- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6108 WP No. 102425 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 102425 OF 2018 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVANNEPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA MADIWALAR, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. (SINCE DECEAED BY HIS L.R’S) 1(a) SMT. FAKKIRAVVA W/O. BASAVANNEPPA MADIWALAR AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 1(b) SURESH S/O. BASAVANNEPPA MADIWALAR AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 1(c) MALATESH S/O. BASAVANNEPPA MADIWALAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 1(d) IRAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA MADIWALAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6108 WP No. 102425 of 2018 1(e) NAGAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA MADIWALA,R AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2. FAKKIRAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA MADIWALAR, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R’S) 2(a) SMT. KAMALAVVA W/O. FAKKIRAPPA @ DHARMAPPA MADIWALAR, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2(b) RAVI S/O. FAKKIRAPPA @ DHARMAPPA MADIWALAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRGOD, TQ. HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2(c) CHANDRAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA @ DHARMAPPA MADIWALAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRGOD, TQ. HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2(d) PRAKASH S/O. FAKKIRAPPA @ DHARMAPPA MADIWALAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRGOD, TQ. HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2(e) PUTTAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA @ DHARMAPPA MADIWALAR, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6108 WP No. 102425 of 2018 AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRGOD, TQ. HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 3. SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O. BASAVANNEPPA MADIWALAR AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HANAMANAKOPPA, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 4. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA MADIWALAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI.NAGAPPA BASAVANNEPPA MADIWALAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. NANDINI SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDNIG, BENGALURU. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, LAND TRIBUNAL, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6108 WP No. 102425 of 2018 3. SMT.AMINABI W/O. RAJESAB HIRUR, AGE: YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 4. SMT.AAYISHABI W/O GAFOORSAB ISALUR AGE: YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 5. ABDULGANI S/O. GAFOORSAB ISALUR, AGE: YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 6. SMT. JAINABBI W/O. HASANKHAN PATAN, AGE: YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SHIRGOD, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 7. KRISHNAJI S/O. GANGADHAR DESHPANDE, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. (DIED). 8. NARAYAN S/O. GANGADHAR DESHPANDE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. (DIED) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6108 WP No. 102425 of 2018 9. GANGADHAR S/O. SHIVAJI DESHPANDE, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 10. GOPAL S/O. LAXMAN DESHPANDE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. (DIED). 11. VASUDEV S/O. LAXMAN DESHPANDE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SHRI D.L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5; (R9 & R11 ARE TREATED AS LR’S OF DECEAED R7, R8 & R10) R4, R6 & R11 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; R3 & R9 ARE SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, HANGAL IN NO.LRM/SR-RR/110/1+4 DATED 08.09.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS OF THE SUIT LAND MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED TO THE PETITIONERS HOLDING THAT, THEY ARE THE TENANTS OF THE SUIT LAND AND CULTIVATING IT SINCE FROM THEIR ANCESTORS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6108 WP No. 102425 of 2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the impugned order dated 08.09.2017 passed by the Land Tribunal, Hangal, produced as per Annexure-A. 2. Heard Sri B.V.Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State and Sri D. L. Ladkhan learned counsel for respondent Nos.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the father of the petitioners was cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.187 measuring 8 acres 15 guntas, situated at Shirgod village in Hangal taluk as a tenant as on the appointed date, and he filed Form No.7 seeking to confer occupancy right. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6108 WP No. 102425 of 2018 4. In the meantime, the husband of respondent No.4 and father of respondent No.5 filed similar Form No.7 claiming occupancy right in respect of the very same land. Therefore it was a counter claim by both the parties. Initially the Land Tribunal considered the revenue records and passed the order on 18.11.1981 rejecting Form No.7 filed by respondent No.4 and granting occupancy right in favour of the father of the petitioners. The said order was challenged by the husband of respondent No.4 by filing W.P.No.21470/1989 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be allowed solely on the ground that no notice was issued to the husband of respondent No.4 by the Land Tribunal. Otherwise, this Court had made it very clear that as per revenue records, the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be found fault with. Since the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Land Tribunal, and in the meantime since original applicants have died, their legal representatives were brought on record. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6108 WP No. 102425 of 2018 5. Learned counsel contended that after the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 6, rejecting From No.7 filed by the father of the petitioners. Therefore the petitioners are before this Court. 6. It is contended by the petitioners that, father of the petitioners by name Kariyappa Madiwalar was the tenant in respect of the land in question from 1967-68 till date. His name is reflected in the Record of Rights, in column No.12 as the cultivator of the land as tenant. However, the name of the father of respondent No.5 i.e., Gafoorsab, was found in the Record of Rights for the year 1948 to 1956. During 1956, the name of Fakirappa Talawar came to be entered in the revenue records, which continued till date. Under such circumstances, as on the appointed date Gafoorsab was never a tenant. 7. Learned counsel also submitted that Annexure- R3 produced by the contesting respondents along with the statement of objections showcase the revenue records in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6108 WP No. 102425 of 2018 the old format pertaining to the disputed land. As per this format, only during 1948-49 till 1951-52, the name of Gafoorsab was entered as tenant in cultivation of the land in question. But the nature of cultivation is shown in the column No.4 of the said document as ‘6’. No.6, cannot be termed as cultivation by the tenant. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-B4, which contains similar Record of Rights in the old format in respect of the disputed land. According to which, from 1951-1952 till 1955-56 the name of Gafoorsab appears in the Records of Rights as tenant in cultivation of the land. During 1956-57 along with the name of Gafoorsab, the name of Fakirappa Yallappa Talawar also came to be entered as a tenant in cultivation of the land. Nature of cultivation is No.5. The same is continued till 1966-67. 9. During the year 1967-68 the name of Fakirappa Talawar was rounded off and the name of Kariyappa Fakirappa Madiwalar i.e., the petitioners came to be - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6108 WP No. 102425 of 2018 entered in Column No.12 of the Record of Rights and nature of cultivation is shown as ‘5’ that is cultivation on crop sharing basis. This entry continued till date according to the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.5 submits that during 1952-1953, i.e., at an undisputed point of time, ME No.755 was certified. As per the said ME No.755, certified on 06.04.1954 the name of Gafoorsab was entered as ‘protected tenant’ in respect of Sy.Nos.186 and 187. Accordingly, his name was found in the record of rights. Once the name of Gafoorsab was shown as protected tenant during 1952-1953, Section 15 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (for short the Act, 1948), prescribes the procedure for surrender of the land to be followed. There is nothing on record to contend that the tenant had surrendered the land in favour of the landlord. 11. Section 15 of the Act prescribes termination of tenancy by surrender. Such surrender shall be in writing - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6108 WP No. 102425 of 2018 and it is to be verified before the Mamlatdar in the prescribed manner. The Mamlatdar must verify the records by holding an enquiry, and decide whether the landlord is entitled to retain the whole or any portion of the land so surrendered or not. When such elaborate procedure is prescribed under the Act, unless such procedure is shown to be followed, it cannot be said that Gafoorsab, who was the protected tenant during 1952-1953 had surrendered the land in favour of the owner. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.5, M.E.No.1559 was certified during 1967-1968 in respect of Sy.No.187 solely on the basis of the Varadi given by Kariyappa Fakkirappa Madiwalar and no other procedure is followed to effect mutation as stated above. Admittedly, this M.E.No.1559 dated 27.7.1971 was challenged by Gafoorsab by preferring an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The said appeal was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, canceling M.E.No.1559 and restoring the entry which was in existence earlier. Admittedly, as per the order of the Assistant - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6108 WP No. 102425 of 2018 Commissioner, the name of Gafoorsab as ‘protected tenant’ was restored in the record of rights. Even though a revision was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the same was dismissed, confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Admittedly, Kariyappa Madiwala or the petitioners have never challenged ME.No.1582, dated 07.10.1971, showing the name of Gafoorsab as protected tenant in the record of rights. Thus, it has reached finality. 12. The name of Gafoorsab was shown as protected tenant during 1952-1953 and again as per ME.No.1582 dated 7.10.1971. For all practical purposes as on the appointed date that is on 1.3.1974, the petitioners were the tenants in respect of the land in question. The Land Tribunal after considering the rival Form No.7 filed by the parties, and considering all these facts, conferred occupancy right. I do not find any reason to find fault with the order of the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, produced as per Annexure-R1 or the order - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6108 WP No. 102425 of 2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner produced as per Annexure-R2, and ME No.1582 effected on 1.7.1971 produced as the additional document, which was never challenged by petitioners and has attained finality. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain this petition. 13. In view of the above, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM,VB CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1