- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49373 WP No. 56085 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 56085 OF 2016 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. VISHALAKSHI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 2. VIJAYALAKSHMI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 3. DAYANANDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4. RAMAKRISHNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 5. VINAYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 6. KALAVATHI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 7. SAMPATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ALL ARE MAJOR AND CHILDREN OF LATE UMAVATHI SHEDTHI R/AT KALLATTE GUTHU HOUSE, NADSAL VILLAGE, P O PADUBIDRI - 574 111 UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VYASA RAO K.S, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49373 WP No. 56085 of 2016 AND: 1. THE III LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI BY ITS SECRETARY, & SPECIAL TAHSILDAR UDUPI - 576 101 2. CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY MAJOR S/O SOORU SHETTY R/A NEAR PADUBIDRI COOPERATIVE SOCIETY OPP GIRI CHICKEN STALL P.O PADUBIDRI - 574 111 UDUPI TALUK & DISTRIST 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R3 SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEX-A DTD.31.7.1979 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS INCLUDING THE NAME OF ONE SOORU SHETTY IN THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINRAY 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:49373 WP No. 56085 of 2016 ORAL ORDER Petitioners filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.07.1979 passed by respondent No.1 insofar as including the name of one Sooru Shetty in the operative portion of the order as per Annexure-A. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that lands in Sy.No.36/1 and 12 other items situated in Nadsal village, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District originally taken on Chala Geni by common ancestor one Dasu Shetty i.e., grandfather of the petitioners. The said Dasu Shetty died after the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 came into force, leaving behind his three sons and one daughter. The petitioners have joint and common interest in the lands in question being the grandchildren of said Dasu Shetty. 3. One Umavathy Shedthi i.e., the mother of petitioners along with her brothers Raju Shetty and Narayana Shetty filed Form No.7 jointly and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49373 WP No. 56085 of 2016 the elder brother of Umavathy Shedthi namely Gopala Shetty has filed separate Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal and both the Form No.7 were clubbed together and the Tribunal vide order 31.07.1979 passed the order by granting occupancy right in respect of following properties: Sy.No. Extent of properties 36/2 2 acres 93 cents 36/3 1 acre 42 cents 36/4 15 cents 36/5A 1 acre 86 cents 36/5B 2 acres 46 cents 36/6 50 cents 36/8 3 cents 36/10A 87 cents 36/13 4 acres 26 cents 36/14 20 cents 36/15 1 acre 75 cents 36/16 36 cents 39/2 63 cents - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49373 WP No. 56085 of 2016 4. However, while passing the order at Annexure- A, the Tribunal has included the name of father of respondent No.2 one Sooru Shetty relying on the statement made by the applicant Gopala Shetty before the Tribunal that the occupancy right can be granted in favour of the mother of the petitioners and also Sooru Shetty. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said Sooru Shetty is not a family member of the petitioners and as a matter of fact, Gopala Shetty and his brothers and sister have filed Form No.7 in respect of the subject lands and without any such Form No.7, the Tribunal has wrongly included the name of the Sooru Shetty by granting the occupancy rights solely based on the statement made by the Gopala Shetty. 5. Additionally, he contended that the said Sooru Shetty had been granted occupancy rights in respect of other properties as per Annexure-B. In such circumstances, the Tribunal erred while including the name of Sooru Shetty in the impugned order. Accordingly, he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49373 WP No. 56085 of 2016 prays to allow the writ petition. To buttress his argument he relied on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.411/1976 between "Basappa vs. Land Tribunal Bagalkot Tlq and Ors" 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal has rightly included the name of Sooru Shetty in the impugned order for the reason that the said Sooru Shetty is none other than the family member of Gopala Shetty. Nevertheless, the Gopala Shetty has categorically made a statement before the Tribunal that occupancy right may be granted in favour of himself, his sister and brothers and also Sooru Shetty. Considering the said statement of Gopala Shetty, the Tribunal has granted occupancy right including the name of Sooru Shetty. He contended that the grant made in favour of the Sooru Shetty in respect of other survey numbers, which is based on separate claim, and that will not come in the way of granting occupancy rights in favour of Sooru Shetty by the Tribunal. He also contended that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49373 WP No. 56085 of 2016 the petitioners and respondent No.2 are the joint family members under Aliyasanthana law. Children of the Gopala Shetty have filed the suit in O.S.No.513/2015 in respect of subject lands. The same is pending for consideration. With these submissions, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the impugned order and other records placed before this Court. 8. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute that for grant of occupancy right in respect of subject lands, Raju Shetty, Narayana Shetty and Umavathi Shedthi have filed Form No.7 jointly and one Gopala Shetty has filed separate Form No.7 and by clubbing both these applications, the Tribunal has passed the order as per Annexure-A dated 31.07.1979. 9. On perusal of the impugned order, the same depicts that based on the admission of one of the claimant - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49373 WP No. 56085 of 2016 Gopala Shetty, the name of Sooru Shetty, who is the father of respondent No.2 also included in the impugned order. Admittedly, the said Sooru Shetty has not filed any Form No.7 in respect of subject lands. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said Sooru Shetty is none other than the family member of Gopala Shetty and by virtue of Aliyasanthana law, he is also entitled in the share in the subject lands. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basappa (supra) held that where the person who would otherwise entitled to claim occupancy rights under Section 45 r/w Section 48A had made no application in the manner provided to the Tribunal having jurisdiction, such person loses the right to claim the occupancy right. 11. Such being the position, in my considered view, the Tribunal erred while including the name of Sooru Shetty-the father of respondent No.2 in the order without any application under Form No.7 for grant of occupancy right in respect of subject lands. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49373 WP No. 56085 of 2016 12. Moreover, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the partition suit is pending before the jurisdictional Court in respect of the subject lands, respondent No.2 is at liberty to urge all his contentions before the Civil Court in the said partition suit that he is entitled for his share in the subject lands in view of the existence of Aliyasanthana law. Accordingly, writ petition succeeds, the order passed on 31.07.1979 as per Annexure-A is quashed in respect of inclusion of the name of Sooru Shetty i.e. father of respondent No.2 in the impugned order. 13. It is made clear that respondent No.2 is at liberty to urge all his contention in respect of subject properties before the Civil Court in the original suit. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG/CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22