SRI A K ABDUL KHADER vs THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

WRIT APPEAL NO. 3358 OF 2016 (LR)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. A K ABDUL KHADER
SINCE DEAD REP BY LR’S

1.1. KHADIJA W/O LATE A.K.ABDUL KHADER,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

1.2. SAFIA D/O LATE A.K.ABDUL KHADER,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

1.3. KAIRUHI D/O LATE A.K.ABDUL KHADER,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

1.4. KAIRUNISA W/O LATE A.K.ABDUL KHADER,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

1.5. ASHRAF S/O LATE A.K.ABDUL KHADER,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,










Digitally signed
by B VEENA
KUMARI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

1.6. ABBAS S/O LATE A.K.ABDUL KHADER,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

1.7. SAMSUDDIN S/O LATE A.K.ABDUL KHADER,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

1.8. SIDDIQ S/O LATE A.K.ABDUL KHADER,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

KARNOOR, KALETHIMAR HOUSE,
KARNOOR POST,
NETTANIGE MUDNOOR VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK, DISTRICT DK. – 574 313.
…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR A1(A-H))

AND:

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
SARAPPADI JALAIDYUTH YOJANE,
MANGALORE AND AUTHORISD OFFICER,
PUTTUR TALUK,
DISTRICT D.K-574 313.

2. SRI. PRAKASH RAI S/O K.K. RAI,
MAJOR,
R/AT SARASWATHI BAI,
NEAR BHAVANI SHANKAR TEMPLE,
PUTTUR, D.K.-574 201.

3.



3(A)


3(A)(I)
VEDAVATHI AMMA
D/O CHANDRA BHAGYA AMMA,
REP.BY HER LR,

DR. RAVEENDRANATH BHANDARY,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS

SMT. SWARNALATHA BHANDARY
W/O LATE DR. RAVINDRANATH BHANDARY
AGED MAJOR
R/AT NAYAKERE RASTHE, AMBELPADI
UDUPI TOWN, UDUPI – 576 103.

4.


4(A)
K.R. BHANDARI
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR

SMT. SARASWATHI BHANDARY,
W/O LATE K.R.BHANDARY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

R/AT KARNOORU, SARVATHODI,
NETTANIGE MUDNOOR VILLAGE,
POST, KARNOORU,
PUTTUR, D.K. -574 313.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 12.04.2023.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1;
R2, R3(A)(I) & R4(A) ARE SERVED)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION 2161/2015 DATED 4/3/16

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)

The present appeal has been filed by the petitioner,
impugning the judgment and order dated 04.03.2016 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2161/2015 (LR-
RES).

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid any
confusion, the parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the learned Single Judge.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

I. Facts of the Petitioner:
3. The petitioner, Sri A.K. Abdul Khader (now dead),
claimed to be a tenant of agricultural lands bearing
Sy.No.211/2, measuring 74 cents and Sy.No.214/3, measuring
45 cents, situated at Nettanige Mudnoor Village, Puttur Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada District. According to him, he had been in
possession and cultivation of the said lands from the time of his
forefathers and continued in possession as on 01.03.1974 and
immediately prior thereto. Claiming entitlement to occupancy
rights, he filed an application in Form No.7-A under Section 77-
A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for
brevity). The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Authorised
Officer, Puttur, rejected the application by order dated
04.09.2001. The petitioner contended that the rejection was
made without conducting a proper enquiry, notwithstanding the
written statements attributed to the landowners admitting his
tenancy and possession.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2001, the
petitioner preferred Appeal No. 907/2003 before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. During the proceedings before

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

the Authorized Officer, written statements dated 19.06.2001
were relied upon as admissions by the concerned landowners
regarding the petitioner’s tenancy and possession. The
petitioner maintained that these admissions, together with the
relevant revenue records and the circumstances of his
possession, required proper consideration. He further
contended that the Authorized Officer had neither recorded the
necessary evidence nor afforded him an effective opportunity to
establish his claim. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by order
dated 16.04.2014, dismissed Appeal No. 907/2003, thereby
affirming the rejection of his Form No. 7-A application.

II. Order in the Writ Petition:

5. Challenging the order dated 16.04.2014 passed by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner approached the
learned Single Judge of this Court by filing W.P.No.2161/2015
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He
sought to have the Tribunal’s order set aside, contending that
the material relating to his tenancy and possession had not
been properly appreciated and that the proceedings before the
Authorized Officer had been concluded without the enquiry

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

required to determine his claim. The respondents did not file
their statement of objections to the writ petition.

6. The learned Single Judge considered the challenge to
the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and dismissed
W.P.No.2161/2015 by order dated 04.03.2016. Consequently,
the order dated 16.04.2014 passed in Appeal No.907/2003
remained undisturbed. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the
dismissal of the writ petition, has preferred the present writ
appeal.

7. The dismissal of the writ petition left the rejection of
the petitioner’s claim for occupancy rights intact. The
petitioner’s grievance, as reflected in the writ appeal papers, is
that his claim was not examined in the light of the alleged
admissions of tenancy and possession and that the original
application had been rejected without a proper enquiry. He,
therefore, seeks interference with the order dated 04.03.2016
passed by the learned Single Judge. During the pendency of
the appeal, the petitioner died on 18.12.2018 and his legal
representatives were brought on record. Aggrieved by the order
passed by the writ court, the legal representatives of the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

deceased petitioner have preferred the present intra-court
appeal.

III. Grounds urged in the Writ Appeal:

8. The appellants/legal heirs of petitioner contend that
the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition
without properly appreciating the material placed on record,
particularly the written statements said to acknowledge his
tenancy and possession, the relevant revenue entries and the
alleged failure of the Authorised Officer to conduct an enquiry
before rejecting Form No. 7-A on 04.09.2001. It is further
urged that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, while dismissing
Appeal No.907/2003 on 16.04.2014, failed to address these
material aspects, and that the absence of objections from the
respondents in the writ petition did not relieve the Court of the
obligation to examine the legality of the impugned orders. On
these grounds, the appellants seek setting aside of the order
dated 04.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.2161/2015 (LR-RES) and
consequential relief in respect of their claim for occupancy
rights.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

th
IV. Objections by 4 Respondent:

9. The fourth respondent has filed a statement of
objections opposing the writ appeal, contending that the appeal
is not maintainable and that the petitioner has failed to make
out any ground warranting interference with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge. It is contended that the lands in
question had not vested in the State Government under Section
44 of the Act, and that the statutory requirements for claiming
the benefit of the Act have not been satisfied. The fourth
respondent further submits that the petitioner has not
produced any documentary evidence in support of his Form
No.7-A application and that the RTC extracts produced by him
do not reflect his name in the relevant columns. It is therefore
contended that the competent authority was justified in
rejecting the application. According to the fourth respondent,
the petitioner has also failed to produce any geni chit, rent
receipts, rental agreement or other document establishing the
alleged tenancy. It is further alleged that the petitioner had
suppressed material facts before this Court. Describing the
petitioner as a land grabber, the fourth respondent maintains
that the rejection of the Form No.7-A application was justified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

and that the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. The fourth
respondent has also questioned the maintainability of the
appeal by referring to Section 100-A of the Code of Civil
Procedure and has sought dismissal of the writ appeal with
.
exemplary costs

10. We have heard Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Bhairav Kuttaiah,
learned AGA for the State/respondent No.1. Other respondents
are served and unrepresented.

11. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the records
placed before this Court and the submissions advanced on
behalf of the petitioners and the respondents, the following
question arises for our consideration:
“Whether the appellants/legal representatives
of the petitioner have made out any ground
warranting interference with the order dated
04.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge
in W.P. No.2161/2015?”

V. REASONS AND CONCLUSION:
12. The petitioner claims tenancy over Sy.No.211/2
measuring 74 cents and Sy.No.214/3 measuring 45 cents,
situated at Nettanige Mudnoor Village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

Kannada District. His claim was made by filing an application in
Form No. 7-A under Section 77-A of the Act, asserting that he
and his forefathers had been in possession and cultivation of
the lands as tenants. The Authorized Officer rejected the
application by order dated 04.09.2001. The Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 16.04.2014 in Appeal No.
907/2003, affirmed the rejection, and the writ petition
challenging the said order was dismissed on 04.03.2016. The
present appeal is directed against the order passed by the writ
court.

13. The Tribunal examined the petitioner’s claim in the
context of the statutory requirements under Section 77-A of the
Act and identified three essential conditions: first, the applicant
must establish actual cultivation of the land as a tenant before
01.03.1974 and continuous possession from that date until the
filing of Form No. 7-A; secondly, the total extent of land held
by the applicant, including the land claimed, must not exceed
one unit or two hectares, equivalent to four acres and 38
guntas; and thirdly, the land claimed must have vested in the
State Government under Section 44 of the Act before it could

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

be granted under Section 77-A of the Act. The Tribunal found
that the petitioner had failed to establish the requisite
conditions. Unless these statutory requirements are satisfied, a
claim based merely on an assertion of long-standing possession
cannot result in the grant of the relief sought.

14. The petitioner contends that the statements made by
the landowners acknowledged his tenancy and possession and
that the authorities failed to give due consideration to those
statements. Even assuming that such statements were made,
they cannot, by themselves, establish every statutory condition
necessary for relief under Section 77-A of the Act. The question
is not confined to whether the petitioner asserts possession or
whether the landowners made statements supporting his claim;
it is whether the material on record establishes the statutory
requirements governing the grant. The Tribunal considered the
claim in that statutory framework and concluded that the
petitioner had not discharged the burden resting upon him. The
alleged admissions, therefore, do not, by themselves, furnish a
sufficient basis to set aside the Tribunal’s order.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

15. The petitioner has also alleged that the Authorized
Officer rejected his application without conducting a proper
enquiry, recording his statement or oral evidence, permitting
cross-examination, or undertaking the requested spot
inspection. These allegations must be considered in the light of
the record and the findings subsequently recorded by the
Tribunal. The petitioner was required to demonstrate not
merely an alleged procedural deficiency, but also how the
material placed before the authorities established his
entitlement under Section 77-A of the Act. The Tribunal found
that the necessary statutory conditions had not been proved. In
the absence of material demonstrating that this conclusion was
legally unsustainable, the allegations regarding the manner of
enquiry do not, by themselves, justify interference with the
order passed by the writ court.

16. The revenue records produced by the petitioner do
not substantiate his claim of tenancy. In particular, the
petitioner’s name is not reflected in the relevant columns of the
RTC extracts in respect of Sy. No. 211/2 measuring 74 cents
and Sy. No. 214/3 measuring 45 cents. The fourth respondent

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

has specifically relied upon this circumstance and has further
contended that the petitioner neither produced a geni chit, rent
receipts nor other documentary evidence establishing the
alleged tenancy. While the absence of the petitioner’s name in
the RTC entries cannot, in isolation, conclusively determine the
question of tenancy, the absence of supporting entries, when
considered alongside the failure to produce other corroborative
material, materially weakens the petitioner’s claim. His
assertion of continuous possession and cultivation as a tenant
cannot be accepted merely on the strength of his own
statement, without satisfactory material establishing the
essential factual foundation of the application.

17. The fourth respondent has also referred to
O.S.No.18/1996, instituted by Dr.Raveendranath Bhandary
(legal heir of respondent No.3) seeking partition and separate
possession in respect of the properties in question and to the
preliminary decree stated to have been passed on 21.07.2011.
This contention forms part of the objections raised in the
appeal. However, the question before us is not to adjudicate
the competing claims to title in the civil proceedings, but to

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

examine whether the petitioner established his entitlement to
relief under Section 77-A of the Act. The existence of the civil
proceedings does not, by itself, decide the tenancy claim either
way. The petitioner was nevertheless required to establish the
statutory conditions through reliable material and the record,
as considered by the Trial Court, does not disclose sufficient
grounds to displace its conclusion.

18. On an overall consideration of the material, we find
no sufficient basis to hold that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
committed an error warranting interference or that the writ
court was unjustified in declining to interfere with its order. The
petitioner’s claim rests principally on his assertion of long-
standing tenancy and possession, whereas the Tribunal found
that the essential statutory requirements had not been
established. The absence of the petitioner’s name in the
relevant RTC entries, coupled with the absence of a geni chit,
rent receipts or other supporting documentary evidence,
further undermines the factual foundation of his claim.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53387-DB
WA No. 3358 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010165202016

19. We are, therefore, unable to find any legal or
factual ground warranting interference with the order passed by
the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we pass the following;
ORDER

(i) The writ appeal is dismissed;

(ii) The judgment and order dated 04.03.2016
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.2161/2015 (LR-RES) shall remain
undisturbed. Consequently, the order dated
16.04.2014 passed in Appeal No.907/2003 by
the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal shall also
remain undisturbed.

Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE



KNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20