- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48793 WP No. 28 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 28 OF 2020 (LR) BETWEEN: KRISHNAYYA ACHARI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O MANJUNATHA ACHARI AND KAMALA ACHARTHI NERAMABALLI, HANGLUR VILLAGE, P.O.KOTESHWARA-576 222 KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VYASA RAO K.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI.KRISHNAPURA MUTT UDUPI REPRESENTED BY ITS MATADAPATHI SRI VIDHYASAGARA THEERTHA PADAMGALAVARU KRISHNAPURA MUTT, CAR STREET, UDUPI-576 101 3. THE ASST COMMISSIONER/ AUTHORISED OFFICER KUNDAPURA-576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48793 WP No. 28 of 2020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1 & 3, R2-SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.2.8.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.71/2015 (REVENUE) AT ANNEXURE-A. 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 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for brevity "the KAT") in Appeal No.71/2015 at Annexure-'A'. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his late brother Subrayya Achari had filed Form No.7A under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended, in respect of land bearing Sy.No.5/3 measuring 0.25 cents, Sy.No.10/8 measuring 0.34 cents and Sy.No.7/1 measuring 70 cents of Hanglur Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District as a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48793 WP No. 28 of 2020 tenant under respondent No.2-Mutt. The Assistant Commissioner - respondent No.3, after an enquiry, granted the occupancy right in favour of the mother of the petitioner one Kamala Acharthi in land bearing Sy.No.10/8 measuring 0.12 cents, Sy.No.10/8 measuring 0.12 cents, Sy.No.10/8 measuring 0.08 cents, Sy.No.7/1 measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.5/3 measuring 0.12 cents and Sy.No.5/3 measuring 0.13 cents. The same was challenged by respondent No.2-Mutt before the KAT by filing Appeal No.71/2015. During the pendency of said appeal, the mother of the petitioner i.e., Kamala Acharthi has passed away. Though the said aspect was brought to the knowledge of the KAT, the KAT has passed the impugned order by condoning the delay of three years and allowed the appeal by setting aside the occupancy right granted in favour of Kamala Acharthi. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the pendency of appeal, Kamala Acharthi - respondent No.2 in the said proceedings had passed away. He also contended that the death of respondent No.2 in the said proceedings was brought to the knowledge of the KAT. Despite the same, the KAT had passed the impugned order, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48793 WP No. 28 of 2020 that too, by condoning the delay of three years in filing the appeal. In such circumstance, the appeal ought to have abated since the contesting respondent was dead. Accordingly, he prays to set-aside the impugned order passed by the KAT. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP by supporting the impugned order passed by the KAT, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 3, so also perused the documents made available before me. 6. As could be gathered from records, the petitioner's mother late Kamala Acharthi was granted occupancy right in respect of land bearing Sy.No.10/8 measuring 12 cents, Sy.No.10/8 measuring 12 cents, Sy.No.10/8 measuring 8 cents, Sy.No.7/1 measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.5/3 measuring 12 cents and Sy.No.5/3 measuring 13 cents by respondent No.3 after considering her application in Form No.7A filed under Section 77A of the KLR Act. After three years, the said order was challenged by respondent No.2-Mutt. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48793 WP No. 28 of 2020 7. On careful perusal of the order passed by the KAT, it depicts that the appeal against Kamala Acharthi was abated. In such circumstance, once the case against the contesting respondent abates, then the appeal also ought to have been abated in toto. However, without considering the said aspect, the KAT has wrongly allowed the appeal by setting-aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, that too, by condoning the delay of three years. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others - 2025 INSC 1283, by relying on the case of Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and Others vs. Harkoo Gope and Others - 1981 AIR 1450 has held as under: “If a party to a proceeding either in the trial Court of any appeal or revision dies and the right to sue survives or a claim has to be answered, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased party would have to be substituted and failure to do so would result in abatement of proceedings. Now, if the party to a suit dies and the abatement takes place, the suit would abate. If a party to an appeal or revision dies and either the appeal or revision abates, it will have no impact on the judgment, decree or order against which the appeal or revision is preferred. In fact, such judgment, decree or order under appeal or revision would become final.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48793 WP No. 28 of 2020 9. Placing reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment stated supra, I am of the considered view that, in the instant case, before passing of the judgment in the appeal, the contesting respondent was dead and her legal heirs were not brought on record and the case against her was abated, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the appeal as abated. Hence, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.71/2015 at Annexure-'A' is quashed. iii. Consequently, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner sustains. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38