- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 18807 OF 2006 (LR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 63545 OF 2011 (LR) IN WP NO.18807 OF 2006: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MAIMUNA W/O. BABALALA HALAGE, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’s., 1(A). BABASAB S/O. BABALAL HALAGALE AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. B.SOUNDATTI-591317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 1(B). DADASAB S/O. BABALAL HALAGALE AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. B.SOUNDATTI-591317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 1(C). SMT. ANYAR W/O. MABISAB GOUNDI AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HOSPET GALLI, CHIKODI-591201, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SRI. SRIKANTHA S/O. LATE BHIMA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 3.. SMT. HAMSA BAI W/O. LATE MARUTHI BHIMA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4. SRI. MAHESHA S/O. LATE MARUTHI BHIMA SHINDE, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 5. SRI. RAMESHA S/O. LATE MARUTHI SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 6. SRI. LAKSHMANA S/O. KEDARI APPANNA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 7. SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O. KEDARI APPANNA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 8. SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O. LATE BABU RAMA SHINDE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s., 8(A). SMT. SHANTHA BAI W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA SHINDE, AGE. 50 YEARS, 8(B). SMT. SHOBHA W.O. SRI. SADHASHIVA AGE. 30 YEARS, 8(C). SMT. SUSHEELA W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA SHINDE, AGE. 45 YEARS, 8(D). SMT. MEENAXI W/O. SRI. MALIKARJUN PATIL, AGE. 23 YEARS, 8(E). MASTER ANAND S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA SHINDE, AGE. 18 YEARS, 8(F). KUMARI RUPALI D/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA SHINDE, AGE. 16 YEARS, 8(G). MASTER CHIDANANDA S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA SHINDE, AGE. 13 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 PETITIONERS NO.8(F AND G) BEING MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER PETITIONER NO.8(C). ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SAUNDATTI VILLAGE, RAIBAG TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT. 9. SMT. SHANTHABAI W/O. LATE LAKSHMANA BABU RAMA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 10. SRI. APPASAHEB S/O. LATE LAKSHMANA BABU RAMA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 11. SRI. BABU S/O. LATE LAKSHMANA BABU RAMA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 12. MAHADEVI D/O. LATE LAKSHMANA BABU RAMA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE R/O. SAUNDATTI VILLAGE, RAIBAG TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVI S.BALIKAI, ADV.FOR P1(A TO C); SRI. G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADV. FOR P3, P8(A TO G) & P12; SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADV. FOR P4 TO P7, P9 TO P11; P2 -ABATED) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPRATMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-01. 2. THE CHAIRMAN LAND TRIBUNAL, RAIBAG, BELGAUM DISTRICT. 3. SRI. SHANTHINATHA RAMACHANDRA HUKKERI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s., - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 3(A). MRS. PRATIMA W/O. PRAMOD PATIL AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. # 815, ‘D’ WARD, SHUKRUWAR PETH, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA. 3(B). AJIT SHANTINATH HUKKERI AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.25/B, SHYAM SOCIETY, DEVAKUR PANANAD ‘A’ WARD, KOLHAPUR. 3(C). MRS. URMILA SHEETALNATH MOOG AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NO.729/B WARD RAVIWAR PETH, JAIN GALLI, KOLHAPUR. 3(D). ABHAY SHANTINATH HUKKERI AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. R.S.NO.392/1A, MAMU CHAVAN RESIDENCY, MALI COLONY, TAKAL ROAD, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SANTOSH B.MANE, ADV. FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7.12.2006 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, RAIBAG IN CASE NO. TNC:SR:178/SAUNDATTI VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. IN WP NO.63545 OF 2011: BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SHANTINATH S/O. RAMACHANDRA HUKKERI, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’s., 1(A). PRATIMA PRAMOD PATIL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. 2815D WARD, SHUKRAWAR PETH, KOLHAPUR. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 1(B). AJIT SHANTINAH HUKKERI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. PLOT NO.25/B, SHYAM SOCIETY, DEVAKUR PANANAD, A WARD, KOLHAPUR. 1(C). MRS. URMILA SHEETALNATH MOOG AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. 729/B, WARD RAVIWARPETH JAIN GALLI, KOLHAPUR. 1(D). SRI. ABHAY SHANTINATH HUKKERI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. R.S.NO.382/1A, MAMU CHAVAN RESIDENCY, MALI COLONY, TAKAL ROAD, KOLHAPUR. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.C.BANDI AND SRI. SANTOSH B.MANE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. MAIMUNA W/O. BABALAL HALAGE SINCE DECEASED BY LR’s., 1(A). DADASAHEB S/O. BABALAL HALAGE AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC. NOT KNOWN. 1(B). BABASAHEB S/O. BABALAL HALAGE AGE. NOT KNOWN, OCC. NOT KNOWN. 1(C). ANARKALI W/O. NABHISAB GAVANDI AGE. NOT KNOWN, OCC. NOT KNOWN, (ALL ARE RESIDENT OF SAUNDATTI VILLAGE, RAIBAG TALUK BELAGAVI DISTRICT) 2. SRIKANTHA S/O. LATE BHIMA SHENDE SINCE DECEASED BY LR’s., 2(A). SMT. MANJULA SRIKANTHA SHINDE AGE. NOT KNOWN, OCC. NOT KNOWN, 2(B). VINOD SRIKANTHA SHINDE AGE. NOT KNOWN, OCC. NOT KNOWN, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 2(C). JYOTHI SRIKANTHA SHINDE AGE. NOT KNOWN, OCC. NOT KNOWN, 2(D). PREETI SRIKANTHA SHINDE AGE. NOT KNOWN, OCC. NOT KNOWN, (ALL ARE RESIDENT OF BIROBA NIPPANI BELAGAVI DIST.) 3. SMT. HAMSA BAI W/O. LATE MARUTI BHIMA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 4. SRI. MAHESHA S/O. LATE MARUTI BHIMA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 5. SRI. RAMESHA S/O. MARUTHI BHIMA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 6. SRI. LAKSHMANA S/O. KEDARI APPANNA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 7. SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O. KEDARI APPANNA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 8. SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O. LATE BAU RAMA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’s., 8(A). SMT. SUSHILA RAMACHANDRA SHINDE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, 8(B). ANAND S/O. RAMACHANDRA SHINDE AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 8(C). CHIDANAND S/O. RAMACHANDRA SHINDE AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 8(D). RUPALI RAMACHANDRA SHINDE AGE. MAJOR, OCC. NOT KNOWN, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 8(E). MINAKSHI RAMACHANDRA SHINDE AGE. MAJOR, OCC. NOT KNOWN, (ALL ARE RESIDENT OF SAUNDATTI VILLAGE, RAIBAG TALUK BELAGAVI DIST.) 9. SHANTHABAI W/O. LATE LAKASHMANA BABU RAMA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 10. SRI. APPASAHEB SHINDE S/O. LATE LAKASHMANA BABU RAMA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 11. SRI. BABU S/O. LATE LAKASHMANA BABU RAMA SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 12. MAHADEVI D/O. LATE LAKASHMANA BABU RAMA SHINDE, (ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SAUNDATTI VILLAGE, RAIBAG TALUK, DIST: BELAGAVI) 13. THE STATE OF KARNATA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALURU. 14. THE SECRETARY LAND TRIBUNAL, RAIBAG, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S BALIKAI, ADV. FOR R1(A TO C); SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI AND SRI. M.M.PATIL, ADVS. FOR R2(A TO D), R4, R6, R7, R9 TO R12; SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R13 AND R14; NOTICE TO R3, R5, R8(A TO E) ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, A WRIT OF IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.12.2006 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL RAYBAG IN CASE NO. TNC:SR:178 SAUNDATTI, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE HOLDING THAT THE DISPUTED LANDS ARE TENANTED LANDS WITH THE AFORESAID PERSONS I.E., PRESENT RESPONDENTS VIZ., BHEEMA AND KEDARI APPANNA - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 SHINDE AND BABU RAMA SHINDE, AS TENANTS THEREOF AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER In these writ petitions, the challenge is directed against the order dated 07.12.2006 passed by the Land Tribunal, Raibag, whereby the Form No. 7 applications filed by the deceased petitioner No.1 in W.P. No.18807/2006, as well as the Form No.7 applications filed by the ancestors of petitioner Nos.2 to 7 and 8 to 11, were rejected. The impugned order is under scrutiny in the present petitions. 2. The applicants had filed Form No. 7 asserting that they were cultivating the following lands as tenants: a) Survey No.14/1 (previously Survey No.14/2), measuring 7 acres and 7 guntas, b) Survey No.38/5, measuring 7 guntas, c) Survey No.75/4, measuring 18 guntas, and d) Survey No.69/7. All land situated in Saundatti Village, Raibag Taluk, Belagavi District. In the year 1981, the Land Tribunal granted - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 occupancy rights in favour of the applicants, except in respect of Survey No.69/7. Aggrieved by the said grant, the deceased respondent No.3 approached this Court in W.P. No.11974/1996. By an order dated 21.07.2000, this Court set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The said order was confirmed by the Division Bench. 3. Upon remand, the Land Tribunal rejected the applications. It held that petitioner No.1 had failed to produce any material evidence to substantiate that she was cultivating 1/3rd share of the subject land as a tenant as on the appointed date. The Tribunal further observed that the remaining applicants had not filed Form No.7 seeking grant of occupancy rights. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner No.1 submitted that the record of rights clearly indicates that the name of the deceased father of petitioner No.1 was recorded as a cultivator. Upon his death, the name of petitioner No.1 was duly mutated in the revenue records, and she continued in cultivation as on the appointed date. He further submitted that the original landlady, Smt. Sulochanabai, had initiated proceedings under Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “BTAL Act”), alleging that petitioner No.1 was a tenant who - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 had defaulted in payment of rent and that the remaining applicants had trespassed onto the subject lands. It was also alleged that the deceased father of petitioner No.1 had sub-let the lands to the other applicants. Hence, the very institution of proceedings under Section 29 of the BTAL Act by the landlady was an acknowledgment of the applicants’ tenancy. Since the tenancy had not been legally terminated as of the appointed date, the applicants were entitled to occupancy rights. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for petitioners No.2 to 11 submitted that separate Form No.7 applications had been filed by Bheema Appanna Shinde and Baburao Rama Shinde, each claiming a 1/3rd share in the subject lands. He further argued that the record of rights established that these individuals were cultivating the lands as tenants as on the appointed date. He referred to the earlier order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.08.1981, which had granted occupancy rights to the predecessor of petitioners No.2 to 7 in respect of a 1/3rd share in the lands. That order, having attained finality, is binding on respondent No.3. In the absence of any challenge to that order, the assertion that the predecessors of petitioners No.2 to 7 were not tenants as on the appointed date is untenable. He also referred to the compromise recorded in O.S. No.152/1981, a suit for partition and separate possession, wherein the parties had admitted that the subject lands were tenanted lands and acknowledged - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 that the wife of respondent No.3 was entitled to compensation from the Government. 6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the applicants were mere trespassers. He contended that the application under Section 29 of the BTAL Act was filed precisely on the basis that the applicants were unauthorized occupants of the lands. He further submitted that a joint application under Form No.7 is not maintainable and that the Land Tribunal had rightly rejected the same. He claimed that the order dated 30.08.1981 was passed without issuance of notice to respondent No.3 and that it concerned Survey No.14/4, not the subject lands. As such, that order is not binding on respondent No.3 and does not confer occupancy rights upon the predecessors of petitioners No.2 to 7. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for all parties. 8. Respondent No.3 asserts that the applicants had unlawfully entered into possession of the subject lands and that the revenue entries in their names were made without proper certification by the competent Tahsildar. 9. However, a perusal of the record of rights for the period from 1964-65 until 01.03.1974 clearly shows that the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 names of the applicants had been mutated in the cultivators’ column as tenants, with each having a 1/3rd share in the subject lands. Additionally, it is on record that the original landlady, Smt. Sulochanabai, had filed proceedings under Section 29 of the BTAL Act, alleging default in payment of rent by the original tenant and sub-letting to the present applicants. The said applications were dismissed by the Tahsildar on 31.03.1961, on the ground that they were not maintainable under Sections 222 and 142 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act. 10. The appeals filed by the landlady were dismissed for non-prosecution. In a revision petition filed before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, the orders of the Tahsildar were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. However, with the coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the applications were dismissed as having abated. 11. The record further reveals that petitioner No.1 had filed Form No.7 on his own behalf and on behalf of other tenants, claiming occupancy rights over the subject lands to the extent of 1/3rd share each. 12. The learned High Court Government Pleader has placed on record the original proceedings in Case No.TNC/SR/1555+490, which shows that the predecessor of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 petitioners No.2 to 7 had separately filed Form No.7, claiming occupancy rights over 1/3rd share in the subject lands. 13. The long-standing and undisputed entries in the names of the predecessors of petitioner No.1 and petitioners No.2 to 7 from 1964-65 to 01.04.1974 clearly establish that these individuals were cultivating the land to the extent of 1/3rd share each. Such entries, under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, carry presumptive value, and no rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the landlord to disprove them. Furthermore, in the compromise recorded in O.S. No.152/1981, the wife of respondent No.3 categorically admitted that the subject lands were tenanted and that she was entitled to compensation from the Government. This strengthens the case of the applicants and supports the conclusion that their predecessors were cultivating the land as tenants as on the appointed date. 14. Earlier the Land Tribunal vide dated 30.08.1981 had granted occupancy rights to the predecessor of petitioners No.2 to 7 in respect of a 1/3rd share in the lands. That order, having attained finality, is binding on respondent No.3. 15. It is also noted that the landlord had filed W.P. No.63545/2011, challenging the vesting of the subject land in the State Government, specifically in relation to the claims made by the predecessors of petitioners No.8 to 12. The Land - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 Tribunal had proceeded on the presumption that Form No.7 was not filed by those claimants. However, before concluding on vesting, the Tribunal was under a statutory obligation to determine whether the lands claimed by petitioners No.8 to 12 were tenanted as on the appointed date. In the absence of such a finding, the vesting of their portion of land is not legally sustainable. 16. In light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 07.12.2006 passed by the Land Tribunal, Raibag in Case No.TNC:SR:178/Saundatti is found to be illegal and arbitrary, and is therefore liable to be quashed. ORDER (i) The writ petitions are hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 07.12.2006 passed by the Land Tribunal, Raibag in Case No.TNC:SR:178/Saundatti is quashed. (iii) Petitioner No.1, now represented by his legal heirs, i.e., petitioners No.1(a) to 1(c), and petitioners No.2 to 7, who represent the original applicant Bhima Shinde, are declared as tenants in respect of the subject lands to the extent of 1/3rd share each, as reflected in the respective Form No.7 applications filed by their predecessors. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4054 WP No. 18807 of 2006 C/W WP No. 63545 of 2011 (iv) The Land Tribunal, Raibag, is directed to issue Form No.10 in favour of petitioners No.1(a) to 1(c) and petitioners No.2 to 7 after collecting the prescribed premium amount. (v) The Land Tribunal shall reconsider the claim of petitioners No.8 to 12, who represent the original tenant Baburao Rama Shinde, for grant of occupancy rights over the remaining 1/3rd share of the subject lands, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 140