- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6109 WP No. 103596 of 2014 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. 103596 OF 2014 (LR) BETWEEN: SMT. UMAVATI W/O. HONNAPPA HYADLE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HOLE-ITAGI, TQ: SHIRHATTI, DIST: GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHASHILDAR, SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 2. SHRI. YALLAPPA BISTAPPA BARKAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOLE - ITAGI, TQ: SHIRHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 3. SMT. SUSHILAWWA W/O. SOMAPPA BARKAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE and HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HOLE-ITAGI, TQ: SHIRHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 4. SMT. PARAWWA W/O. DYAMAPPA BARKAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6109 WP No. 103596 of 2014 and HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HOLE-ITAGI, TQ: SHIRHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 5. SHRI. BISTAPPA S/O. DYAMAPPA BARKAR, AGE: 13 YEARS, R/O. HOLE - ITAGI, TQ: SHIRHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 6. SHRI. MUTTAPPA S/O. DYAMAPPA BARAKR, AGE: 13 YEARS, R/O. HOLE-ITAGI, TQ: SHIRHATTI, DIST: GADAG. RESPONDENT NO.5 & 6 ARE MINOR R/BY HIS MINOR GAURDIAN HIS MOTHER SMT. PARAWWA W/O. DYAMAPPA BARKAR AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE & HOUSEHOLD,R/O. HOLE-ITAGI, TQ: SHIRHATTI, DIST: GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; R5 & R6 –ARE MINORS REPTD BY R4) ------ THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE FORM NO.10 DATED 12.02.2014 IN FILE NO.TNC/SR/101+133/HOLE-ITAGI ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6109 WP No. 103596 of 2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash Form No.10 dated 12.02.2014 issued by Respondent No.1–the Tahsildar, Shirahatti, produced as per Annexure-A. 2. Heard Sri. Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri. Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, Respondent No.1 issued Form No.10 produced as per Annexure-A without there being any order by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy right, and thus, the said certificate is liable to be quashed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6109 WP No. 103596 of 2014 4. On perusal of the materials on record, it is found that initially, the father of the petitioner and the father of Respondent Nos.2 to 4, being brothers by name Basavanneppa Barker and Bistappa Irappa Barker, have filed separate Form No.7, claiming occupancy right in respect of the land in question. The Land Tribunal, vide order dated 14.11.1981, granted occupancy right in favour of the father of the petitioner, while rejecting the claim of the father of Respondent Nos.2 to 4. The said order was challenged in W.P.No.20218 of 1981 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 16.06.1982, and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal by quashing the order already passed. 5. The Land Tribunal once again held an enquiry and passed an order dated 16.11.1988, again granting occupancy right only in favour of the father of the petitioner, which was challenged in W.P.No.26518 of 1991 by the respondents. The said writ petition was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6109 WP No. 103596 of 2014 allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. However, once again, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in favour of the petitioner vide an order dated 26.05.2001. The respondents have filed W.P.No.37389 of 2004 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be allowed vide an order dated 08.07.2009, quashing the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal and directing the Land Tribunal to grant occupancy right to the extent of 8 acres each in Survey No.119 of Hole Itagi Village in favour of the petitioner and Respondent No.4. 6. The petitioner has challenged the said order by preferring an appeal in W.A.No.6411 of 2009. Admittedly, the said writ appeal came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2011. 7. It is stated that the Land Tribunal has not yet passed any order as directed by this Court in W.P.No.37389 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6109 WP No. 103596 of 2014 of 2004. But, in the meantime, Respondent No.1 had issued Form No.10 produced as per Annexure-A, which is called in question in this writ petition. 8. As per Section 55 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the Tahsildar is authorized to issue certificate only on receipt of the final orders passed by the Land Tribunal under Sub-Section 4 or 5 of Section 48A and not otherwise. When admittedly, the Land Tribunal has not passed any order after its orders were already quashed by this Court, the Tahsildar is not authorized to issue the Form No.10. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Annexure-A issued by the Tahsildar without the support of the order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy right, is liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6109 WP No. 103596 of 2014 ii. Form No.10 dated 12.02.2014 in File No.TNC/SR/101+133/Hole-Itagi, issued by respondent No.1, vide Annexure-A, is quashed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5