SRI. LAKKAPPA BHANDARI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016


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. 494 OF 2016 (LR)

BETWEEN:









1.

SRI. LAKKAPPA BHANDARI
S/O KANTHAPPA BHANDARI,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE

SRI. JEEVAN BHANDARY,
S/O LAKKAPPA BHANDARI,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

SMT. SMITHA J BHANDARY,
W/O JEEVAN BHANDARY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

2. SATHVIKA C SHETTY
D/O LATE JEEVAN BHADNARI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

3. SAMANTH BHANDARI
S/O LATE JEEVAN BHANDARI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT SIDYALA HOUSE, CHIKKAMOODNUR VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TQ, DK DISTRICT-574 203.

4. SRI. JAGAJEEVAN BHANDARI
S/O LATE LAKKAPPA BHANDARI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS










Digitally
signed by
MALA K N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

5.



5(A)



5(B)



5(C)
SRI MOHANDAS BHANDARI
S/O LATE LAKKAPPA BHANDARI
SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LRS

MRS. SHAKUNTALA BHANDARY,
W/O LATE A MOHANDAS BHANDARY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

MRS. BHAVYA N. RAI,
D/O LATE A MOHANDAS BHANDARY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

MRS. DIVYA BHANDARY,
D/O LATE A MOHANDAS BHANDARY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.22, BHANDAVYA ULLAL,
TH
VISHWESHARAIAH LAYOUT, 5 BLOCK,
JNANA GANGA NAGAR, ULLAL,
BENGALURU – 560 110.

6. SRI NAVEEN BHANDARI
S/O LATE LAKKAPPA BHANDARI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

7. SRI BHAGAVANDAS BHANDARI
S/O LATE LAKKAPPA BHANDARI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

8. SMT. SHOBA C SHETTY
D/O LATE LAKKAPPA BHANDARI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

APPELLANTS NO.4 TO 8 ARE
R/A SIDYALA HOUSE, CHIKKAMUDNOOR VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK, DK DISTRICT-574 203.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANATHKUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE
FOR A4,A6 TO A8 & ALSO FOR PROPOSED
A5(A-C) ON IA 2/25;
SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A3)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
PUTTUR TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 201.








3.
SMT KALYANI D SHETTY
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR

SMT MOHINI J RAI
W/O LATE JAGANATHA RAI
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI N KAVA
W/O LATE M NARASIMHA KAVA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO.A6, VAISHALI APARTMENTS
GANDHINAGAR V CROSS, MANGALORE
DK DISTRICT-575 003.
4. SMT. AMITHA BHANDARI
W/O SRI K B BHANDARI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.2 P & T 6 MAIN
TH
6 CROSS, SANJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 094.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P.THRIMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 & R2
(MA NOT FILED);
SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ANANDARAMA K, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION 22200/2004 DATED 11/01/2016.

THIS 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 H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants,
impugning the judgment and order dated 11.01.2016 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.22200/2004
(LR).

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid any
confusion, the parties are referred to herein by their respective
rankings before the Writ Court.

I. FACTS OF THE PETITIONERS:
3. The original petitioner, late Sri M. Lakkappa Bhandari,
claimed that he was an agricultural tenant under late Sankappa
Rai in respect of the lands described in the schedule to the writ
petition. Following the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment)

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

Act, 1974, ( 'KLR Act' ) he filed Form No.7 seeking grant of
occupancy rights in respect of the said lands, in proceedings
bearing No. LRYT 2435/74-75 before the Land Tribunal, Puttur.
The Tribunal initially allowed his claim by orders dated
02.05.1981 and 30.07.1981. Aggrieved by the said orders, the
third respondent’s predecessor challenged them before this
Court in W.P. No.27845/1982, subsequently numbered as W.P.
No.15560/1993. By order dated 23.03.1999, this Court set
aside the Tribunal’s order and remitted the matter for fresh
enquiry. Thereafter, in C.P. No.492/2001, the order dated
02.05.1981 was also set aside by order dated 04.04.2001, and
the entire matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh
consideration.

4. Upon remand and after conducting a fresh enquiry, the
Land Tribunal, by order dated 30.01.2004 in LRYT No.2435/74-
75, rejected the claim for occupancy rights. The Tribunal
proceeded on the ground that the alleged tenancy was created
by Sankappa Rai in favour of his son-in-law, Lakkappa
Bhandari, within a family governed by the Madras Aliya
Santhana Act, 1940, ( 'Act 1940' ) and that the lease had not

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

been lawfully created. Challenging the said order, the legal
representatives of the original petitioner instituted W.P.
No.22200/2004 (LR) under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the Tribunal’s order
and grant of occupancy rights. The Writ Petition came to be
dismissed by order dated 11.01.2016. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioners have preferred the present Writ Appeal under
Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

II. RESPONDENT Nos. 1 AND 2:
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely the State of
Karnataka and the Land Tribunal, Puttur, opposed the Writ
Petition and maintained that the impugned order dated
30.01.2004 had been passed after considering the relevant
material and the applicable provisions of law. They did not
dispute the filing of Form No.7, the earlier orders of the
Tribunal dated 02.05.1981 and 30.07.1981, or the subsequent
remand proceedings. Their stand was that the Tribunal had
reconsidered the claim pursuant to the orders of this Court and
had rightly concluded that the petitioner could not establish a
lawful relationship of landlord and tenant with Sankappa Rai.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

6. The State and the Tribunal further contended that
the Tribunal was competent to examine the nature and legality
of the alleged tenancy, including the effect of the Madras Aliya
Santhana law and the circumstances in which the lease was
said to have been created. They denied that the Tribunal had
committed any jurisdictional error or had failed to consider the
petitioner’s claim. According to them, once the Tribunal found
that the alleged tenancy had not been lawfully created, the
documents relied upon by the petitioner could not, by
themselves, confer a right to occupancy. They accordingly
sought dismissal of the Writ Petition.
III. RESPONDENT No.3:
7. Respondent No.3, through her legal representatives,
opposed the claim on the ground that the lands in question
were joint family properties governed by the Act, 1940, and
that Lakkappa Bhandari was himself a member of the family as
the son-in-law of Sankappa Rai. It was contended that
Sankappa Rai had only a right of maintenance in the properties
and had no independent authority to create a tenancy in favour
of his son-in-law. The respondent alleged that the Chalageni
dated 22.09.1964 had been brought into existence to enable

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

Lakkappa Bhandari to claim occupancy rights and thereby
prejudice the legitimate shares of the other family members.

8. Respondent No.3 further contended that the Tribunal
had examined the documentary and oral evidence and had
found the alleged Chalageni to be unreliable. Reliance was
placed on Section 29 of the Act, 1940, to contend that a lease
exceeding five years could not be created without the requisite
consent of the major members of the family. It was also
pointed out that the preliminary decree in O.S. No.3/1975
treated the properties as joint family properties and that the
shares had not been divided by metes and bounds. On that
basis, the respondent maintained that Sankappa Rai had no
vested right to create the alleged tenancy and that the
Tribunal’s findings were based on the evidence on record. The
respondent accordingly sought dismissal of the writ petition.

IV. ORDER IN W.P. No.22200/2004:
9. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 11.01.2016,
first noticed the history of the proceedings, including the
original grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal through
orders dated 02.05.1981 and 30.07.1981, the subsequent

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

challenge by the third respondent, and the remand for fresh
enquiry. The Court noted that, after remand, the Tribunal had
rejected the claim by order dated 30.01.2004, principally on
the ground that the alleged lease had not been lawfully
created. The Court considered the rival submissions concerning
the relationship between Lakkappa Bhandari and Sankappa Rai,
the applicability of the Madras Aliya Santhana law, and the
objection that the Tribunal’s order had not been signed by
every member who had earlier heard the matter.

10. On the question of the alleged tenancy, the learned
Single Judge observed that Lakkappa Bhandari, being the son-
in-law of Sankappa Rai, would not fall within the definition of
“family” under Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 ( 'Act 1961' ). However, the Court held that this did
not resolve the matter in favour of the petitioners, since the
Tribunal’s further reasoning concerned the legality of the lease
itself. Having regard to the parties being governed by the
Madras Aliya Santhana law, under which the property devolved
through the female line, the Court observed that Sankappa Rai
had no vested right in the properties merely by reason of a

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

right of maintenance. In the absence of consent from the
female members of the family and a division of the properties
by metes and bounds, the alleged tenancy could not be
recognised as lawfully created.

11. The learned Single Judge also examined the
contention that the Tribunal’s order was invalid because one of
the members who had heard the matter had not signed it. The
Court considered Rule 17(8) of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Rules, 1974 ( 'Rules 1974' ), which requires the order to be
signed by the Chairman and the other members who heard the
case, alongside Rule 16, which prescribes a quorum of three
members, including the Chairman. After examining the
decisions relied upon by the parties, including Kalyanamma v.
1
State of Karnataka , and Vijaya Bank v. Secretary to
2
Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department , the
Court distinguished the circumstances in which the members
had heard and pronounced the decision from those in which the
order was subsequently signed by a duly constituted quorum.

1
1980 (1) KLJ 34
2
ILR 2008 Kar. 1481

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

12. The Court held that the member who had not
signed the impugned order was not present on the date on
which the order was signed and had not expressed any opinion
in the matter. Since the Chairman and three other members
constituted the prescribed quorum on that date, the absence of
the member who had participated in the earlier hearing did not,
in the circumstances of the case, render the order a nullity. The
Court consequently found no infirmity in the order passed by
the Land Tribunal and dismissed W.P. No.22200/2004 (LR).
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Writ Court, the
petitioners have preferred the present intra-court appeal.

V. GROUNDS IN WRIT APPEAL:
13. The petitioners have challenged the order dated
11.01.2016 passed in W.P. No.22200/2004 (LR), contending
that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the
registered lease deed and rent receipts relied upon to establish
the tenancy of late Lakkappa Bhandari, and erroneously upheld
the rejection of occupancy rights on the ground that the lease
had been created within the family and without the consent of
other family members. They contend that the finding regarding

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

the authority of Sankappa Rai to lease the properties is
unsustainable, particularly when the alleged tenancy was
evidenced by documents dating back to 1961 and the
properties had been dealt with separately by members of the
family. The petitioners further contend that the Tribunal’s order
was contrary to Rule 17(8) of the Rules, 1974, as one of the
members who heard the matter had not signed the order, and
that the learned Single Judge wrongly distinguished the
decisions relied upon on that issue. On these grounds, the
petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 11.01.2016
and consequential relief in respect of their claim for occupancy
rights.

14. We have heard the learned counsel
Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty, for appellants No.1 to 3, learned
counsel Sri. Sanathkumar Shetty, for appellants No.4, 6 to 8
and proposed appellant No.5(A to C), Sri. Bhairav Kuttaiah,
learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2, Sri. Uday Holla,
learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Anandarama K for respondent
No.3 and learned counsel Sri. K.P. Thrimurthy for respondent
No.4.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

15. 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 petitioners have made out any
ground warranting interference with the order
dated 11.01.2016 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P. No.22200/2004 (LR)?”

VI. REASONS AND CONCLUSION:
16. We have considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the petitioners and the contesting respondents, the
order dated 30.01.2004 passed by the Land Tribunal, Puttur, in
LRYT No.2435/74-75, and the order dated 11.01.2016 passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.22200/2004 (LR). The
controversy is not merely whether the original claimant
produced a document described as a lease deed or Chalgeni.
The essential question is whether, on the relevant date, there
existed a lawful tenancy in favour of late M. Lakkappa Bhandari
so as to entitle him to seek registration as an occupant under
the Act, 1961. The Tribunal had initially granted occupancy
rights by orders dated 02.05.1981 and 30.07.1981. Those
orders, however, were set aside in the earlier proceedings and

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. The claim,
therefore, had to be examined afresh on the evidence and in
accordance with law; the earlier orders could not themselves
confer a vested right upon the claimant after they had been set
aside.

17. The original claimant asserted that he was a tenant
under late Sankappa Rai, who was his father-in-law. The
relationship between the two is material to the dispute, not
because a son-in-law is, by that relationship alone, disqualified
from being a tenant, but because the properties were claimed
to be joint family properties governed by the Act, 1940, and
Sankappa Rai’s authority to create the alleged tenancy was
specifically disputed. The third respondent’s case before the
Tribunal was that Sankappa Rai had only a right of
maintenance and that the properties had not been divided by
metes and bounds so as to vest in him an exclusive right to
lease the lands. The Tribunal accepted that objection after
considering the material placed before it. The learned Single
Judge, in turn, examined the legal basis of that finding and held
that the rejection of the claim could not be faulted.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016


18. Section 2(12) of the Act, 1961 defines “family” as
follows:
“(12) ‘family’ means,—

(a) in the case of an individual who has a
spouse or spouses, such individual,
the spouse or spouses and their minor
sons and unmarried daughters, if any;

(b) in the case of an individual who has
no spouse, such individual and his or
her minor sons and unmarried
daughters;

(c) in the case of an individual who is a
divorced person and who has not
remarried, such individual and his
minor sons and unmarried daughters,
whether in his custody or not; and

(d) where an individual and his or her
spouse are both dead, their minor
sons and unmarried daughters.”

19. The learned Single Judge correctly distinguished the
statutory definition of “family” under the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act from the broader relationship and property
arrangement arising under the personal law governing the
parties. The fact that Lakkappa Bhandari, as a son-in-law, may
not fall within the statutory definition of “family” does not, by
itself, establish the existence of a tenancy. Equally, that

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

relationship alone cannot be treated as a statutory bar to
tenancy. What required determination was whether Sankappa
Rai had the requisite right and authority to create the lease
relied upon by the claimant and whether the alleged tenancy
was legally capable of recognition.

20. The decisive issue is the legal character of the
properties and the extent of Sankappa Rai’s right in them. The
Tribunal found that the properties were joint family properties
governed by the Madras Aliya Santhana law and that Sankappa
Rai had a right of maintenance, but no exclusive right to deal
with the properties as his own. The record also referred to the
preliminary decree in O.S. No.3/1975, under which the
properties were treated as joint family properties, without a
final division by metes and bounds. In that situation, Sankappa
Rai could not, merely on the strength of his position in the
family or his alleged maintenance right, create a tenancy
binding upon the other persons having rights in the properties.
The absence of a crystallised and exclusive right in the lessor
was not a minor defect in the transaction; it went to the very
foundation of the alleged tenancy.

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

21. The petitioners relied upon the Chalageni stated to
be dated 22.09.1964, the lease documents and the rent
receipts to establish that Lakkappa Bhandari had been
cultivating the lands as a tenant. The Tribunal did not overlook
the existence of those documents. It examined them in the
context of the relationship between the parties, the nature of
the properties and the authority of the person said to have
granted the lease. Its conclusion was that the documents could
not establish a legally valid tenancy where the very creation of
the tenancy was not authorised in law. Proof of payment of
rent, even if accepted, would not by itself cure the absence of
authority to create the lease. The learned Single Judge found
no sufficient ground to interfere with that conclusion. In an
appeal against the order in the writ petition, the petitioners
must demonstrate an error in that reasoning; merely
reiterating the documents already considered by the Tribunal
does not displace its findings.

st
22. The significance of 1 March 1974 must also be
kept in view. The Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act,
1973 brought about the statutory vesting contemplated under

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

Section 44 of the Act, 1961, with effect from the appointed
date. The scheme of the Act enabled a person who satisfied the
statutory requirements of tenancy to seek registration as an
occupant under Section 48A of the Act 1961. However, the
statutory vesting of lands in the State did not automatically
convert every person asserting possession or relying upon a
lease document into a tenant entitled to occupancy rights. The
claimant had to establish a tenancy recognised by law on the
relevant date. In the present case, the Tribunal rejected the
claim because the alleged tenancy had not been lawfully
created. The petitioners have not demonstrated why that
foundational finding should be reversed merely by referring to
the date on which the statutory scheme came into force.

23. The question is not whether a son-in-law can, in
every circumstance, become a tenant under his father-in-law.
Section 2(12) of the Act, 1961 defines “family” for the purposes
of that Act by reference to the individual, spouse or spouses,
minor sons and unmarried daughters, subject to the further
clauses in the provision. A son-in-law does not fall within that
definition merely because he is related by marriage. But that

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

proposition does not conclude the present dispute in favour of
the petitioners. The third respondent’s objection was not
confined to the assertion that the claimant was a family
member. It was that the properties were governed by the
Madras Aliya Santhana law, that Sankappa Rai did not have an
exclusive right in them, and that the alleged lease was created
without the consent required from the other members holding
rights in the joint family properties. The learned Single Judge
accepted the distinction between the statutory definition of
“family” under the Land Reforms Act and the separate question
whether the lessor possessed the authority to create a valid
tenancy. The petitioners have not shown that this reasoning is
legally unsustainable.

24. Nor can the alleged tenancy be sustained on the
footing that other persons may have obtained occupancy rights
in respect of properties said to be connected with the same
family. Each claim must stand on its own facts and legal
foundation. An order passed in favour of another claimant
cannot confer upon the present petitioners a right which they
have failed to establish in their own proceedings. The Tribunal

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

was required to decide whether Lakkappa Bhandari was a
tenant in respect of the lands covered by Form No.7 in LRYT
No.2435/74-75. It did so after remand and fresh enquiry. The
earlier orders dated 02.05.1981 and 30.07.1981 had been set
aside; they could not be relied upon as final determinations in
the petitioners’ favour. The impugned order dated 30.01.2004
was therefore required to be tested on its own reasoning and
the material considered by the Tribunal.

25. The petitioners have also questioned the validity of
the Tribunal’s order on the ground that one member who had
participated in the earlier hearing had not signed it. The
relevant provisions are Rule 17(8) and Rule 16 of the Rules,
1974. Rule 17(8) provides:
“The order shall be signed, in addition to the
Chairman, by the other members of the
Tribunal who heard the case.”

Rule 16, which deals with the quorum for a
meeting of the Tribunal, provides:

“The quorum for every meeting of the Tribunal
(including or adjourned meeting) shall be three
members including the Chairman. If within
half-an-hour of the time fixed for the meeting
there is no quorum, the meeting shall be
adjourned. The notice of the date and time of

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

the adjourned meeting shall be communicated
to all the members of the Tribunal.”

These provisions address related but distinct
matters. Rule 17(8) prescribes the requirement
concerning signatures on the order; Rule 16
prescribes the quorum necessary for a
meeting, including an adjourned meeting. They
must be read together, rather than treating the
absence of one member on the date of
pronouncement as automatically invalidating
every order passed by the Tribunal."

26. The original record, as considered by the learned
Single Judge, disclosed that the Tribunal consisted of the
Chairman and four members. The matter had been heard by
the members, but the impugned order was signed by the
Chairman and three other members. The member who had not
signed the order was absent on the date on which it was signed
and had not expressed any opinion in the matter. The learned
Single Judge held that, on the adjourned date, the Chairman
and three other members constituted the quorum prescribed by
Rule 16 and were competent to proceed and pronounce the
order. The Court distinguished cases in which the adjudicators
who had heard and participated in the decision failed to
subscribe their signatures to the order in circumstances that
undermined the validity of the adjudication.

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

27. The petitioners contend that, once a member had
heard the matter, his signature was indispensable and that the
order could not be pronounced in his absence. That submission
does not take account of the particular factual finding recorded
by the learned Single Judge: the order was pronounced on an
adjourned date when the prescribed quorum was present, and
the absent member had not expressed an opinion in the
matter. The question was not decided merely by counting the
signatures or by treating the order as a majority judgment in
the abstract. It was decided by reconciling Rule 17(8) with Rule
16 of the Rules 1974 and by considering the circumstances in
which the order came to be signed and pronounced. The
learned Single Judge found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s
procedure on those facts. The petitioners have not shown a
sufficient basis to displace that finding.

28. The reliance placed on Kalyanamma (supra), and
Vijaya Bank (supra) does not, by itself, require a different
conclusion. The learned Single Judge considered the principle
underlying Rule 17(8) of Rules 1974 namely, that a decision of
a multi-member adjudicatory body must reflect a valid

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

adjudication by the members who participated in it. The Court
distinguished the factual circumstances of the cited decisions
from the present case, where the order was pronounced on an
adjourned date and the Tribunal had the quorum required
under Rule 16. The reasoning adopted by the learned Single
Judge was therefore, not that the signature requirement could
be ignored, but that the two rules had to be applied together in
the particular circumstances disclosed by the record.

29. On the merits, the Tribunal’s order dated
30.01.2004 contains a consideration of the rival claims
concerning the alleged tenancy, the relationship between
Lakkappa Bhandari and Sankappa Rai, the nature of the joint
family properties and the authority to create the lease. The
learned Single Judge considered those findings along with the
procedural objection concerning the signatures on the
Tribunal’s order. The petitioners have not established that the
Tribunal proceeded on an irrelevant consideration, ignored a
material circumstance which would alter the result, or
committed an error warranting interference under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India. The fact that the claim had

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

originally been allowed in 1981 cannot substitute for
establishing a lawful tenancy after the matter was remanded
and reconsidered.

30. The appeal, in substance, seeks a fresh appreciation
of the same documents and circumstances that were placed
before the Tribunal and considered by the learned Single Judge.
There is no sufficient ground to hold that the Tribunal’s
conclusion concerning the invalid creation of the alleged
tenancy was perverse or that the learned Single Judge erred in
declining to interfere with it. The petitioners have also failed to
establish that the procedural objection concerning the absence
of one member’s signature, considered in the light of Rule
17(8) read with Rule 16 of the Rules, 1974, renders the
impugned order a nullity in the circumstances of this case.

VII. Conclusion:
31. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no
ground to interfere with the order dated 11.01.2016 passed in
W.P. No.22200/2004 (LR). The petitioners have failed to
establish that late M. Lakkappa Bhandari was entitled to
registration as an occupant on the basis of a legally valid

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53386-DB
WA No. 494 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010154962016

tenancy in respect of the lands covered by Form No.7 in LRYT
No.2435/74-75. The findings recorded by the Land Tribunal,
Puttur, in its order dated 30.01.2004, as affirmed by the
learned Single Judge, do not warrant interference in this
appeal.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed .

The order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.22200/2004 (LR) and the order dated
30.01.2004 passed by the Land Tribunal, Puttur, in LRYT
No.2435/74-75 are affirmed .

Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE



BVK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15