{"id":160905,"date":"2007-07-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007"},"modified":"2016-08-20T05:27:58","modified_gmt":"2016-08-19T23:57:58","slug":"a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"A.M. Ramanna vs Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors on 12 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.M. Ramanna vs Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors on 12 July, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  669 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nA.M. Ramanna\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLand Tribunal, Mandya Taluk  &amp; Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/07\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tChallenge in this appeal is to the order passed by learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the<br \/>\nrevision petition filed under Section 121-A of the Karnataka<br \/>\nLand Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the &#8216;Act&#8217;).  The non-official<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 C.L. Thammaiah (since dead and substituted<br \/>\nby his legal heirs) had filed the revision before the High Court<br \/>\nquestioning correctness of the order dated 28.2.1990 passed<br \/>\nby the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Mandya, reversing<br \/>\nthe  order passed by the Land Tribunal, Mandya on 21.1.1988.<br \/>\nStand before the High Court was that the claim for grant of<br \/>\noccupancy, though initially accepted by the Land Tribunal was<br \/>\nerroneously rejected by the Appellate Authority on re-<br \/>\nappreciation of the evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tBackground facts as noticed by the High Court in a<br \/>\nnutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>Thammaiah had two brothers, viz. Linge Gowda and Bore<br \/>\nGowda. Bore Gowda is no more and his wife and daughter,<br \/>\nKempamma and Sunandamma are respondents 3 and 4<br \/>\nrespectively in this appeal. Admittedly, prior to 1960 there was<br \/>\na partition amongst the 3 brothers, viz. Thammaiah, Linge<br \/>\nGowda and Bore Gowda. The land Survey No.86\/1 of<br \/>\nChikkaballi, Mandya Taluk, along with other lands fell to the<br \/>\nshare of Bore Gowda. It is not disputed that on 18.11.1960<br \/>\nBore Gowda mortgaged the land in question in favour of<br \/>\nThammaiah for a period of 10 years. Though the mortgage<br \/>\nperiod was upto 1970, on 27.8.1963 the said Bore Gowda<br \/>\nredeemed the mortgage. It is the case of the original tenant<br \/>\nThammaiah that on 30.8.1963 Bore Gowda executed a lease<br \/>\ndeed in his favour in respect of 14 items of land including the<br \/>\nland in question and since then the original tenant and after<br \/>\nhis death his legal heirs are in possession and enjoyment of<br \/>\nthe land as the tenants. Appellant-Ramanna, claimed to be the<br \/>\npurchaser of the land from Karigowda in the year 1972.<br \/>\nAccording to him, on 30.9.1963 the land in question was sold<br \/>\nby Bore Gowda in favour of his father-in-law, Karigowda, and<br \/>\nafter about 9 years Karigowda sold the land to appellant and<br \/>\nhanded over possession also. It is also undisputed that, after<br \/>\nthe sale transaction in favour of appellant, as the original<br \/>\ntenant Thammaiah, resisted appellant from cultivating the<br \/>\nland in question on the ground that he is the tenant.<br \/>\nAppellant-Ramanna filed a suit in 0.S. No.26 of 1972 and<br \/>\nduring the pendency of the suit, as the provisions of the Act<br \/>\ncame to be amended and Civil Courts were barred from<br \/>\ndeciding the question of tenancy, the said suit was not<br \/>\nfinalised. As stated earlier, after coming into force the Act as<br \/>\namended by Karnataka Act No.1 of 1974, the original tenant,<br \/>\nThammaiah, filed application in Form No.7 claiming<br \/>\noccupancy rights in respect of all the 14 items of lands<br \/>\nincluding the land in question. Before the Land Tribunal<br \/>\nstatements of the parties were recorded and relying upon the<br \/>\nagreement deed and the rent receipts the Tribunal proceeded<br \/>\nto grant occupancy rights in favour of the original tenant<br \/>\nThammaiah by the order dated 2.8.1975. The said order was<br \/>\nchallenged by appellant before the High Court by way of a writ<br \/>\npetition and the High Court remanded the matter to the Land<br \/>\nTribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After the<br \/>\nremand, once again the parties were given opportunity to<br \/>\nadduce evidence and, after recording of such fresh evidence,<br \/>\nthe Tribunal again gave occupancy rights to the said<br \/>\nThammaiah. Aggrieved by the same, appellant approached the<br \/>\nAppellate Authority. Even before the Appellate Authority<br \/>\nopportunity to lead additional evidence was given to the<br \/>\nparties and, after recording such evidence, the Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority doubting the veracity of the lease deed rejected the<br \/>\nclaim of the revision petitioners. Hence revision petition was<br \/>\nfiled before the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tStand before the High Court was that the Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority should have held that Thammaiah was a deemed<br \/>\ntenant in terms of Section 4.  It was also submitted merely<br \/>\nbecause the alleged lease deed was not a registered document<br \/>\nas required under law, the same cannot be treated to be a<br \/>\nconcocted document. On the basis of the said agreement 14<br \/>\nlands belonging to Boregowda were leased out to the tenant<br \/>\nThammaiah and except that land in dispute the remaining 13<br \/>\nlands which were given to the wife and daughter under a deed<br \/>\nof settlement had been granted to the original tenant only on<br \/>\nthe basis of the said agreement.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tStand of the respondents before the High Court was that<br \/>\nappellate authority dealt with each of the issue elaborately and<br \/>\nin detail and the court exercising its revisional jurisdiction<br \/>\nunder Section 121-A of the Act should not interfere with the<br \/>\nfindings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority. It was<br \/>\npointed out that Karigowda the predecessor in title was in<br \/>\npossession of the land in question was its owner since<br \/>\n13.9.1960 as was held by the appellate authority.  Therefore<br \/>\nno lease could have been created by Boregowda and after 1972<br \/>\nas there was a sale by Karigowda and as there was no<br \/>\nsubsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between himself<br \/>\nand revision petitioner or between Karigowda and the revision<br \/>\npetitioner since 1963.  The Revision petitioner was not entitled<br \/>\nfor grant of occupancy right.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe High Court was of the view that there was no<br \/>\ndiscussion about the genuineness of the lease deed.  Finally, it<br \/>\nwas concluded that Karigowda was not examined either before<br \/>\nthe Tribunal or before the Appellate Authority by Ramanna, to<br \/>\nsubstantiate his case that it was Karigowda who was the<br \/>\nowner of the land from 1963 to 1972 from whom Ramanna<br \/>\npurchased the land in the year 1972. Accordingly the order of<br \/>\nthe appellate authority was set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIn support of the appeal, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant submitted that the High Court&#8217;s order is not<br \/>\nsupportable on facts and in law. The High Court has<br \/>\nerroneously observed that there was no discussion about the<br \/>\ngenuineness of the lease deed. The admitted fact is that<br \/>\npossession was taken at the time of redemption. The<br \/>\npossession had given to Karigowda and Karigowda had given it<br \/>\nto the appellant.  Basis of the claim was the lease-deed and<br \/>\nthe rent receipts.  In the revenue records name of Thimmayya<br \/>\nwas not there.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tLearned counsel for the respondent on the other hand<br \/>\nsupported the order of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tFew important dates need to be noted.  In the year 1960<br \/>\nthere was a partition and the ownership of disputed property<br \/>\nSurvey No.86\/1 along with some other plots came to<br \/>\nBoregowda. On 18.11.1960 Boregowda mortgaged the property<br \/>\nwith his own brother Thammaiah for a period of ten years.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThe said property was redeemed on 27.8.1963. On<br \/>\n30.9.1963 Boregowda sold the property to his father-in-law<br \/>\nKarigowda.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tAs noted above the admitted position is that possession<br \/>\nwas taken at the time of redemption, and the possession was<br \/>\ngiven to Karigowda, and Karigowda had handed over<br \/>\npossession to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tOn 1.3.1974 the Act was enacted. It was specifically<br \/>\nprovided that the lands vest in the Government and tenants<br \/>\nwere given right to claim occupancy rights. Thammiah filed the<br \/>\npetition before the land Tribunal and claimed to be the tenant<br \/>\nunder Karigowda.  Interestingly Boregowda was not seen after<br \/>\nthe sale. The claim of tenancy was initially accepted.  But the<br \/>\nHigh Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for<br \/>\nfresh consideration. The Land Tribunal again granted claim of<br \/>\noccupancy tenant.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tBefore the Appellate authority following points were<br \/>\nformulated for determination:\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tWhether the disputed land is fit for agriculture?\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tWhether the disputed land was tenanted as on<br \/>\n1.3.1974 or immediately prior thereto?\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)\tAs on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior to that,<br \/>\nwhether the first respondent was a tenant cultivating the<br \/>\ndisputed land lawfully under Boregowda?\n<\/p>\n<p>(d)\tWhether the order of the Land Tribunal is valid?\n<\/p>\n<p>(e) What is the proper and suitable order that can be<br \/>\npassed in this appeal?\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tAs noted above basis of the claim was the lease- deed<br \/>\nand the rent receipts.  The Appellate Authority noted that<br \/>\nthere was no dispute that Thammiah was in possession of the<br \/>\ndisputed land.  Appellant had purchased the land under sale-<br \/>\ndeed on 21.7.1972.  In order to prove that he was lawfully<br \/>\ncultivating the land relied Thammiah upon the Gutha<br \/>\nAgreement dated 30.8.1963 and the Gutha receipts dated<br \/>\n2.3.1964, 28.2.1966, 18.1.1965, 6.3.1970, 2.3.1969 and<br \/>\n16.2.1968. The appellate authority noted that Thamaiah<br \/>\nattempted to secure tenancy rights in the land that has gone<br \/>\nto the share of his younger brother. It was, therefore, known to<br \/>\nhim that on 13.9.1963 Boregowda had sold the disputed land<br \/>\nunder a sale deed to his father in law Karigowda. Karigowda in<br \/>\nhis statement before the Land Tribunal made some significant<br \/>\nstatements. The Appellate Authority noted that after partition<br \/>\nin the family Boregowda had mortgaged with possession of the<br \/>\nland that came to his share for a period of 10 years by<br \/>\nreceiving a loan from Thammaiah. Before completion of the ten<br \/>\nyears period Boregowda repaid the mortgaged amount on<br \/>\n27.8.1963 and obtained back the possession.  Boregowda<br \/>\ndischarged the mortgaged loan of Thammaiah on 27.8.1963.<br \/>\nIn his cross examination Thammaiah had admitted that after<br \/>\nredeeming the mortgage for about 2 to 3 years he had not<br \/>\ndone guthige of the land and gave the same to his younger<br \/>\nbrother for a period of three years on concession.  After he left<br \/>\nthe village continuing the guthige of the land again he himself<br \/>\nwas doing it.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tThe Appellate Authority referred to the statement in the<br \/>\ncross examination and came to hold that he was not in<br \/>\npossession of the land on 30.8.1963.  The Pahani documents<br \/>\nof the land were examined and it was noted that the<br \/>\npossession and enjoyment of land by Thammaiah was not<br \/>\nthere from 30.9.1963 and the same was not established.  In<br \/>\nthe Pahari documents of the land his name was not entered as<br \/>\ntenant.  On 30.9.1963 Boregowda sold the disputed land to<br \/>\nhis father in law.  After such sale in the Kandayam Patta Book<br \/>\nand Pahari documents of the disputed land name of the<br \/>\nKarigowda the purchaser was entered. He had even paid the<br \/>\nland tax to the State Government. Thammaiah who was the<br \/>\nvillage Patel has himself written remarks in the Putta Book by<br \/>\nreceiving the land tax in the Kandayam Patta Book. He had<br \/>\nsigned for having received the land tax in the Kandayam.<br \/>\nContrary to what the High Court has observed, the Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority in detail has examined the question as to the<br \/>\ngenuineness of the lease deed.  In the statement recorded by<br \/>\nthe Land Tribunal has been clearly admitted that the disputed<br \/>\nland was being cultivated by the Koregowda and his son in law<br \/>\nBoregowda jointly.  Therefore, the Appellate Authority inferred<br \/>\nthat the sale deed was in force. After examining the materials<br \/>\non record, the Appellate Authority recorded a categorical<br \/>\nfinding that the lease deed was not a genuine document and it<br \/>\nwas not a believable document.  The Appellate Authority noted<br \/>\nthat Thammaiah was Patel of the village and he had full<br \/>\nknowledge of the transaction. High Court erred in holding that<br \/>\nthere was no discussion on the factual aspect as to the<br \/>\ngenuineness of the document. No evidence was adduced to<br \/>\nsubstantiate the claim of possession. It was also not shown as<br \/>\nto when possession was taken from Korigowda.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tAbove being the position the High Court should not have<br \/>\ninterfered with the factual findings recorded by the appellate<br \/>\nauthority while exercising jurisdiction under Section 121-A of<br \/>\nthe Act.  The order of the High Court is not sustainable and is<br \/>\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\tThe appeal succeeds but in the circumstances without<br \/>\nany order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India A.M. Ramanna vs Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors on 12 July, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 669 of 2001 PETITIONER: A.M. Ramanna RESPONDENT: Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/07\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; LOKESHWAR [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160905","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>A.M. Ramanna vs Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors on 12 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.M. Ramanna vs Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors on 12 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-19T23:57:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.M. Ramanna vs Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors on 12 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-19T23:57:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1939,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007\",\"name\":\"A.M. Ramanna vs Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors on 12 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-19T23:57:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.M. Ramanna vs Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors on 12 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A.M. Ramanna vs Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors on 12 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.M. Ramanna vs Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors on 12 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-19T23:57:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.M. Ramanna vs Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors on 12 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-19T23:57:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007"},"wordCount":1939,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007","name":"A.M. Ramanna vs Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors on 12 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-19T23:57:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-ramanna-vs-land-tribunal-mandya-taluk-ors-on-12-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.M. Ramanna vs Land Tribunal, Mandya Taluk &amp; Ors on 12 July, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160905","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=160905"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160905\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160905"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160905"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160905"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}