- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5238 WP No. 66388 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 66388 OF 2012 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA KURBAGATTI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, MUMMIGATTI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. 2. YELLAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA KURBAGATTI, MUMMIGATTI VILLAGE, DISTRICT & TQ: DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. APPASAHEB S/O. NANASAHEB DESAI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 2. APPASAHEB S/O. ESHWERAPPA DESAI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, (R-2 DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.03.2018) 3. SMT.NEELAVVA W/O. NANASAHEB DESAI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R-3 SINCE DECEASD BY HER LR 3a. SMT. SHAMALA PATIL W/O. DEVANGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 40 YEAR, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5238 WP No. 66388 of 2012 AYATTI VILLAGE, NAVALGUND, TALUK & DISTRICT DHARWAD. 4. SMT. PARAVATAVVA W/O. EASHWERAPPA DESAI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 5. SRI. BAPUSAHEB S/O. ESHWERAPPA DESAI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 6. SMT. KAMALAVVA W/O. YELAPPA TADAKOD AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 7. SMT. SUVARANA W/O. MAHABELESHWAR ANGADI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF MUMMIGATTI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. 8. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R8; SRI. SOURABH SANDUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A); SRI. B.K. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4-R7 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2012 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.542/2006, BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE (BELGAUM CAMP), PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM ORDER DATED 12/04/2006 PASSED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT IN PROCEEDINGS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5238 WP No. 66388 of 2012 NO.KLR/7A/MUMMIGATTI/SR/7+12+44/1999-2000 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (Belgaum Camp) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KAT’, for short), produced as per Annexure-A and confirming the order dated 12.04.2006 passed by respondent No.8, produced as per Annexure-H. 2. Heard Sri. Shivaraj C. Bellakki, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. B.K.Malligawad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 7, Sri. Sourabh Sandur, learned counsel for Sri K.L. Patil, for respondent No.3(a) and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.8. Perused the materials on record. 3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, initially the KAT was sitting at Bangalore, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5238 WP No. 66388 of 2012 subsequently it camped at Belgaum and held proceedings. The order sheet dated 16.09.2008 discloses that, as per Notification No.PDI/01/10 dated 04.12.2009, the case was posted at Belgaum Camp on 11.03.2010, and notice to both the parties was ordered. The order sheet dated 11.03.2010 discloses that, the notice so issued to learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 was returned with an endorsement as “left”. Therefore, notice was ordered to respondent Nos.2 and 3 again. As per order sheet dated 23.06.2011, again notice issued to the advocate representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 was returned with an endorsement as “left”. Under such circumstances, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that before passing the impugned order at KAT, Belgaum Camp, no notice was issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 regarding change of place of sitting of KAT and hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. The order sheet referred to above, prima-facie supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. After change of sitting at Belgaum as per the Notification, fresh notice was required to be issued to the parties. Even though it was issued to the learned counsel, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5238 WP No. 66388 of 2012 same was not served on the counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are the petitioners herein, and in spite of that KAT appears to have proceeded with the matter to pass the impugned order. Therefore, I am satisfied that the impugned order is passed without granting reasonable opportunity to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to represent, the order is liable to be quashed. 5. In view of the above, without referring to the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that, the matter requires to be remanded back to KAT by quashing the impugned order. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 30.03.2012 passed in Appeal No.542/2006 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (Belgaum Camp) vide Annexure-A and the order dated 12.04.2006 passed by respondent No.8 vide Annexure-H, are hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remanded back to the KAT for fresh consideration, in accordance with law. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5238 WP No. 66388 of 2012 (iv) Both the parties are directed to appear before the KAT, Bangalore on 25.04.2025, without waiting for fresh notice. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2