- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6906 WP No. 76522 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 76522 OF 2013 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. ANNAJI S/O. GURUNATH DESHPANDE DIED R/BY HIS LRS. 1a. GURURAJ S/O. AMRUTHESH DESHPANDE AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAYALLAPUR DUNDI ONI, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. 1b. PRAKASH S/O. AMRUTHESH DESHPANDE AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.HOSAYALLAPUR DUNDI ONI DHARWAD DIST: DHARWAD. 1c. ASHA W/O. LINGAMURTHI JOSHI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAYALLAPUR DUNDI ONI, DHARWAD DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SHRI. MALHAR S/O. GURUNATH DESHPANDE DIED R/BY HIS LRS. 2a. VIJAYALAXMI WO. MALHAR DESHPANDE AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAGHSHETTI BULDING SANKESHWAR Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6906 WP No. 76522 of 2013 APMC MARKET YARD SANKESHWAR TQ: HUKKERI DIST: BELGAUM. 2b. RAGHVENDRA S/O. MALHAR DESHPANDE, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. RAGHSHETTI BUILDING SANKESHWAR APMC MARKET YARD SANKESHWAR TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2c. RAVINDRADRA S/O. MALHAR DESHPANDE AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. RAGHSHETTI BULDING SANKESHWAR APMC MARKET YARD SANKESHWAR TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2d. SAVITA W/O. SATHISH DESHPANDE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. # 1900, 7TH MAIN ROAD, E-BLOCK 2ND STAGE, SUBRAMANY NAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH. 3. SHRI. CHIDAMBAR S/O. GURUNATH DESHPANDE SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, VAISHNAVI VALLABHA KAUTEKAR AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.G. NANDOOR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6906 WP No. 76522 of 2013 M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN, TAL & DIST: DHARWAD. 3. SHRI. KEDARAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA MUNAVALLI, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADANBHAVI, TAL & DIST: DHARWAD. 4. SHRI. VITHAL S/O. RAMAPPA MUNAVALLI, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADANBHAVI, TAL & DIST: DHARWAD. 5. SHRI. VENKAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA MUNAVALLI, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADANBHAVI, TAL & DIST: DHARWAD. 6. SHRI. MADIWALAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA MUNAVALLI, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADANBHAVI, TAL & DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA, FOR R1 & R2; SRI. S.A. SANDOOR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6; R3-ABATED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2010 PASSED IN CASE NO.KLR/MADANBHAVI/SR/95 PASSED BY RES.NO.2 LAND TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6906 WP No. 76522 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have filed this petition, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 06.12.2010 passed by respondent No.2-the Land Tribunal, Dharwad, produced as per Annexure C. 2. Heard Sri. S.G.Nandoor, for Sri S.B. Doddagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri S.A. Sandoor, for Sri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that, the land in dispute is with regard to Block No.453 measuring 6.20 acres situated at Madhanbhavi village, Dharwad Taluk and District. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioners were the owners of the property, and they were cultivating the lands. For a short period of time, one Sri. Mudakayya Parayya Bangi was cultivating the land as tenant. Before advent of Mysuru Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act, 1961’), he had - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6906 WP No. 76522 of 2013 surrendered the land in favour of the owners and thereafter, it is contended that the father of the petitioners was cultivating the land, till his death. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the statement of Channayya Parayya Bangi given before the Land Tribunal, to the effect that, he was cultivating the land during 1948 and surrendered the same about 25 years earlier to 1981. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that said Parayya Bangi had surrendered the land during 1956 before advent of the Act, 1961. 5. The impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal discloses that, the statement of the petitioner was recorded while holding enquiry, and the petitioner had stated that after the land was surrendered by Bangi, the father of the petitioners was cultivating the land. He died in the year 1952. Since the petitioners were minors, the land was given to the contesting respondents for cultivation. They cultivated it for a short period of about 4 to 5 years, and thereafter, the petitioners were cultivating the property. Even if it is to be taken consideration that, the father of the petitioners died in the year 1952, and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6906 WP No. 76522 of 2013 the land was being cultivated by the contesting respondents only for a period of 4 to 5 years, it will take us to the year between 1958-59, the Act, 1961 was came into effect within a year or so. Once the provision of the Land Reforms Act came into effect, the procedure is prescribed for surrendering of the land by the tenant, is to be followed unless such procedure is followed, it cannot be said that the land was surrendered by the contesting respondents. Admittedly, there are no documents to show that the respondents have surrendered the land. No specific date or even year is referred as to when there was surrender of land. 6. It is the contention of the petitioners that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.95/1974 seeking declaration that, the defendant was not the tenant. The defendant is one Ramappa Kedarappa Munavalli. The said suit came to be decreed, by declaring that said defendant Ramappa Kedarappa Munavalli, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents, was not the tenant. Subsequently his son Kedarappa Ramappa Munavalli filed suit in O.S.No.148/1982 to declare that the decree obtained in O.S.No.95/1974 by the father of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6906 WP No. 76522 of 2013 petitioners was illegal and without notice. The said suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.04.1984. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that the Civil Court had declared that the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents was not the tenant in respect of the disputed property. Therefore, the finding of the Land Tribunal is liable to be quashed. 7. The Act, 1961 came into force with effect from 02.10.1965. Section 112 of the Act, deals with the duties of the Tribunal. Section 112(B) refers to the duty of the Tribunal to decide whether a person is a tenant or not, and to make a declaration in that regard. Section 132 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide any question, which is required to be decided by the Tribunal etc. Therefore, even though there is a decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.95/1974 and even though the suit in O.S.No.148/1982 came to be dismissed for default i.e. for non-prosecution, the decree in O.S.No.95/1974 which came to be passed on 27.06.1974, declaring that Ramappa Munavalli was not the tenant, is to be held as one without jurisdiction. Therefore, the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6906 WP No. 76522 of 2013 petitioners cannot rely on the said decree of the Civil Court, which was passed without jurisdiction. 8. It is the contention of the petitioners that, in none of the revenue records, the name of Ramappa Munavalli or the contesting respondents were shown as tenants. On the other hand, there is a pencil entry in the revenue records that during 1957-58, the name of Ramappa Munavalli was entered as “cultivator” of the land. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that based on such pencil entry, the Land Tribunal cannot declare that the contesting respondents were tenants as on the appointed date. 9. The Tribunal refers to statement of the petitioners where Annuji Deshpande i.e. petitioner No.1 herein had given the statement that he was not cultivating the land as tenant. According to him, there were other tenants being cultivating the land. He was working in the office of the Tahsildar at Dharwad un-authorisedly. Further petitioner No.2-Malhar was working in the department of Railways as a Clerk, and Chidambar Deshpande, the father of petitioner No.3 was residing in Dharwad. Therefore, the Tribunal formed an opinion - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6906 WP No. 76522 of 2013 that the petitioners were never cultivating the land on their own. 10. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 gave a statement before the Land Tribunal that his father died while he was cultivating the land, and that the petitioners could not cultivate the land as they were minors and the land was given to Ramappa Kedarappa Munavalli-the grandfather of the contesting respondents. Once there is admission on the part of the petitioners herein before the Land Tribunal that the land was cultivated by the grandfather of the contesting respondents, the burden is on the petitioners to prove that the land was surrendered in accordance with law. In the absence of such materials, it is to be held that as on the appointed date i.e. 01.10.1964, the tenant was in possession and enjoyment of the property and the land vested with the Government. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners specifically states that the father of the petitioners had died in the year 1952. Even if it is to be accepted, and the contention of the petitioners that the land in question was given to the grandfather of the contesting respondents for cultivation from 1954-58 is to be considered. Admittedly there are no materials - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6906 WP No. 76522 of 2013 to show that the land in question was surrendered in favour of the petitioners. If this contention is to be taken into consideration in the light of the statement of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 was working in the office of the Tahsildar at Dharwad, petitioner No.2 was working in the department of Railways, and petitioner No.3 was the resident of Dharwad, the contention of the contesting respondents that they had continuously cultivated the land as tenants, assumes importance. 12. Unfortunately, neither the petitioners nor the contesting respondents have produced any other materials in support of their contentions. However, when once the petitioners admit the possession of the land by the grandfather of the petitioners, who was cultivating the land as tenant, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the land Tribunal. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petition is liable to be dismissed as without merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM ANB : CT