- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6096-DB WA No. 100147 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100147 OF 2023 (LR) BETWEEN: ANANDEVVA W/O. YALLAPPA BOMBRI, AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 185 PATIL GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590003. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVIRAJ C.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01. 3. YASHODABAI W/O. LAXMAN HOSURKAR, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. UNKNOWN, R/O. HOUSE NO.252, KORAVI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590005. (R-3 DIED DURING PENDENCY OF WRIT PROCEEDINGS AND ALL LR’S ARE ALREADY ON RECORD R4 TO R7) 4. MANOHAR S/O. LAXMAN HOSURKAR, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. UNKNOWN, R/O. HOUSE NO.252, KORAVI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590005. 5. SUBHASH S/O. LAXMAN HOSURKAR, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. UNKNOWN, R/O. HOUSE NO.252, KORAVI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590005. 6. MALLAPPA S/O. LAXMAN HOSURKAR, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6096-DB WA No. 100147 of 2023 AGE. MAJOR, OCC. UNKNOWN, R/O. HOUSE NO.252, KORAVI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590005. 7. RENUKA W/O. ASHOK HOSURKAR, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. UNKNOWN, R/O. HOUSE NO.252, KORAVI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590005. 8. KEDAR S/O. MARUTI HOSURKAR, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. UNKNOWN, R/O. HOUSE NO.252, KORAVI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590005. 9. SHIRISH S/O. YALLAPPA HOSURKAR, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. UNKNOWN, R/O. HOUSE NO.252, KORAVI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590005. 10. SIDDAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA SANADI, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOUSE NO.185, PATIL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590003. 11. RAMACHANDRA S/O. BHIMAPPA SANADI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOUSE NO.185, PATIL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590003. 12. FAKIRAWWA W/O. BALAPPA BOMBRI, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. UNKNOWN, R/O. HOUSE NO.185, PATIL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R9; BRINGING LR’S OF DECEASED R3 IS DISPENSED WITH; R10 TO R12-SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO II) ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.8546/2007 VIDE ORDER DATED 02.09.2022; II) CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN NR-194 DATED 07.11.2006 AND ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6096-DB WA No. 100147 of 2023 THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1963, by the appellant/petitioner No.3, challenging the order dated 02.09.2022, passed in W.P No.8546/2007, whereunder, the writ petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. The sole contention urged by learned counsel Sri. Raviraj C. Patil for the appellant is that the lands were leased in favour of the respondents contrary to the prohibition contained under the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 18741. 3. Learned counsel Sri. K. L. Patil appearing for the respondents files a memo placing on record copies of 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1874’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6096-DB WA No. 100147 of 2023 the orders passed in W.A No.155/1992, W.P No.4393/1998 and W.A No.1636/2001. It is forthcoming that in the earlier round of litigation between the same parties in W.P No.4393/1998, a similar contention as is urged in the present appeal was put forth and the learned Single Judge relying on the order dated 16.11.1995, passed in W.A No.155/1992, rejected the contention put forth that the lease was in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1874 and allowed the writ petition. The order dated 19.02.2001, passed in W.P No.4393/1998, has been affirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.11.1995, passed in W.A No.155/1992. 4. In view of the contention that is put forth in the present appeal, having been adjudicated upon in the earlier round of litigation as noticed above, the said contention is liable to be rejected. 5. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6096-DB WA No. 100147 of 2023 6. In view of dismissal of writ appeal, pending I.A’s, if any, does not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4