- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14732 WP No. 9852 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 9852 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. YATHISH ADYANTHAYA S/O DR. H.D.ADYANTHAYA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT OMKAR MANGALADEVI MARIGUDI TEMPLE ROAD, BOLAR MANGALURU-575 001. 2. NAGAVENI SHETTY W/O LATE MOHANDAS SHETTY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 85-406 SUBBAIAH SHETTY HOUSE KULUR FERRY ROAD NEAR NEW CHITHRA TALKIES ALAKE, MANGALURU - 575 003. 3. B.SUKHALATHA W/O V.K.SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 85-406 SUBBAIAH SHETTY HOUSE KULUR FERRY ROAD NEAR NEW CHITHRA TALKIES, ALAKE MANGALURU - 575 003. 4. RUPA SHETTY D/O RATHNAMANI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO. 1155, 4TH STREET APARTMENT 424 SAN FRANSCISCO, CA94158 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14732 WP No. 9852 of 2025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5. MR. RANJITH SHETTY S/O RATHNAMANI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT 54 DEBORAH SAMPSON ST SHARON SHARON MA 02067-2209 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A HOLDER 6TH PETITIONER MRS. CHITHRA SHETTY D/O LATE RATHAMANI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT S41, HARMONY HOMES 4/2 HENNUR MAIN ROAD HRBR LAYOUT, NEXT TO HENNUR BUS DEPOT BENGALURU - 560 043. 6. MRS. CHITHRA SHETTY CHITHRA SHETTY D/O LATE RATHAMANI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT S41, HARMONY HOMES 4/2 HENNUR MAIN ROAD HRBR LAYOUT, NEXT TO HENNUR BUS DEPOT BENGALURU - 560 043. 7. RAGHUVIR ADYANTHAYA S/O DEVADAS ADYANTHAYA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 204 RAJKAMAL APARTMENT MANIPADA VILLAGE ROAD OPP VIDYANAGARI SANTACRUZ EAST MUMBAI-400 098. 8. MADHUCHANDRA ADYANTHAYA S/O LATE DEVADAS ADYANTHAYA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 22-11-1480 VIJAYA VIHAR BOLAR MAIN ROAD NEAR SHADI MAHAL BOLAR MANGALURU - 575 001. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14732 WP No. 9852 of 2025 9. MALAVIKA SHETTY W/O KIRAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 24-3-241/70 BLOCK 3, FLAT NO. 13 TELECOM APARTMENT KMC CROSS ROAD, ATTAVARA MANGALURU - 575 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. FRANCIL HERALD CRASTA S/O LATE LEO CRASTA, MAJOR R/AT NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KONCHADI, MANGALURU - 575 008. 2. CYRIL VALERIAN CRASTA S/O LATE LEO CRASTA, MAJOR R/AT NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KONCHADI, MANGALURU - 575 008. 3. STELLA CRASTA D/O LATE LEO CRASTA, MAJOR R/AT NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KONCHADI, MANGALURU - 575 008. 4. NIRMAL CRASTA D/O LATE LEO CRASTA, MAJOR R/AT NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KONCHADI, MANGALURU - 575 008. 5. JECINTHA CRASTA D/O LATE LEO CRASTA, MAJOR R/AT NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KONCHADI, MANGALURU - 575 008. 6. SMT. PUSHPALATHA R.ADYANTHAYA W/O H.R.ADYANTHAYA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT FANCY MANZIL, II FLOOR, 23-A MATHAR - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14732 WP No. 9852 of 2025 PACADY, MAZAGAON MUMBAI-400 010. 7. THE LAND TRIBUNAL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MANGALORE TALUK OFFICE MANGALORE-575 001 8. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUSHMITHA SURESH., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 & R-2; SMT. CHANDINI.S., HCGP FOR R-7 & R-8) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DTD 07.02.2025 ON THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION AND ALSO THE REJECTION ORDER DTD 26.03.2025 ON THE APPLICATION TO RECALL THE ORDER DTD 07.02.2025 IN CASE L.R.T NO. 945/1980-81 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, DK. DISTRICT, MANGALURU FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN VIDE ANNX-A, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. An application for impleading has been rejected by the Land Tribunal and hence this Writ Petition. 2. It is not in dispute that a Form No.7 was filed by the tenant Leo Crasta way back in the year 1974 in which several survey numbers were claimed and in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14732 WP No. 9852 of 2025 respect of the land in question, Leo Crasta contended that Ramanna Guruva Shetty, Muthaya Shetty and Ramana Shetty were the landlords. 3. In these proceedings, Pushpalatha R.Adyanthaya was impleaded and she was a party to the proceedings, in which the Land Tribunal had conferred occupancy rights on three occasions and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal on three occasions. 4. In fact, Pushpalatha had carried up the matter right upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3928/2017. It was, therefore, clear that all along from 1974, it is only Pushpalatha, who was contesting the application filed by the tenant. 5. However, in the month of November 2024, an application has been filed by the present petitioners seeking to implead themselves in the proceedings. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is stated as follows - - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14732 WP No. 9852 of 2025 "2. I say that we the Applicants are the co- owners of the schedule property and we have undivided right over the schedule property. 3. I say that in order to have proper adjudication of the above case, our presence and participation is very much necessary." 6. Thus, after nearly a period of 50 years, the petitioners approached the Tribunal requesting the Tribunal to implead them as co-owners and that they had an undivided share in the property. This application has been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that no documents were produced. Subsequently, an application was filed to recall the said order by producing certain documents and Tribunal has taken the view that it has no jurisdiction to recall the order that it has passed and thereafter it has posted the matter for arguments. 7. Sri.Shivarama Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there were ample documents - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14732 WP No. 9852 of 2025 to indicate that the petitioners were the children of Kamala, the second wife of Subba Shetty and they had an interest in the property. He submits that Pushpalatha R.Adyanthaya was the granddaughter of the first wife and since she was prosecuting the matter, the petitioners had not taken the initiative to get themselves impleaded. In my view, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 8. If the petitioners, though claim to have a right in the property, did not choose to implead themselves as like Pushpalatha did, they cannot approach the Tribunal 50 years after the application was filed to contend that they have an undivided interest. 9. It is clear from the proceedings that throughout the proceedings from 1974 which resulted in the orders being passed on three occasions and the matter being remanded to the Land Tribunal on three occasions, the petitioners chose not to participate - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14732 WP No. 9852 of 2025 and therefore, they cannot be permitted to come on record at this stage to contend that they have right in the propery. 10. The order of the Land Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference. 11. However, learned counsel submits that Pushpalatha's husband was prosecuting the matter on her behalf and he has been bed ridden and, therefore, the matter cannot be prosecuted. 12. In the light of this submission, though the Land Tribunal has noticed that there is no evidence adduced on behalf of Pushpalatha, in my view, interest of justice would be served by directing the Land Tribunal to appoint a Court Commissioner to examine Pushpalatha at her residence, given the fact that she is 90 years, and take her version of story before it considers the matter on merits. Subject to the above, Writ Petition is dismissed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14732 WP No. 9852 of 2025 13. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59