- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50039 WP No. 40057 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 40057 OF 2018 (LR-SEC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.K.SURYANARAYANA SHASTRI S/O.LATE DAKSHINAMURTHY SHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT NO.26, 6TH CROSS, HUTCHINS ROAD, LINGARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU-560 084. 2. SMT JAYASHREE NARAYAN W/O SRI.K.V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT "SHRI SHARADA", NO.321, 1ST 'D' CROSS, H.R.B.R.LAYOUT, ST. THOMAS TOWN, BENGALURU-560 084. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. THARANATH SHETTY K, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50039 WP No. 40057 of 2018 AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SECTION 77A OF LAND REFORMS ACT, LAND TRIBUNAL, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106. 2. SRI MUNISHAMAPPA, MAJOR, S/O LATE PILLAPPA, MADAPPANAHALLI, VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106. 3. SRI P VENKATAPPA, MAJOR, S/O LATE PILLAPPA, MADAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK-562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2018 IN (REVENUE) APPEAL NO. 1266/2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AT ANNEX-A AND ALLOW THE APPEAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50039 WP No. 40057 of 2018 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 06.07.2018 in (Revenue) Appeal No.1266/2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for brevity "the KAT") at Annexure-'A'. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are the legal representatives of late Dakshinamurthy Shastri i.e., the father of the petitioner No.1 and grandfather of the petitioner No.2, who was the erstwhile owner of the agricultural land measuring 5 acres 5 cents in Sy.No.26 of Madappanahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 claimed to be tenant under the said Dakshinamurthy Shastri in respect of 6 acres of land in Sy.No.26 have filed Form No.7A under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The said application was allowed by the Land Tribunal vide order dated 23.09.2008 as per Annexure-'B' by granting occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners before the KAT. The KAT dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners on the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50039 WP No. 40057 of 2018 ground of delay and latches as well as on merits. Hence, the same is challenged before this Court in this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel Sri Tharanath Shetty K., appearing for the petitioners and learned HCGP Sri Neelakantappa K Pujar, appearing for respondent No.1 so also learned counsel Sri P.B. Raju appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 without notifying the landlord-Dakshinamurthy Shastri i.e., father of petitioner No.1 and grandfather of petitioner No.2. Though Dakshinamurthy Shastri died in the year 1978 itself, the Land Tribunal has mentioned his name in its order as respondent without bringing the petitioners on record. In such circumstance, the order passed against the dead person is liable to be set-aside. 5. He also contended that the rival claimants of the said land have approached the KAT as per Annexure-'D' and the KAT set-aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50039 WP No. 40057 of 2018 remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal. In such circumstance, the KAT ought to have remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that though the petitioners were aware about the order passed by the KAT in the appeal filed by the rival claimants, they kept quite for a period of 8 years. In such circumstance, the KAT has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay and latches as well as on merit. He also contended that after remand of the matter by the KAT, the petitioners appeared before the Land Tribunal and contested the matter. In such circumstance, he submits that this writ petition becomes infructuous. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective parties so also perused the documents made available for me. 8. As could be gathered from records, Annexure-'B' order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 23.09.2008 depicts - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50039 WP No. 40057 of 2018 the name of landlord as Dakshinamurthy Shastri who is the father of petitioner No.1 and grandfather of petitioner No.2. According to the learned counsel, the said Dakshinamurthy Shastri died on 20.08.1978 i.e., prior to passing of the said order. Admittedly, the legal representatives of late Dakshinamurthy Shastri i.e., the petitioners were not brought on record while passing the order at Annexure-'B'. In such circumstance, it could be presumed that the said order is passed against the dead person without notifying his legal representatives. No doubt, there is an inordinate delay in approaching the KAT by the petitioners; however, since the order is passed against the dead person, the same cannot be sustained. Moreover, the appeal filed by the rival claimants was allowed by the KAT and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal. In such circumstance, it is appropriate to extend an opportunity to the petitioners also to put forth their claim by placing relevant documents before the Land Tribunal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50039 WP No. 40057 of 2018 ii. The impugned order dated 06.07.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in (Revenue) Appeal No.1266/2017 at Annexure-'A' is quashed. iii. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner, Anekal Taluk for fresh consideration along with the case rival claimants which is pending in Case No.LRF/7A/284, 494/1998-99 in accordance with law. iv. It is made clear that, respondent No.1 shall dispose of the matters in Case No.LRF/7A/284, 494/1998-99 after extending sufficient opportunity to the parties at the earliest. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29