Karnataka High Court
WA/1053/2016 of VENKAPPA MALEKUDIYA Vs SMT ERAMMA on 16 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010058692016 NC: 2026:KHC:36363-DB WA No. 1053 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1053 OF 2016 (LR) BETWEEN: VENKAPPA MALEKUDIYA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1053 OF 2016 (LR)
BETWEEN:
VENKAPPA MALEKUDIYA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1.
BHARATHI,
D/O. LATE VENKAPPA MALEKUDIYA,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/AT MACHINA VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214.
2.
RAGHU
S/O. LATE VENKAPPA MALEKUDIYA,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/AT MACHINA VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214.
3.
ARUNA KUMARI,
W/O CHINNAYA MALEKUDIYA,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/AT ALANGAYA,
GUNDIBAGILU VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ANIKETH K.U., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
AND:
SMT ERAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS,
1(A) SEETHAMMA,
W/O. OBAYYA MALEKUDIYA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
1(B) VASANTHA ALIAS DHOMMA
S/O CHANNA MALEKUDIYA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT MACHINA
VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY
TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT
2.
HONNAMMA
W/O. SOMA MALEKUDIYA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
PERIYADKE POST,
CHIBIDRE VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214.
3.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4.
ADDITIONAL LAND TRIBUNAL
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
BELTHANGADY BY ITS
CHAIRMAN, 574 214.
5.
NARAYANA MALEKUDIYA
S/O LATE AITHAPPA MALEKUDIYA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
HC-KAR
R/AT COLONY,
SHISHULA VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TQ. D.K.
MANGALURU - 574 214.
6.
VENKAPPA MALEKUDIYA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,
6(A) KALYANI,
W/O LATE VENKAPPA MALEKUDIYA,
ADULT, MACHINA VILLAGE AND POST,
BELTHANGADY TQ. D.K.
MANGALURU - 574 214.
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
VIDE ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026
6(B) JANAKI, ADULT,
RESIDING AT MACHINA VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 214
7.
DHOMMA MALEKUDIYA
SINCE DEAD BY
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
7(A) HONNAMMA
D/O DOMMA MALEKUDIYA
ADULT, PALACKA HOUSE,
MACHINA VILLAGE AND POST,
BELTHANGADY TQ., D.K.,
MANGALURU - 574 214.
8.
SMT. THIMAMLU
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
7(A) KOTYAPPA
S/O THIMMALU, ADULT,
R/AT BAREMALU, ODILNALA
VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TQ.,
D.K., MANGALURU - 574 214.
HC-KAR
9.
THOMA MALEKUDIYA
S/O DUGGAMMA MALEKUDIYA,
ADULT, R/O KUKKE MALEKUDIYA
PERNAL, TOTADHADI VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TQ.,
D.K., MANGALURU - 574 214.
…RESPONDENTS
(V/O DTD. 11/3/2019 SARAT CHANDRA BIJAI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1(A), R1(B), & C/R2
SRI. S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R3 & R4.
R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
V/O DTD. 10/02/2025 NOTICE TO R8(A),
R7(A) AND R9 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION 26101/2005 DATED 11/3/16.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
Heard Mr. Aniketh K. U., learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S H Raghavendra, learned Additional
HC-KAR
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26101/2005 instituted by the deceased respondent No.1, who is now represented by her legal heirs.
3. The appellants claim occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.141/1 to 141/7 measuring in all, 7 acres 87 cents of Machina Village, Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District on the ground that the legal heirs of Venkappa Malekudiya who filed an application in Form No.7 under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the KLR Act') claiming occupancy rights stating that he was the tenant of the land and that one Dhooma Malekudiya was the Yajaman of the Aliyasanthana Family.
4. Interestingly, after the demise of Aithappa Malekudiya who is the father of Venkappa Malekudiya, his
HC-KAR
mother namely, Lakshmi Malekudiya married one Dhooma Malekudiya.
5. In a design to divert the real legal heirs of Dhooma Malekudiya over the properties, an application under Section 48A of the KLR Act came to be filed by Venkappa Malekudiya on 30.06.1976. The said application was allowed on 13.05.2005 by the Land Tribunal, Belthangady. The said order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the daughter of Dhooma Malekudiya by filing W.P.No.26101/2005.
6. The learned Single Judge has noted that what is relevant to consider at the first instance is the revenue entry of the claimant as tenant of the land under his personal cultivation as on 01.03.1974. It is held that there is no entry of Venkappa Malekudiya being the tenant of the land in question under his cultivation either prior to or on 01.03.1974 or even thereafter except for one of the entries of the year 1980 which cannot establish the claim of tenancy.
7. It is well settled that where a claimant seeks occupancy rights on the basis of an application in Form No.7
HC-KAR
under Section 48A of the KLR Act, the basic requirement is the revenue entry to the effect that the claimant was a tenant and in actual cultivation of the land as on 01.03.1974. The said claim has to be substantiated by leading cogent and corroborative evidence. In the present case, this basic requirement is missing.
8. Further, the Assistant Commissioner had to apprise all other members of the Tribunal that there was no report in respect of the claim of tenancy by the appellant of the land in question or personal cultivation of the land in question as on 01.03.1974. Despite this, strangely the Land Tribunal had granted the occupancy rights in favor of Venkappa Malekudiya.
9. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has rightly set aside the order as being wholly unsustainable in law being contrary to the provisions of the KLR Act as well as against the evidence and the basic foundation as required in the case.
10. The appellants have been engaging this Court since the year 2005. Though we are of the view that the appeal should be dismissed with heavy costs, considering the labour
HC-KAR
put in by the learned counsel for the appellants and the arguments advanced against imposition of costs, we refrain from imposing costs.
11. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7