- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5753 WP No. 103399 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 103399 OF 2015 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. YALLAWWA SHETTEPPA DANDAPPAGOL, AGE: 66 YEARS, 2. YALLAPPA SANTAPPA SAGAREWWAGOL, AGE: 55 YEARS, 3. DURGAPPA KASHAVVA METRI, AGE: 69 YEARS, 4. LAKKAWWA KASHAPPA MYAGERI, AGE: 49 YEARS, 5. KASTURI KASHAPPA MYAGERI, AGE: 39 YEARS, 6. RAJU MARUTI MYAGERI, AGE: 30 YEARS, 7. DURGAPPA NAGAPPA MYAGERI, AGE: 45 YEARS, 8. MALEVVA SADAPPA MAGERI, AGE: 40 YEARS, 9. KASHAVVA MARAGAVVA MYAGERI, AGE: 30 YEARS, 10. GOVINDAPPA KAMALAVVA PUJARI, AGE: 53 YEARS, 11. BHIMAPPA SAGAREPPA SAGAREPPAGOL, AGE:45 YEARS, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5753 WP No. 103399 of 2015 12. DURGAWWA YAMANAPPA METRI, AGE:45 YEARS, 13. LAKSHMAWWA VENKAPPA YANDIGERI @ SHITAWWAGOL, AGE:65 YEARS, 14. BASAWWA SIDDAPPA KARADIGUD, AGE:50 YEARS, 15. DASHARATH TEEKAPPA PATTAR, AGE:70 YEARS, 16. MUTTAPPA ADIVEPPA TARAPGOL, AGE:40 YEARS, 17. GANGAWWA GANAPPA KUMBAR, AGE:65 YEARS, 18. IRAPPA BASAPPA SOUDI, AGE:35 YEARS, 19. LAKSHMAPPA BASAPPA YADAWAD, AGE:67 YEARS, 20. DUNDAPPA APPAJI GAYAKAVAD, AGE:65 YEARS, 21. SHETTEWWA HANMAPPA HARIJAN @ GUDINAVAR, AGE:67 YEARS, 22. SANYAWWA NAGAPPA MYAGERI, AGE:50 YEARS, 23. FAKIRAPPA BASAPPA SHEETAWWAGOL, AGE:70 YEARS, 24. ADIVEPPA RAMAPPA SHEETAWWAGOL, AGE:65 YEARS, 25. KASTUREWWA ADIVEPPA SHEETWWAGOL, AGE:30 YEARS, 26. NEELAWWA YALLAPPA SHEETAWWAGOL, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5753 WP No. 103399 of 2015 AGE:32 YEARS, 27. LAXMAPPA RAMAPPA SHEETAWWAGOL, AGE:65 YEARS, 28. NINGAPPA BHIMAPPA TORAPPAGOL, AGE:36 YEARS, 29. MANJUNATH PANDAPPA BADIGER, AGE:33 YEARS, 30. LAXMAN SIDDAPPA BANDI, AGE:42 YEARS, 31. MALIYAPPA SANYAWWA MYAGERI, AGE:33 YEARS, 32. TIPPANNA SANNTAMMAPPA AMOJI, AGE:45 YEARS, 33. DURGAPPA DUNDAPPA MYAGERI, AGE:35 YEARS, 34. NAGAWWA ADIVEPPA YANDIGERI, AGE:35 YEARS, ALL OCC: AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS, ALL R/O: YADHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEDGE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TUNGABAI W/O. SHIVANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK 2. SHIVANGOUDA DODDAPPAGOUDA PATIL, AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, BOTH R/O YADHALLI VILLAGE, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5753 WP No. 103399 of 2015 TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. CHAIRMAN LAND TRIBUNAL MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT. 6. CHAIRMAN LAND TRIBUNAL JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R3 TO R6; SMT. PALLAVI PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: I. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.6 in no.TNC:D:SR:840 DATED 28.05.2002, MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A. II. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 27.06.2002, MARKED AT ANNEXURE-B. III. DIRECT THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE LANDS PRESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE TO DISTRIBUTE THE LANDS UNDER PROVISION OF KLR ACT GIVING PREFERENCE TO PETITIONERS. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5753 WP No. 103399 of 2015 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 28-05-2002, passed by the Land Tribunal, Mudhol, produced as per Annexure-A, and to quash the order dated 27-06-2002, passed by respondent No.3 – Land Tribunal, Mudhol, produced as per Annexure-B. 2. Heard Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 6, Smt. Pallavi Pachchapure, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are landless persons belonging to either Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribes. They are agricultural laborers. Considering their status, petitioner Nos. 21 to 24 were granted land in the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5753 WP No. 103399 of 2015 year 2012, by the Assistant Commissioner, Jamkhandi as per the grant order dated 20.09.2012. The request made by petitioner Nos. 25 to 29, for grant of such land was not yet considered by the Government. 4. The petitioners refer to the declaration filed by respondent No.1 in respect of the disputed properties and also challenged the orders as per Annexures-A and B. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, if in case the Land Tribunal forms an opinion that there is no surplus land, or that there is a very meagre surplus land, the right of the petitioners will be affected. But, the fact remains that the petitioners being third parties, cannot have any say in the matter between respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the one side, and the Land Tribunal on the other side. The Land Tribunal is required to decide the contention taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 5. If in case, the Land Tribunal finds that there is excess land held by either respondent Nos. 1 and 2, then - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5753 WP No. 103399 of 2015 only, the right will accrue in favour of the petitioners to seek equity against the Government. However, they cannot have any claim against respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. Admittedly, the proceedings initiated against respondent No.1 as per order dated 27.06.2002, produced as per Annexure-B has reached finality. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the said order was not in accordance with law cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, no right is accrued in favour of the petitioners. When the proceedings against respondent No.1 was pending before the Land Tribunal, the petitioners will have the right only against the surplus land that could be allotted in their favour by the Government. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners against Annexure-B is without any basis and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. The contention raised by the petitioners with regard to Annexure-A, which is passed in the proceedings initiated against respondent No.2 in the connected Writ Petition No.65147/2011, wherein the very same order dated 28.05.2002 is already set aside and the matter is remanded - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5753 WP No. 103399 of 2015 back to the Land Tribunal for limited purpose of classification of the lands by the Tahsildar, and pursuant to the same, to record the findings by the Land Tribunal about surplus land that is available with respondent No.2. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for the similar relief in this petition, as they are not parties to the said order and no right is accrued in their favour unless the Land Tribunal holds that, there is excess land held by respondent No.2. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the present writ petition is a misconceived one, and the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 8. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2, has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 31.03.1983, passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in WP No.32588 of 1982, where a specific direction is issued against the Land Tribunal to restore the possession of the land in question to respondent No.2 herein, if they allotted the land to the allottees, that is the petitioners herein, during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court. Under such circumstances, I - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5753 WP No. 103399 of 2015 do not find any reason to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0