Sri. K. A. Devendra Anchan v. Cecilia Pinto

( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(9 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026(

PRESENT(

THE(HON'BLE(MRS.(JUSTICE(ANU(SIVARAMAN(

(AND((

(THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(VIJAYKUMAR(A.(PATIL(

WRIT(APPEAL(NO.45(OF(2023((LR)(

BETWEEN:( , 1,.,, SRI.,K.A.,DEVENDRA,ANCHAN, S/O,LATE,K.,AITHAPPA,SUVARNA, AGED,ABOUT,92,YEARS, R/AT.,SAROJA,MADHU,APARTMENTS, NEAR,BHARATH,BEEDI,BUILDING, KADRI,ROAD,,MANGALURU-575,003, SINCE,DEAD,,BY,HIS,LRs.,, , 1(a).,SMT.,ROHINI,DEVENDRA,ANCHAN, W/O,LATE,K.A.,DEVENDRA,ANCHAN, AGED,ABOUT,70,YEARS, R/AT.,15-7-380/1,,SAROJ,MADHU,APARTMENT, KADRI,ROAD,,NEAR,CHINMAYA,SCHOOL, BUNTS,HOSTEL,,MANGALURU, KODIALBAIL,,D.K.-575,003, , 1(b).,SRI.,YATHEESH,KUMAR, S/O,LATE,K.A.,DEVENDRA,ANCHAN, AGED,ABOUT,52,YEARS, ,,( ( FLAT,No.201,,SVASTHIK,ABHIMAN, NDTEXAS,APARTMENTS,,2 ,FLOOR, BALMATTA,,BENDORE,ROAD, KADRI,,MANGALURU,,D.K.-575,001, , 1(c).,SRI.,KISHORE,KUMAR, S/O,LATE,K.A.,DEVENDRA,ANCHAN, AGED,ABOUT,51,YEARS, R/AT.,15-7-380/1,,SAROJ,MADHU,APARTMENT, KADRI,ROAD,,NEAR,CHINMAYA,SCHOOL, BUNTS,HOSTEL,,MANGALURU, KODIALBAIL,,D.K.-575,003, , 1(d).,SMT.,MAMATHA,RAVINDRA,POOJARY, D/O,LATE,K.A.,DEVENDRA,ANCHAN, W/O,RAVINDRA,KALAPPA,POOJARY, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEARS, R/AT.,1/17,,ASHRAYA,,KANDAVARA, KAIKAMBA,,KANDAVARA,KINNI,KAMBLA, D.K.-574,151, ...APPELLANTS, (BY,SRI.,ANANDARAMA,K.,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( , , CECILIA,PINTO, , AGED,ABOUT,84,YEARS, , W/O,LATE,CHARLES,PINTO, ,,( ( , R/AT.,MAROLI,,MARIGUDI,, , MANGALORE,, , D.K.,DISTRICT-575,007, , SINCE,DECEASED,BY,HER,LRs.,, , , 1,.,, EVELYN,MENDONCA, D/O,LATE,CECILIA,PINTO, AGED,ABOUT,63,YEARS, , 2,.,, HILDA, D/O,LATE,CECILIA,PINTO, AGED,ABOUT,61,YEARS, , 3,.,, LEENA,NAZARATH, D/O,LATE,CECILIA,PINTO, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS, , 4,.,, CELINE,D'SOUZA, D/O,LATE,CECILIA,PINTO, AGED,ABOUT,59,YEARS, , RESPONDENTS,NO.1,TO,4,ARE, RESIDING,AT:,2-74,,ADU,MAROLI, NEAR,CITY,CATERERS, KULASHEKAR,POST, MANGALURU,TALUK, DAKSHINA,KANNADA,DISTRICT-575,005, , ,,( ( 5,.,, STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY,, TO,DEPARTMENT,OF,REVENUE, DR.,AMBEDKAR,ROAD, M.S.,BUILDING,,BENGALURU-560,001, , 6,.,, THE,LAND,TRIBUNAL, MANGALORE,TALUK, D.K.,DISTRICT, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,CHAIRMAN, MANGALURU-575,001, ...RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,G.,RAVISHANKAR,SHASTRY,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,,R2,, ,,,,,,&,R4;, ,,,,,,SMT.,PRAMODHINI,KISHAN,,AGA,FOR,R5,&,R6;, ,,,,,,R3-SERVED), , THIS, WRIT, APPEAL, IS, FILED, U/S, 4, OF, THE, KARNATAKA, HIGH, COURT, ACT,, 1961,, PRAYING, TO, ALLOW, THE, INSTANT, WRIT,APPEAL,BY,SETTING,ASIDE,THE,ORDER,DATED,09.06.2022, PASSED, IN, W.P.No.44091/2013, (LR), AND, CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS,THE,WRIT,PETITION., , THIS,WRIT,APPEAL,HAVING,BEEN,HEARD,AND,RESERVED, FOR, JUDGMENT, ON, 23.02.2026, AND, COMING, ON, FOR, PRONOUNCEMENT,OF,JUDGMENT,THIS,DAY,,ANU(SIVARAMAN( J.,(PRONOUNCED,THE,FOLLOWING:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MRS.,JUSTICE,ANU,SIVARAMAN, ,and,, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,VIJAYKUMAR,A.,PATIL,,

CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

We have heard Shri. Anandarama K, learned counsel appearing for appellants No.1(a) to (d), Shri. G. Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the party respondents No.1, 2 and 4 and Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.5 and 6.

¶2This Writ Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.44091/2013 (LR) filed by respondents No.1 to 4. The appellant was respondent No.3 in the writ petition. The substantial prayer in the writ petition was against Annexure - A Order of the Land Tribunal dated

21.09.2012 by which the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the writ petitioners for occupancy rights in respect of 0.38 acres of land in Sy.No.52/5 of Maroli Village of Mangalore Taluk.

¶3It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, the appellant had purchased 64 cents of land in Sy.No.52/1A9 of the Maroli Village by Annexure - E Sale Deed dated 19.12.1964. The original appellant Shri. K.A. Devendra Anchan had purchased the said property from Shri. K. Balakrishna Rao, Shri. Divakar Rao K. and Shri. Sudhir Rao K. The description of the property in the Sale Deed was as under:- "Description of the Property Immovable property situated in Maroli Village Mangalore Taluk with in the local limits of Maroli Panchayat at Board and within the Registeration sub district of Mangalore Taluk SouthKanara District with the following survey sub division numbered RS No SD No Kissan Which Portion Extent (A-C) 1C7 Punja Southern Portion 0-36

Punja Southern Portion 0-64 TOTAL

1-00 Demarcated as "7" and coloured given in the annexed plan. Boundaries: RS No 49/1C7 (0-36 cents) North: Property sold to shivappa East: Survey sub division line of Rs No 52 South: Water channel West: Mud Wall of Vendor"

¶4At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents contends that the demarcation shown in the typed copy of Annexure - E as "7" is a clear error as a perusal of the original handwritten Annexure - E would show that the demarcation was as 'F'. Since "7" is differently written in the same document itself as where the address of the vendors is shown as 117, lower Maroli Village, in the first part of the manuscript, it is contended that the document itself was attached with a sketch where the property was clearly demarcated and was accompanied by a plan.

¶5It is contended that the property of the appellants had to be measured, demarcated and set apart first and only if there is any property remaining in the survey number could there have been even a consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner for occupancy rights. It is submitted that since appellant's property which he had purchased by a Sale Deed in 1964 was clearly available for demarcation. It was clear that there was no further land in the survey number in question to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for

occupancy rights. It is therefore contended that the learned Single Judge went wrong in remitting the matter to the Land Tribunal for reconsideration, after conducting a survey, taking note of the boundaries as provided in the appellant's Title Deed.

¶6The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, on the other hand, contends that the total extent of land in Sy.No.52 of Maroli Village was admittedly

8.52 acres. It is submitted that the land purchased by the appellant herein had been subjected to a phodi and a new survey number, that is, Sy.No.52/1A9 had been assigned in respect of his property. It is contended that it is clear from the Title Deed of the appellant herein and the plan attached thereto, that his property was demarcated as 'F' in the plan and was separately shown. It is submitted that the property of the respondent in Sy.No.52/5 was completely separate and distinct and that the finding of the Land Tribunal was therefore, completely perverse. It is contended that the survey carried out by the surveyor as appointed by the Land Tribunal was obviously erroneous and the extent and

boundaries of the appellant's properties have not been taken note of by the said surveyor at all. It is contended that even if the property of the appellant is measured and demarcated, there is still property available in Sy.No.52/5 for grant of occupancy rights to the writ petitioner considering the Form 7 application submitted by her.

¶7The learned Additional Government Advocate submits on instructions that the property has been surveyed and found that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.52 is 8.52 acres. The Sale Deed of the appellant would specifically show the description of the property. The said description has been clearly extracted by the learned Single Judge in the Order. The learned Single Judge proceeded to peruse the sketch prepared by the Surveyor pursuant to the order of the Land Tribunal and found that the Surveyor had not taken note of the boundaries of the property as provided in the appellant's Sale Deed. It was found that the sketch prepared without demarcating the boundaries of the property purchased by belonging to the appellant specifically in terms of the Sale Deed could not be relied upon to say

that there is no property available in Sy.No.52/5 for considering the claim of occupancy rights made by the writ petitioner, that is, the private respondents herein.

¶8Having considered the contentions advanced and the materials placed on record by the parties including the Sale Deeds, the Schedules attached thereto and the sketches which are on record, we are of the opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge was well founded. It is clear from the materials on record that the property purchased by the appellant was clearly demarcated as 'F' and a sketch was appended to the Sale Deed as well. The boundaries of the property purchased by the appellant in Sy.No.52, were also clearly demarcated in the Sale Deed.

¶9In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the contention raised by the appellant that there was no requirement for a remand to the Tribunal for a proper reconsideration after a survey to be conducted taking note of the boundaries of the property as provided in the appellant's Sale Deed, cannot be accepted. We are of the

opinion that the learned Single Judge had considered the factual aspects of the matter and had come to the conclusion that the survey conducted was not proper.

¶10In the above way of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of.

Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

cp*