- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5168 WP No. 67850 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 67850 OF 2011 (LR) BETWEEN: SHEKARIAH S/O. BASAIAH HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K. D. KALAL S/O. DAVALJI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. SHANKARAPPA S/O. SATYAPPA BAGALKOTI. AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, and TRUSTEE. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5168 WP No. 67850 of 2011 3. A. S. BAGI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS and TRUSTEE, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF THE NAVALGUND, TALUK NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER UNDER LAND REFORMS & HEAD QUARTER’S ASSISTANT TO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD. 7A, NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA, FOR R4; SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1- ABATED; R2- DECEASED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23/07/2011 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.976/2006 AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5168 WP No. 67850 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 23/07/2011 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘the KAT’, for short), produced as per Annexure-A. 2. Heard Sri. Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent No.4 and Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, he has filed Form No.7, as he was cultivating the land bearing Survey No.321/2B, measuring 2.20 Acres, situated at Navalgund Village. The Deputy Commissioner, after due enquiry, passed the order as per Annexure-B dated 20/09/2006, granting occupancy right by noting - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5168 WP No. 67850 of 2011 that, in the revenue records, since 1967-68 till the appointed date, the name of Bassaiah Gadigeyya Hiremath, i.e., the father of the petitioner, was entered as occupant. The Deputy Commissioner also noted that, the applicant had produced several documents to prove that he was in occupation and cultivation of the land in question. The additional reference is made to the suit in O.S.No.226/1997, filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Dharwad, which came to be decreed. It is stated that Charanathappana Math, represented by Respondents No.1 to 3, have preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.226/1997, and the said appeal came to be dismissed. 4. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, Respondents No.1 to 3, representing the Math, filed O.S.No.330/2012, seeking possession - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5168 WP No. 67850 of 2011 of the very same property, but the said suit came to be dismissed. 5. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the KAT, it refers to the entries in the Record of Rights, mentioning the name of Bassaiah Gadigeyya Hiremath, the father of the petitioner, in Column No.2, since from 1968-69 till 1973-74. It also refers to Mutation Entry No.7439 dated 24/08/1967, in respect of the land bearing Survey No.321/2B, where the names of Charantappa Math and Bassaiah Gadigeyya Hiremath, are shown in occupation of the same. The KAT has specifically observed that, the name of Bassaiah Gadigeyya Hiremath was mutated as the holder of the land on 24/08/1967. However, the KAT concluded to allow the appeal solely on the ground that, there was nothing on record to show that the land was vested with the Government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 1961 (‘the KLR - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5168 WP No. 67850 of 2011 Act’, for short). Accordingly, the impugned order came to be passed. 6. It is well-settled proposition of law that, the vesting of land under Section 44 of the KLR Act, occurs by operation of law, and no formal order is necessary to vest the land in the Government. Under these circumstances, the KAT could not have passed the impugned order while ignoring its earlier observations that the name of the father of the petitioner was found in the Record of Rights from 1968-69, till the appointed date, i.e., 01/03/1974. Moreover, there is reference to the Mutation Entry, where the name of the father of the petitioner is shown as the occupant of the land. 7. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is required to be restored. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5168 WP No. 67850 of 2011 ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 23/07/2011 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.976/2006, produced as per Annexure-A, is set aside. iii. Consequently, the order dated 20/09/2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is restored. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8