Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37490 (KAR)

BASAPPA S/O. MANAPPA BADIGER v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/106046/2014 · 2025-10-28

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14483 WP No. 106046 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 106046 OF 2014 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI BASAPPA S/O. MANAPPA BADIGER, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., SHRI NAGAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA @ RAMALINGA BADIGER, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITNAL, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SHRI RAMAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA @ RAMALINGA BADIGER, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITNAL, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. 3. SMT. MUKTABAI W/O. LATE BASAPPA BADIGER, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KAGADAAL, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, SOUNDATTI, R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14483 WP No. 106046 of 2014 3. SHRI SHIVANAND S/O.LAKSHMAN BADIGER, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAGADAAL, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. 4. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O. RAMALINGAPPA BADIGER, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAGADAAL, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. 5. RAMAPPA S/O. RAMALINGAPPA BADIGERA, MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAGADAAL, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. RESPONDENTS NOS.4 AND 5 DELETED V/O/DATED 10.06.2016. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4 AND R5 ARE DELETED V/O/DATED 10.06.2016) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.03.2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.K.L.R:CIA:SDT:79:11 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TRIBUNAL TO GRANT OCCUPANCY RIGHTS OF THE LAND BEARING BLOCK NO.50 MEASURING 4 ACRES 20 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KAGADAAL VILLAGE OF SOUNDATTI TALUK OF DIST: BELGAUM, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14483 WP No. 106046 of 2014 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Saundatti. In terms of the order dated 19.03.2013 the application filed by petitioners father Basappa S/o Manappa is rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order is not a speaking order and the petition is dismissed on the premise that the counsel for the petitioner has not furnished any written submissions and petitioner no.1 has died and petitioner no.1(a) i.e., the wife of petitioner no.1 has obtained divorce and petitioners no. 3 and 4 claiming to be sons of Ramalinga Badigeri have not produced any records to show that they are sons of Ramalinga Badigeri. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14483 WP No. 106046 of 2014 4. This Court is of the view that the question whether the applicants are entitled to grant is not considered by the Land tribunal at all. Under these circumstances the impugned order has to be set aside. 5. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The matter is remitted to the jurisdictional Land Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. (iii) It is made clear that the Tribunal shall consider and answer the following question: (a) Whether the applicants were entitled to grant of land under the provisions of Certain Inams Abolition Act? (iv) Both parties are permitted to lead evidence. (v) If any evidence is already recorded, same shall also be taken into account before passing the orders on merit. (vi) It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the matter. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14483 WP No. 106046 of 2014 (vii) All questions are left open. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 2