- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12984 WP No. 12523 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 12523 OF 2015 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. K SATHYANARAYANA HEBBAR S/O K.V.KRISHNAMURTHY HEBBAR, 63 YEARS, BIJADI VILLAGE, KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, P.O KOTESHWARA-576222. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VYASA RAO K S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL KUNDAPUR BY ITS SECRETARY AND SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, KUNDAPURA-576201. 2. GANGAMMA 73 YEARS, D/O AKKAYYA HENGSU, R/O MALLANA HITHLU KOTESHWARA VILLAGE, P.O.KOTESHWARA-576222, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. 3. SUSHEELA SINCE DEAD BY LR., 3(a) ANANTHA DEVADIGA., 68 YEARS, HUSBAND OF SUSHEELA, R/O MALLANA HITHLU, KOTESHWARA VILLAGE, P.O.KOTESHWARA-576222 KUNDAPURA TALUK, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12984 WP No. 12523 of 2015 UDUPI DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-576001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-4; SMT. LATHA.S.SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3(a)) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANN-A DATED 27.2.2015 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS THE LAND IN SY.NO. 192/7 - 0.76 ACRE OF KOTESHWARA VILLAGE, KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The Writ Petition is filed challenging an order of the Land Tribunal by which it has conferred occupancy rights dated 27.02.2015 in respect of one particular land i.e., Sy.No.192/7 measuring 0.76 cents of Koteshwara village, Kundapur Taluk, Udupi District. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that this order was passed despite the fact that the landlady - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12984 WP No. 12523 of 2015 Kashiyamma had died on 28.12.2008 itself. It is essentially contended that the Land Tribunal passed an order against a dead person and the petitioner being a legatee i.e., the grandson through Kashiyamma's daughter ought to have been impleaded before the Land Tribunal could have passed an order. 3. It is also sought to be contended that Late Kashiyamma, the landlady had instituted a suit in O.S. No.201/2002 and in that case, on her death, the petitioner herein had made an application to come on record, but the said request was denied, since the suit was essentially for an injunction and the cause of the suit did not survive. 4. This particular order in the Civil Court clearly indicates that Kashiyamma passed away on 28.12.2008 and even in the suit a claim was made that the petitioner had succeeded on the basis of the Will dated 21.08.1987. It cannot, therefore, be in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12984 WP No. 12523 of 2015 dispute that the order passed by the Tribunal was essentially against a dead person and the same cannot be sustained. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that the petitioner has no locus to question the order, since the Will under which he claims a request categorically states that it applies only to the self-acquired property of Kashiyamma and not to the ancestral property. 6. Sri.Vyasa Rao K.S., learned counsel, however, points out that the very Will indicates that the petitioner is the grandson of Kashiyamma through her daughter and the Will also records a fact that her son and daughter were no more. He submits that since the petitioner even without the Will becomes the legal heir of Kashiyamma, he would be entitled to defend the claim before the Land Tribunal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12984 WP No. 12523 of 2015 7. A perusal of the Will does indicate that Kashiyamma had stated that her son was no more and also her daughter was no more. She also acknowledges that the petitioner herein was her grandson and she was, therefore, bequeathing all her self-acquired properties. 8. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the petitioner would be the legal heir of Kashiyamma even if the bequest is ignored. Consequently, as already held above, the order passed by the Land Tribunal was against a dead person and hence, the same cannot be sustained. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal directing the Tribunal to implead the petitioner as legal heir of Kashiyamma and decide the matter afresh. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. 9. It is needless to state that the order of the Land Tribunal is quashed only in respect of Sy.No.192/7 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12984 WP No. 12523 of 2015 and the order of the Land Tribunal in respect of the other survey numbers remains undisturbed. 10. Since both the parties are represented by the counsel, they are directed to appear before the Land Tribunal on 28.04.2025. 11. 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.: 36