- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11698 WP No. 56420 of 2013 C/W WP No. 31567 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 56420 OF 2013 (LR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 31567 OF 2014 IN WP No. 56420/2013 BETWEEN: 1. MADEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS MADAMMA, W/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. B REVANNA S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3. SHIVANNA S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O TAGADUR VILLAGE BILAGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571119 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P MAHESHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11698 WP No. 56420 of 2013 C/W WP No. 31567 of 2014 M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-1 REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL NANJANGUD TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571301 3. GOVINDANAYAK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SANNAMADAMMA W/O MUDDANAYAKA TAGADUR VILLAGE NANJANGUD TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571119 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI.S., HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SMT. DIVYA KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 LAND TRIBUNAL, NANJANGUD TALUK, NANJANGUD DTD.7.12.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, ETC. IN WP NO. 31567/2014 BETWEEN: 1. SRI GOVINDANAYAKA S/O.LATE SIDDANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT TAGADUR VILLAGE, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE-571 119. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. DIVYA KRISHNA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANAN SOUDHA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11698 WP No. 56420 of 2013 C/W WP No. 31567 of 2014 BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571119. 3. a. MADEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS MADAMMA, W/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS b. B REVANNA S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS c. SHIVANNA S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R-3(a) TO R-3(c) ARE R/O TAGADUR VILLAGE BILAGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571119 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI.S., HCGP., FOR R-1 AND F-2; SRI. P.MAHESHA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3(a) TO R-3(c)) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:7.12.12, VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE R2, IN LRF.NO.6954/74-75 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE GRANTING OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF 4 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.299/1 & 5 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.299/2 OF TQGADUR VILLAGE, NANJANAGUD TQ. MYSORE DIST. & TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LAND - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11698 WP No. 56420 of 2013 C/W WP No. 31567 of 2014 TRIBUNAL IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE R3 IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS IN DISPUTE, ETC. THESE PETITIONS, 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. Both the landlord and the tenant are before this Court challenging the order by which certain lands were granted to the tenant and claims regarding few survey numbers were rejected. 2. The tenant contends that rejection of his claim in respect of certain lands was incorrect, whereas the landlord contends that conferment of occupancy rights in favour of the tenant was illegal. 3. Notwithstanding the above contentions, in my view, the writ petitions have to be allowed and the impugned order has to be set aside since the procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11698 WP No. 56420 of 2013 C/W WP No. 31567 of 2014 considering the matter without affording any opportunity to the parties is glaringly apparent. 4. The order sheet maintained by the Tribunal indicates that the matter was adjourned to 29.08.2012 and the same was once again adjourned to 05.09.2012 as the Presiding Officer was unavailable. 5. On 05.09.2012 since the tenant's counsel sought time, the matter was adjourned to 12.09.2012 and on 12.09.2012, since the counsel were absent, the matter was adjourned to 26.09.2012. 6. On 26.09.2012, 03.10.2012 and 10.10.2012, since the Presiding Officer was unavailable, the matter was adjourned to 16.11.2012. 7. On 16.11.2012, the tenant and his counsel were absent and as a final opportunity, the matter was adjourned to 23.11.2012 i.e., a week thereafter and on 23.11.2012, when the case was called, since the tenant and his counsel were absent, the Tribunal has recorded as follows: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11698 WP No. 56420 of 2013 C/W WP No. 31567 of 2014 "23.11.2012:¥Àæ. PÀÆV. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ UÉÊgÀÄ. ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ UÉÊgÀÄ. ¥Àæw CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß DzÉñÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄAzÀÆrzÉ." 8. Thereafter, on 07.12.2012, in the order sheet, it is recorded that the orders were pronounced. The order dated 23.11.2012 clearly indicates that no arguments were addressed on behalf of the tenant through his counsel. Furthermore, the Tribunal has not noticed that an application was filed by the tenant on 22.08.2012 seeking conferment of occupancy rights and no orders were passed on the same. 9. Merely because the tenant and his counsel were absent, the Tribunal could not have proceeded to post the matter for orders and could not have thereafter pronounced the orders. It is therefore clear that the order passed by the Tribunal is violative of principles of natural justice and the impugned order cannot therefore be sustained. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11698 WP No. 56420 of 2013 C/W WP No. 31567 of 2014 Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 10. The Tribunal shall afford an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and also consider the application filed on 22.08.2012 by the tenant and thereafter shall pass appropriate orders. 11. Learned counsel for the landlord contends that the tenant had not sought for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.431/1 and 299/4 and it may be clarified that the Tribunal shall not consider the claim of the tenant over said lands. 12. It is needless to state that the Tribunal shall confer occupancy right only in respect of those lands claimed in Form No.7 and in respect of lands which are not claimed, obviously, the Tribunal shall not consider the same. The Tribunal shall keep this aspect in mind while reconsidering the matter. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11698 WP No. 56420 of 2013 C/W WP No. 31567 of 2014 13. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. Since both the parties are represented through their counsel before this Court, they are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 21.04.2025 without expecting any further notice. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45