- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15918 WP No. 62517 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 62517 OF 2010 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. IRAPPA MAHARUDRAPPA MADBAL, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, 2. MOHAN MAHARUDRAPPA MADBAL, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, 3. SAVITRI W/O NAGESHRAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL R/AT: KATAGI PRADHANAPPA ONI, NEAR SHAH BAZAR, HUBLI-580 020. 4. KALPATRU CONSTRUCTIONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM BY ITS PARTNERS: 4A. RAMESH REVANSIDDAPPA CHALAVADI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: III CROSS, GIRANI CHAWL, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI-580 020. 4B. DEEPAK DATTATRAYA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: III CROSS, NEW HUBLI FORT, NEAR CBT, HUBLI-580 020. 4C. NAGARAJ BASAVANTAPPA BELAVADI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: VYSYA BANK COLONY, PARASWADI, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580 020. 4D. GOPALKRISHNA RAMACHANDRASA KALBURGI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: SHANTI NAGAR, HUBLI-580 020. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.22 11:20:04 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15918 WP No. 62517 of 2010 4E. VISHWANATH BABURAO TIRUMALE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: BHAVANI NAGAR, HUBLI-580 020. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, D.C. COMPOUND, BELGAUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, HALYAL ROAD, NEAR ICE FACTORY, DHARWAD-580 001. 3. CITY SURVEY OFFICER, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, SIR SIDDAPPA KAMBLI ROAD, HUBLI-580 020. 4. GOPAL DATTATRAYA DESAI, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/AT: GAVALI GALLI, BHANDIWAD BASE, HUBLI-580 020. 5. INDUMATI NAGESHRAO DESAI, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/AT: GAVALI GALLI, BHANDIWAD BASE, HUBLI-580 020. 6. SHAILAJA MOHANRAO KULKARNI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT: GAVALI GALLI, BHANDIWAD BASE, HUBLI-580 020. 7. SUDHA @ SHARADA MOHANRAO JOSHI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT: GAVALI GALLI, BHANDIWAD BASE, HUBLI-580 020. 8. JANAKIBAI TRIYAMBAKRAO KULKARNI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15918 WP No. 62517 of 2010 9. USHABAI VASANTRAO PATIL, AGE. MAJOR OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT: VITHOBA GALLI, HUBLI-580 020. 10. HANMANTRAO RAMACHANDRARAO DESAI, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCC: PRESENTLY NIL, R/AT: VITHOBA GALLI, HUBLI-580 020. 11. GURUNATH RAMACHANDRAO DESA, AGE. MAJOR , OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/AT: VITHOBA GALLI, HUBLI-580 020. 12. MAHABALESHWAR RAMACHANDRA DESAI, AGE. MAJOR , OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/AT: VITHOBA GALLI, HUBLI-580 020. 13. SARASWATIBAI NARAYANRAO DESHPANDE, AGE. MAJOR , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT: VITHOBA GALLI, HUBLI-590 020. 14. GURURAO KRISHNAJI DESAI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/AT: SRI NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBLI-590 031. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R10 TO R12; NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED; PETITION AGAINST R7, R9 AND R14 ARE DISMISSED; PETITION ABATED AGAINST R5, R8 AND R13) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ENTRIES OF THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENTS 4 TO 14 HEREIN ANNEXURE N1 TO N9 AND THE ORDER DATED 08/08/2007 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CTS:RTS:AP:31/2006-07 (ANNEXURE-P) AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT 1 DATED 17/12/2009 IN REVISION NO.29/07-08 (ANNEXURE-Q). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15918 WP No. 62517 of 2010 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 08.08.2007 passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by respondent No.1. 2. The petitioners claimed to be the permanent tenants in respect of the properties in question. Eviction petition was filed in HRC No.25/2010 on the file of Civil Judge, Hubballi. In the said petition, the present petitioners who were the respondents took a contention that the petitioners therein are not the owners of the property. The said petition was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘Code’ for short) holding that the petition is not maintainable under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. 3. Thereafter, the present respondents appear to have moved an application before the Tahsildar to enter their names as the legal representatives of the deceased landlord by name Venkappa Desai, the petitioners before this Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15918 WP No. 62517 of 2010 would contend that entry is made in the names of the contesting respondents in the property records without notice to the petitioners and petitioners' appeal filed before the Appellate Authority is also rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the status of the contesting respondents as the legal representatives of deceased Venkappa Desai is not established in the manner known to law and since the order is passed without notice to the petitioners, the same has to be set aside and only after due enquiry, the names of the legal representatives of deceased Venkappa Desai ought to have been entered in the property records. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondents would urge that Venkappa Desai's legal representatives have come on record and petitioners are not the legal representatives. They were only the tenants for 10 years. Since, the tenancy has expired there is no question of issuing notice to the tenants while entering the names of the legal representatives of deceased Venkappa Desai. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15918 WP No. 62517 of 2010 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the suit is filed in O.S.No.576/2014 on the file of competent Civil Court in Hubballi. Thus, it is urged that the petition has to be dismissed. 7. It is required to be noticed that the petitioners do not claim to be the legal representatives of deceased Venkappa Desai. The petitioners claim to be the tenants. 8. The question is who are the legal representatives of the deceased Venkappa Desai? In case, the contesting respondents have filed a suit for eviction against the petitioners contending that they are the legal representatives of deceased Venkappa Desai, the petitioners are at liberty to dispute the status of the contesting respondents as the legal representatives of deceased Venkappa Desai by filing appropriate written statement, if it is not yet filed by filing an appropriate amendment, if that contention is not yet taken. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15918 WP No. 62517 of 2010 9. It is always open for the contesting respondents to establish in the said suit that they are the legal representatives of deceased Venkappa Desai. 10. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar and Deputy Director of Land Records and Joint Director of Land Records. 11. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of. ii. However, it is made clear that the status of the contesting respondents should not be decided based on the entries in the property records, it should be based on acceptable evidence to show that they are the legal representatives of deceased Venkappa Desai. iii. In case, in the said suit, if it is found that the contesting respondents are the legal representatives of deceased Venkappa Desai, then the entries which are certified based on the impugned orders will continue. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15918 WP No. 62517 of 2010 iv. In case, if it is found that that the contesting respondents are not the legal representatives of deceased person, then their names in the property records are to be recovered and returned to the decree to be passed by the Court. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 8