- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6244 WP No. 70442 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.70442 OF 2012 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ALI AHAMAD S/O. GHUDUSAB MATTUR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALLAPUR, TQ:HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SRI. MAHUDDIN S/O. GHUDUSAB MATTUR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALLAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 3. SRI. M INUDDIN S/O. GHUDUSAB MATTUR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALLAPUR, TQ:HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 4. SRI. JAFARSAB S/O. GHUDUSAB MATTUR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALLAPUR, TQ:HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI SUNIL S. DESAI, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6244 WP No. 70442 of 2012 REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL HANGAL BY ITS CHAIRMAN DIST: HAVERI. 3. THE LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. KANTEPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA BANAGIGER, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S. 4a. SMT. KAMALAWWA W/O. KANTEPPA BANAGIGER, AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ALLAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI – 581110. 4b. SRI. BASAVANNEPPA S/O. KANTEPPA BANAGIGER, AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALLAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI – 581110. 4c. SRI. BASATTEPPA S/O. KANTEPPA BANAGIGER, AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALLAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI – 581110. 4d. SRI. PARASAPPA S/O. KANTEPPA BANAGIGER, AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALLAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI – 581110. 4e. SMT. RATNNAWWA W/O. CHANNABASAPPA BANAD, AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6244 WP No. 70442 of 2012 OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ALLAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI – 581110. 4f. SRI. SHAMBULINGAPPA S/O. KANTEPPA BANAGIGER, AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALLAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI – 581110. 5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT ALLAPUR, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 & R5; SHRI MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV. FOR R4(A TO F) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: 1. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.L.R.M.S.R.5/19 HANGAL DATED 06.12.1979 IN RESPECT OF LAND B.NO.35/19 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND VOID. 2. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.LR.APPEAL.NO.1120:1986 DATED 07.11.1986 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AT ANNEXURE-D AND THE ORDER BEARING NO.RGP:SR:21:2011- 12 DATED 10.08.2012 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-F AS ILLEGAL AND VOID, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6244 WP No. 70442 of 2012 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ in nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 06.12.1979 passed by respondent No.2 – the Land Tribunal, Hangal produced as per Annexure-A, and the order dated 07.11.1986 passed by respondent No.3 – the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad (“Appellate Authority” for short) produced as per Annexure-D, and the order dated 10.08.2012 passed by respondent No.5 – the Deputy Tahsildar, Village Panchayath, produced as per Annexure-F. 2. Heard Sri Sunil S. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 – State, and Sri Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(f). Perused the materials on record. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6244 WP No. 70442 of 2012 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the grandmother of the petitioners by name Bianabi Saidusab Mattur was the owner of Sy.No.35/1 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas of land situated in Allapur village, Hangal Taluk. After her death, her son who is the father of the petitioners, by name Ghudusab was in possession of the property. It is contended that respondent No.4 never cultivated the land as a tenant at any point of time, but managed to get the order as per Annexure-A conferring occupancy right. The petitioners challenged the said order before this Court by filing W.P.No.11333/1983. Since the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was constituted, writ petition was transferred to it. The Appellate Authority passed the order produced as per Annexure-D dismissing the appeal for default i.e., for non prosecution. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. The Land Tribunal passed the impugned order as per Annexure-A on 06.12.1979. The writ petition was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6244 WP No. 70442 of 2012 filed during 1983. Subsequently, due to constitution of Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the writ petition came to be transferred to the Appellate Authority as per the order produced in Annexure-C. While transferring the matter to the Appellate Authority, the parties were directed to appear before it on 07.11.1986 without waiting for fresh notice. However, it was observed that if the notice has not been served on any of the respondents, the Appellate Authority was directed to issue notice and take up the case for hearing. As per Annexure-D, the petitioners’ grandmother who was the appellant before the Appellate Authority had not appeared before it on 07.11.1986 as directed by this Court. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The order dated 07.11.1986 is being challenged before this Court along with Annexure-A. 5. If the sequence of events as referred to above is to be taken into consideration, the Land Tribunal, Hangal, passed the order as per Annexure-A on - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6244 WP No. 70442 of 2012 06.12.1979. It was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.11333/1983 belatedly in the year 1983. The said writ petition was transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority as per order dated 25.07.1986 produced as per Annexure-C, directing the appellant to appear before the Appellate Authority on 07.11.1986. In spite of that, the grandmother of the petitioners has not appeared before the Appellate Authority for the reasons best known to her. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Interestingly, the said order dated 07.11.1986 is being challenged before this Court by filing the writ petition on 03.10.2012 i.e., after lapse of 39 years. 6. In the petition, the petitioners have not whispered anything as to why there was such an inordinate delay in challenging the order of Appellate Authority. There are also no reasons assigned as to why the petitioners had not appeared before the Appellate Authority on the date fixed by this Court, while - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6244 WP No. 70442 of 2012 transferring the writ petition. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the delay and laches on the part of the petitioners defeats their right to challenge the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority. 7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in W.P.No.76565/2023, the very same order produced as per Annexure-A in this writ petition is already confirmed by dismissing the writ petition. 8. In view of all these facts and circumstances, I do not find any merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5.1