- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5097 WP No. 60924 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.60924 OF 2012 (LR-) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMU DHONDIBA DHARMOJI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS, 1 SRI. SADASHIV S/O. RAMU DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SRI. SUBHAS S/O. RAMU DHARMOJE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS, 2a. SMT. KALPANA W/O. SUBHAS DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2b. SRI. SURAJ S/O. SUBHAS DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2c. SMT. SHUBANGI W/O. SANJEETA @ KAVERI SUBHAS DHARMOJE, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5097 WP No. 60924 of 2012 AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NANADI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2d. SRI. VISHAL S/O. SUBHAS DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NANADI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SRI. BABU DHONIBA DHARMOJI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.S 3a. SMT. HOUSABAI W/O. BABU DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. NANADI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3b. SRI. MAHADEVI S/O. BABU DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3c. APPASAB S/O. BABU DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NANADI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3d. SRI. VIRUPAKSHA S/O. BABU DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NANADI, TQ: CHIKKODI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5097 WP No. 60924 of 2012 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VEERESH H.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-1. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CHIKKODI, TQ:CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SRI. SHANKAR RAO NARAYAN RAO SURYAVANSHI, AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. SRI. SHANKAR DHONDIBA DHARMOJE, SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.R.S 4. SRI. ASHOK S/O. SHANKAR DHARMOJE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SRI. DATTU S/O. APPU DHARMOJE, AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. DIST: BELAGAVI. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5097 WP No. 60924 of 2012 5a. SMT. KALLWWA D/O. DATTU DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE OLD WORK, R/O. NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5b. GEETA SANJAY PATIL AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. SRI. KRISHNA S/O. APPU DHARMOJE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.S., 6. SMT. SHARUBAI W/O. KRISHNA DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 6a. SMT. SHANKUNTALA W/O. APPASAHEB DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK. 6b. KRISHNAT S/O. APPASAHEB DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, BOTH RESIDENTS OF SHIROLI, MIDC KOLHAPUR, NEAR MENON AND MENON FACTORY KOLHAPUR, DIST: KOLHAPUR STATE: MAHARASHTRA. 6c. ANNASAHEB S/O. KRISHNA DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5097 WP No. 60924 of 2012 R/O. NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6d. SANJEETA W/O. MAHADEV DHARMOJE AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, 6e. PRATIMA D/O. MAHADEV DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT 6f. SNEHA D/O. MAHADEV DHARMOJE, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. ALL RESIDENTS OF MAMADAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6g. SUSHILA D/O. KRISHNA DHARMOJE, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6h. SHANTA W/O. LAXMAN BANNE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6i. MALU W/O. GUNDU GAJBAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. MANGNOOR, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5097 WP No. 60924 of 2012 7. Sri. ANNAPPA S/O. KRISHNA DHARMOJE, AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3- ABATED (V/O. DATED 29.08.2013) SRI. S.P.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. HANAMESH M. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5(A), R5(B), R6(D),(G), (H); R6-(I) & R7; R6(A)-SERVED; R6(C)-SERVED; R6(E) & R6(F)-ARE MINORS. R6 (B)-H/S (V/O DATED 22.04.2019) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: A. CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING No.CR SR 111:124:85:97 DATED 19/12/1981 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-‘D’ AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/01/2004 BEARING KLR NANDI:SR- 111+127+35 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-‘E’ INSOFAR AS SY.NO.135/1+2/2 SITUATED AT NANDI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. B. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.CR SR 111:124:85:97:68 DATED 19.12.1981 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-’D2’ AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.KLR NANDI:SR-111+124+35 DATED 21.01.2004, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-’E2’ IN SO FAR AS SY.NO.135/1+2/2 SITUATED AT NANDI VILLAGE, TQ; CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM, PASSED BY RESPONDED NO.(2). BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AND FURTHER GRANT THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE SAID LAND AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5097 WP No. 60924 of 2012 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 19.12.1981 and 21.01.2004 passed by the Land Tribunal, Chikodi, produced as per Annexures-D and E respectively, insofar as Sy.No.135/1+2/2, situated at Nandi village, Chikodi taluk in Belagavi district. 2. Heard Sri Veeresh H.M. learned counsel for petitioners, Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State, Sri S.P.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri Hanamesh M.Desai, learned counsel for Sri Neelendra D.Gunde, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5(a), 5(b), 5(d), 5(g) 5(h) and 6(i) and 7. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that, their father was the tenant in respect of 3 items of properties i.e., Sy.Nos.223, 222, 135/1+2/2 situated at Nandi village, Chikodi taluk. He filed Form No.7 for grant of all - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5097 WP No. 60924 of 2012 the 3 items of the properties. The Land Tribunal passed the order as per Annexure-C granting occupancy right in respect of Sy.Nos.222 and 223 of Nandi village, while holding that Sy.Nos.135/1+2/2, will be taken up for consideration separately. 4. However, it is contended by the petitioners that, without providing an opportunity to the petitioners, the order as per Annexure-D was passed on 19.12.1981, granting occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.135/1+2/2, jointly in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.6 has challenged Annexure-D by filing W.P.No.21474/1982 before this Court aggrieved by the joint allotment of the land. The said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Even thereafter, the Land Tribunal has passed the order dated 21.01.2004, produced as per Annexure-E, again granting the land jointly. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5097 WP No. 60924 of 2012 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, respondent No.5 had filed the suit in O.S.No.135/2006 against respondent No.6, in respect of the disputed land seeking permanent injunction. The petitioners are arrayed as defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the said suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners or the learned counsel for the private respondents, do not know about the result of the said suit. However, admittedly notice of the suit was served on defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the year 2006, who are the petitioners herein. Upon which, the petitioners are said to have came to know about the impugned order as per Annexure-E dated 21.01.2004. But the writ petition came to be filed on 03.02.2012, without assigning any reason for the inordinate delay in it. 7. It is noticed that in paragraph No.9 of the writ petition, the petitioners say that they were not knowing about the impugned order. They referred to a civil suit, where the petitioners were arrayed as defendants and upon which, they came to know about the impugned order. But cleverly the petitioners have not mentioned the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5097 WP No. 60924 of 2012 suit number or the date on which they were served with the suit summons. When the suit is of the year 2006 and immediately the petitioners were served with the suit summons, upon which, they came to know about passing of impugned order dated 21.01.2004, I do not find any justification to ignore the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. It is stated that the order dated 21.01.2004 has already reached finality between respondent Nos.5 and 6. 8. It is also relevant to note that initially similar order dated 19.12.1981 was passed as per Annexure-D granting occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. The said order was challenged by respondent No.6. But the same was never challenged by the petitioners. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6