- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15605 WP No. 46353 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 46353 OF 2014 (LR-SEC 48A) BETWEEN: 1. RAGHU SHETTY HUSBAN OF PRAFULLA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. SMT. AMITHA L. ALVA W/O L.N. ALVA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 3. ARUN KUMAR SHETTY S/O LATE PRAFULLA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 4. ASHALATHA SHETTY S/O LATE PRAFULLA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE ALL R/AT "PERMAYYA SHETTY COMPOUND" BIKARNAKATTE, MANGALORE-575 001. 5. SMT. T.M. HEMALATHA SHETTY W/O DR. MANJAYYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 6. SRI. T.M. DEVIDAS SHETTY S/O SMT.B. CHANDRAVATHI SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 7. T.M. AJITH SHETTY S/O SMT. B. CHANDRAVATHI SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15605 WP No. 46353 of 2014 PETITIONER No. 5 TO 7 ALL ARE R/AT NO. 7/3, DEVAN BAHADUR V. SAHNMUGAM STREET, FIRST STREET, SECRETARIAT COLONY, KALIPAUK, CHENNAI-600 010. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A. KESHAVA BHAT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (L.R. CELL) KM.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. LAND TRIBUNAL MOODABIDRI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MOODABIDRI, MANGALORE TALUK, MANGALORE-575 001. 3. SMT. PREMAVATHI D/O SEETHARAMA SHETTY, MAJOR, 4. SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHETTY D/O SEETHARAMA SHETTY, MAJOR, 5. SRI. DEVIPRASAD SHETTY S/O SEETHARAMA SHETTY, MAJOR, 6. SRI. KIRAN KUMAR SHETTY S/O SEETHARAMA SHETTY, MAJOR, 7. SMT. JYOTHI ALVA D/O SEETHARAMA SHETTY, MAJOR, R-3 TO 7 ALL ARE R/AT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15605 WP No. 46353 of 2014 "KODATHUR HOSAMANE", NADUGODU VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 001. 8. SRI. VISHWANATH SHETTY S/O SRI. LOKU SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O NADUGODU VILLAGE & POST, MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 001. SINCE DEAD BY LRs., 8(a) VIMAL SHETTY, W/O LATE VISHWANATHA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 8(b) SHARAT SHETTY, S/O LATE VISHWANATHA SHETTY, AGE MAJOR 8(c) BHARAT SHETTY, S/O LATE VISHWANATHA SHETTY, AGE MAJOR, R-8(a) TO 8(c) ALL ARE R/AT KODETHUR HOSAMANE, NADUGODU POST, MANGALORE TALUK, MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT-574148. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SMT. DIBYASHREE.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. U.P.MULIYA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-7 R-8[(a) TO (c)] ARE SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.14.3.2013 PASSED BY THE R-2 LAND TRIBUNAL IN L.R.T.NO.475/81-82 AND LRT NO.111/81-82 PRODUCED AT ANNEX-A, ETC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15605 WP No. 46353 of 2014 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights on Seetharama Shetty (deceased) is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the Tribunal could not have registered Seetharama Shetty as tenant since Seetharama Shetty had set up tenancy under his own father under concocted geni chit. 3. It is contended that the son could not claim tenancy under his father, who was the landlord and this aspect of the matter though argued before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not considered the same. 4. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal does not indicate that the petitioners who are the siblings of Seetharama Shetty had raised a contention that their brother Seetharama Shetty had set up tenancy - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15605 WP No. 46353 of 2014 against their father, Loku Shetty, who was the landlord and hence, the Tribunal has not recorded any finding about whether the tenancy set up by Seetharama Shetty could not be accepted since the landlord Loku Shetty was his father. 5. In that view of the matter, in my view, the Tribunal could not have merely considered the claim of Seetharama Shetty without considering this vital aspect as to whether Seetharama Shetty could claim tenancy against his own father Loku Shetty, who was the landlord. The impugned order is therefore quashed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal is directed to record a finding as to whether Seetharama Shetty was living with his father Loku Shetty and whether he was entitled to claim tenancy under Loku Shetty, who was the landlord. 7. Having regard to the fact that the matter has been remanded on more than one occasion, the Tribunal - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15605 WP No. 46353 of 2014 shall consider the aforesaid aspect and decide the matter expeditiously. 8. All contentions regarding genuineness of geni chit are left open to be decided by the Tribunal. 9. Since the parties are represented before this Court, they are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12.05.2025 without expecting any further notice from the Tribunal. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51