- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6425 WP No. 75968 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 75968 OF 2013 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. DUNDAPPA ANNAPPA GHASTI @ MANG SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR SRI. ANNAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA GHASTI @ MANG, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. SRI. YASHWANT S/O. YALLAPPA GHASTI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. SRI. SHANKAR S/O. YASHWANT GHASTI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. SRI. RAVASAB S/O. YASHWANT GHASTI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4. SRI. UDAY S/O. YASHWANT GHASTI AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.WALAKI, TQ.CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUNIL KHOT, ADVOCATE FOR) SRI. RAMACHANDRA MALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT.OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-01. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6425 WP No. 75968 of 2013 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL CHIKODI, TQ.CHOKODI, DIST.BELAGUM, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY. 3. SRI. ANNAPPA DUNDAPPA SUTAR AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4. SRI. KHANDERAO SAKHARAM PATIL CLAIMING TO BE SON OF BHAU PATIL, AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL R/O.WALAKI, TQ.CHIKODI, DIST.BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R3-DECEASED) ----- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS IN KLR/WALAKI/SR-35+88+89 DATED 02.01.2013 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2013 MADE IN NO.KLR/WALAKI/SR-35+88+89 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, CHIKODI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AS BEING TOTALLY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6425 WP No. 75968 of 2013 ORAL ORDER The Petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 2.01.2013, passed by the Land Tribunal, Chikkodi, produced as per Annexure-D. 2. Heard Sri. Sunil Khot, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the materials on record. 3. The father of the petitioners has filed Form No.7 claiming of occupancy right in his favour. The Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the tenant. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.27106 of 1992. The said writ petition came to be allowed vide order dated 19.09.2001 produced as per Annexure-A, setting aside the impugned order of the Land Tribunal dated 18.02.1982, and the matter was remitted back to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6425 WP No. 75968 of 2013 Since, the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration, Land Tribunal took up the matter for consideration. In the meantime, it is stated that respondent No.4 filed an application before the Land Tribunal, seeking impleadment on the ground that he is the adopted son of the original owner. The said application came to be allowed by passing the order as per Annexure-D, which is impugned in this petition. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent 4 is claiming right under the original owner on the ground that he is the adopted son. It is only on the basis of the certificate issued by the Village Accountant that, respondent No.4 is the legal representative of the original owner such an order was passed, the petitioners seriously dispute the contention that respondent No.4 is the legal representative of the original owner as his adopted son. Whether there was a valid adoption or not, cannot be finally decided by the Land Tribunal. However, the presence of respondent No.4 before the Land Tribunal as the legal representative of the original owner is on the basis of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6425 WP No. 75968 of 2013 the certificate issued by the Village Accountant, and it is sufficient to allow the application by the Land Tribunal as respondent No.4 represents the owner. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the impugned order. If the petitioners are successful in proving their tenancy before the Land Tribunal, they will be conferred with the occupancy right. But, on the other hand, if the petitioners fail to establish their contention that they were the tenants in occupation and cultivation of the land in question, their claim will be rejected. The presence of respondent No.4 before the Land Tribunal will not prejudice the right of the petitioners in proving their tenancy. Under such circumstance, I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2013 also stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB/- CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7