025 HC-KAR KARNATAKA - 560 001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSURU SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 001. SRI. SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHARAJA WADEYAR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S

3. SMT. PRAMODA DEVI W/O SRI. SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHARAJA WADEYAR, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT MYSURU PALACE, MYSURU KARNATAKA - 570 001.

4. SRI. YADHUVEERA WADEYAR, S/O. SRI. SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHARAJA WADEYAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT MYSURU PALACE, MYSURU KARNATAKA - 570 001.

5. THE REGISTRAR, THE MYSURU UNIVERSITY, MANASA GANGOTHRI, MYSURU KARNATAKA - 570 006. (BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP NO.35486/2024, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN WP NO.35486/2024 DATED 16/06/2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2893-DB WA No. 1345 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The intra-court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.35486/2024.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Writ Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioner had filed the writ petition impugning the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Review Petition No.2/2018, order dated

13.10.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.863/2011 and the order dated

06.07.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru, in Case No. LRF 7(A) 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 243/A, 243/C/98-99, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for granting occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2893-DB WA No. 1345 of 2025 HC-KAR

4. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the facts, which are briefly stated as under:- a) The land bearing Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, is one amongst the several lands belonging to the Maharaja of Mysuru. The said land was leased out in favour of several persons. b) The petitioner claimed to be a tenant in respect of the land bearing Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli, Mysuru Taluk, to an extent of 8 acres 31 guntas. The petitioner did not file an application in Form No.7, seeking registration of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question, despite the petitioner claiming to be the tenant of the said land.

5. Section 77A was inserted in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 with effect from 01.11.1998, which would provide that, if the Deputy Commissioner, or any officer authorized in this behalf, is satisfied after holding such enquiry as is required, that a person was, immediately before the first day of March, 1974 in actual possession and cultivation of any land not exceeding one unit, which had vested in the State - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2893-DB WA No. 1345 of 2025 HC-KAR Government under Section 44 and the said person was entitled to be registered as an occupant of such land under Section 45 or 49 and had failed to apply for registration of occupancy rights in respect of such land under sub-section (1) of Section 48A within the time prescribed therein, but he has continued to be in actual possession and cultivation of such land on the date commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997. The Deputy Commissioner may grant land to such a person, subject to such restrictions and conditions and in the manner as may be prescribed. Thus, a window was opened by the amendment of 1997 in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act by inserting Section 77A to the persons who could not applied for grant of occupancy certification in Form 7.

6. However, the requirements of actual possession and cultivation of the land remained intact. The petitioner has failed to produce any document before the Land Tribunal and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to show that the petitioner was in actual cultivation of the land. The petitioner may have been in possession of the land, but the twin requirements i.e., - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:2893-DB WA No. 1345 of 2025 HC-KAR possession and cultivation are sine qua non for granting the occupancy rights even after insertion of Section 77A.

7. The learned Single Judge, in paragraph No.8, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has observed as under:- “8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the respondent No.2 in the impugned orders, the same would indicate that the petitioner has not shown any document before the Land Tribunal, Mysuru and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to establish that she was cultivating the land in question as on 01st March,

1974. It is forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the impugned orders that the petitioner herein has failed to establish her possession and enjoyment of the land in question as on 01st March,

1974. It is also forthcoming from the petition that the Geni Chit has not been produced before the respondent-Authorities and no documents were produced before the respondent-Authorities, even after the incorporation of Section 77A to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is also clear that, in the RTC extracts produced by the petitioner, the name of the petitioner is not find place in the - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:2893-DB WA No. 1345 of 2025 HC-KAR cultivators column. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has failed to establish her possession in respect of the land in question and that apart the land has been granted by the then Maharaja of Mysuru in favour of His Excellency the President of India for the purpose of construction of Institute of Speech and Hearing at Mysuru and the said Institute is situated in Mysuru for more fifty years, providing medical assistance relating to the ENT, I am of the view that, no interference be called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.”

8. We are not the Appellate Authority or Appellate Forum of the orders passed by the Karnataka Land Appellate Tribunal and therefore, we do not find that there is any error in the judgment that had crept in, which requires an interference by this Court. Therefore, we dismiss this writ appeal. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3