- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 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.102295 OF 2023 (LR) BETWEEN: SANGAPPA BADAVADAGI SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S. BASAVARAJ KARISANGAPPA BADAVADAGI SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S. 1 SMT. SHIVABAI BASAVARAJ BADAWADAGI, W/O. BASAVARAJ BADAWADAGI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: WARD NO.8, HUNGUND TALUK, HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587102. 2 SRI. VIJAYMAHANTESH BASAVARJ BADAWADAGI, S/O. BASAVARAJ BADAWADAGI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.8, HUNGUND TALUK, HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587102. 3 SRI. RAJKUMAR BASAVARJ BADAWADAGI, S/O. BASAVARAJ BADAWADAGI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: WARD NO.8, HUNGUND TALUK, HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587102. 4 SRI. SHIVAKUMAR BASAVARJ BADAWADAGI, S/O. BASAVARAJ BADAWADAGI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: WARD NO.8, HUNGUND TALUK, HUNGUND, BAGALKOT DISTRICT -587102. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 5 SRI. SHASHIDHAR BASAVARJ BADAWADAGI, S/O. BASAVARAJ BADAWADAGI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: SERIVCE, R/O: KOPPAL NEAR GUNJ CIRCE, TALUK & DISTRICT KOPPAL-583231. 6 SMT. KAMALAKSHI W/O. SHRISHAILAPPA PATTANASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE. R/O. IRKALGUDDA, TALUK & DISTRICT KOPPAL-583231. 7 SMT. MEENAKSHI BASAVARJ PATTANASHETTY W/O. BASAVARJ PATTANASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: IRKALGUDDA, TALUK & DISTRICT KOPPAL -583231. 8 SMT. SAVITRI W/O. MAHALINGAPPA BANDARAGAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. CHIKKA KODAGALI, TALUK HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587102. 9 SMT. BHAGIRATHI W/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SECTOR NO.62, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587102. 10 SHIVABAI W/O. VASAPPA MOTAGI, AGED: 48 YEARS, OCC: R/O. HANUMASAGAR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT- 587102. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADV.) AND: 1. LAND TRIBUNAL, HUNGUND, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HUNAGUND – 587102. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 SHIVAKKA W/O. ERASANGAPPA KODAGALI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. GURUBASAPPA S/O. ERASANGAPPA BANDARAGALLA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. 2. KALAVATI W/O. GURUBASAPPA BANDRAGAL AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 3. RESHMA W/O. AMARESHA BANDRAGAL AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 4. SHILPA W/O. GAVISIDDAPPA KARADI AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 5. SHYAVAKKA W/O. MALLANNA DEVAR AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 6. MANJULA W/O. VISHWANATH YALIGAR AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 7. SHRUTI D/O. GURUBASAPPA BANDRAGAL AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 8. PRATIBHA D/O. GURUBASAPPA BANDRAGAL AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 9. SANGAMESH S/O. GURUBASAPPA BANDRAGAL AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KARADI VILLAGE, TALUK: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587102.. 10. MAHALINGAPPA S/O. ERASANGAPPA BANDARAGALLA AGED: 26 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 11. BASAMMA D/O. ERASANGAPP BANDARAGALLA AGED: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE. 12. RENAVVA DODDANAGOUDA MELAGOUDARA, AGED: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE. ALL ARE R/O. HUNGUND, BAGALKOT – 587102. BASAPPA NUNIGAPPA BADAVADAGI SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 13. SRI. MURIGEPPA S/O. BASAPPA BADAWADAGI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O. HUNGUND, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587102. 14. SRI. SHIVAPPA S/O. BASAPPA BADAWADAGI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O. HUNGUND, BAGALKOT DISTRICT -587102. 15. SRI. AMARESH S/O. BASAPPA BADAWADAGI, OCC: BUSINESS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. HUNGUND, BAGALKOT DISTRICT – 587102. 16. SRI. HALAPPA S/O. BASAPPA BADAWADAGI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HUNGUND, BAGALKOT DISTRICT – 587102. 17. SMT. MUREGEWWA W/O. SANGAPPA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HUNGUND, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587102. 18. SMT. NAGAWWA W/O. SANGAPPA NARASAPUR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NAGUR, HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587102. 19. SMT. SHARANAWWA D/O. BASAPPA BADAWADAGI, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HUNGUND, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587102 20. KARISANGAPPA BASAPPA BADAWADAGI AGED ABOUT: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNGUND, BAGALKOT DISTRICT -587102 (GURUSANGAPPA CHANNASANGAPPA BADAVADAGI. SINCE DEAD BY LR’S.) 21. NEELAVVA GURUSANGAPPA BADAVADAGI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. # 434/C, LINGARAJ NAGAR, WARD NO; 17, HUNGUND, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. 22. RENUKA BASAVAJ DANNOUR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: BAIRAMATTI, HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587102. 23. SMT. SHARANAMMA VEERESHA KURTHKOTTI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SANGAMESWARA ONI, WARD NO.2, HUNGUND, BAGALKOT DISTRICT – 587102. 24. BASAVARAJ GURUSANGAPPA BADAVADAGI. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. # 434/C, LINGARAJ NAGAR, WARD NO; 17, HUNGUND, BAGALKOT DISTRICT – 587102. JAGADESHA BASAPPA DUDDAGI. SINCE DEAD BY LR’S. 25. SMT. ANUPAMA W/O. JAGADEESHA DUDDAGI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE. 26. AVINASH S/O. JAGADEESHA DUDDAGI AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 27. SANGEETA D/O. JAGADEESHA DUDDAGI AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. ALL ARE R/O OLD KEB OFFICE, GAJENDRAGADA, TALUK RON, DISTRICT GADAG-582102. MAHANTHESHA (MAHESHA) BASAPPA DODDAGI. SHARANAPPA KALAPPA DODDAGI SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 28. KUSUMAMMA W/O. SHANTAPPA KALAPPA DUDDAGI. SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LRS. RESPONDENT NOS.25 TO 27 AND 30. 29. JAGADESH S/O. SHANTAPPA KALAPPA DUDDAGI. SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS. RESPONDENT NOS.25 TO 27. 30. MAHESH S/O. SHANTAPPA KALAPPA DUDDAGI. AGE: 47, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO.8, HUNGUND, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587102. 31. ARUN S/O. SHANTAPPA KALAPPA DUDDAGI AGE: 42, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WARD NO.8, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587102. 32. BASAPPA KODLAPPA GANJEHALA AGE: 70, OCC: CHIRMAN VEERASAIVA TARUNA SANGHA, HUNGUNDA R/O. WARD NO.8, HUNGUND, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587102. 33. BASAPPA DODDAPPA NAGARAHALA AGE:72, OCC: CHAIRMAN, BASAVESWARA DEVARU, HUNGUNDA R/O. WARD NO.8, HUNGUND, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587102. Petition against respondent Nos.32 and 33 is dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2024 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 34. BASAPPA KODLAPPA GANJEHALA AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: CHAIRMAN, BASAVESWARA DEVARU, HUNGUNDA. R/O. WARD NO.8, HUNGUND, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587102. 35. SHARASCHANDRA S/O. BALASAHEB SARADESAI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T. HANUMAREDY, AGA FOR R1; SHRI SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADV. FOR R35; NOTICE TO R30 - SERVED; SHRI J.S. SHETTY, ADV. FOR R31; NOTICE TO R8-SERVED; NOTICE TO R12, R17, R23 - HELD SUFFICIENT; R28 & R29 –DECEASED R32 & R33 – PETITION IS DISMISSED AS ABATED; R34 - DELETED; R2, R3, R9, R13 TO R15, R18 TO R22 AND R24 – SERVED; R25 TO R27 ARE LR’S OF DECEASED R29; R25 – 27, 30 & 31 ARE LR’S OF DECEASED R28; NOTICE TO R4 TO R7 AND R25 TO R27 – HELD SUFFICIENT; NOTICE TO R10, R11 AND R16 – SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION, OR WRIT, IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2023 BEARING NO.KLR/SR- 1336+2951+2592/HUNGUND, BEVINAMATTI, HUNGUND, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE -A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Respondent No.34 is deleted vide order dated 12.03.2024 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 14.02.2023 passed by respondent No.1 – the Land Tribunal, Hungund, produced as per Annexure-A. 2. Heard Shri Mrutyunjaya S. Hallikeri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri Santosh B. Malligawad, learned counsel for respondent No.35. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that one Karisangappa, who is the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, Basappa who is predecessor in interest of respondent Nos.13 to 20, and Gurusangappa, that is the predecessor in interest of respondent Nos.21 to 24, have filed three different Form Nos.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the disputed lands at Sy.No.498, Sy.No.83/2 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 and Sy.No.76/2. It is stated that respondent Nos.2 to 12 and 25 to 35 were the different branches of the original landlords. The Land Tribunal held enquiry and passed an order holding that it is only Karisangappa was the tenant in respect of the lands, and ordered for conferring occupancy rights. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal rejected Form No.7 filed by Basappa and Gurusangappa. 4. In the meantime, Basappa and Gurusangappa filed the suit O.S.No.10/1983 before the Civil Court seeking partition and separate possession of the properties against Karisangappa, claiming that they are his brothers, and they are entitled for share in the properties. The suit came to be dismissed by the Trial Court accepting the contention taken by Karisangappa that, Basappa and Gurusangappa are the separated brothers, and they are not entitled for any share in the lands, in respect of which, the occupancy right was granted in his favour. 5. The said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was challenged before this Court in RFA - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 No.478/1991, which came to be dismissed. SLP No.18693/2001 preferred before the Apex Court also came to be dismissed. So, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.10/1983 dismissing the suit of Basappa and Gurusangappa was confirmed, and it has attained finality. 6. In the meantime, Basappa and Gurusangappa challenged the order of the Land Tribunal before this Court by filing W.P.No.10405/1976. The said writ petition came to be allowed vide order dated 24.10.1978 and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal, once again held an enquiry and passed an order granting occupancy rights jointly in the names of Karisangappa, Basappa and Gurusangappa. 7. I find considerable force in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this order of the Land Tribunal directing issuance of occupancy rights jointly in the names of three persons was ignoring the decree of the civil court passed in O.S.No.10/1983, where a categorical finding was recorded that, Basappa and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 Gurusangappa were the separated brothers, and they are not entitled for any share in the disputed properties, that too, when the decree has reached finality up to the Apex Court. 8. 8. The petitioners once again filed W.P.No.20467/2003, which came to be allowed vide order dated 17.11.2021 produced as per Annexure-B, wherein this Court referring to the finding of the civil court categorically held that there was no joint family, and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the lands were being cultivated by the joint family cannot be accepted. Thus, the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained, and therefore, the order of the Land Tribunal was quashed. It was also ordered that, since the Civil Court has already held that the claim of Basappa and Gurusangappa over the property in question were not tenable and it is only the legal representatives of Karisangappa, who are in possession of the suit property, the Land Tribunal was directed to register the land in the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 names of the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner, that is, Karisangappa, Sangappa Badavadagi. The Land Tribunal was directed to complete this exercise within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 9. In spite of the above, the Land Tribunal passed the impugned order produced as per Annexure-A. The Land Tribunal formed an opinion that the petitioners being the legal representatives of original tenant Karisangappa, are entitled only to an extent of 54 acres of land and the remaining extent is the excess land. However, by majority opinion of the members, the excess land measuring 22.20 acres at Sy.No.498 was ordered to be given back to the legal representatives of the original owner, i.e., deceased Babasaheb Sirdesai. However, the Assistant Commissioner recorded his opinion that this excess land of 22.20 acres is to be recorded in the name of the Government. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this court. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.35 submits that, even if, the Land Tribunal holds an enquiry to find out the extent of the excess land, there will be excess land available for re-grant in favour of the landlord. However, if the Land Tribunal finds that the land holder holds excess land, and if the tenant is called upon to surrender the excess land in accordance with law, after following the due process, the excess land is to be surrendered by the tenant. Then only the right of the owner to seek re-grant of the same will arise. Therefore, at this stage, the contention of respondent No.35 that, he was in occupation of the said portion of excess land cannot be accepted. 11. The Land Reforms Act prescribes the procedure to find out the excess land held by the holder of the land. Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, deals with the grant of land in certain cases. The second proviso to Section 77A of the KLR Act prescribes a cap on the grant of such lands. When the land so granted together with the land already held by such person - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 exceeds 2 hectares of D Class land, or its equivalent. If the land held by such applicant, along with the land granted, does not exceed 2 hectares of D Class land or its equivalent, then there cannot be any difficulty. However, if it exceeds, it can be said that, such holding will exceed the ceiling limit, and an inquiry will have to be held to determine the extent of the land that exceeds the ceiling limit, for which the procedure as contemplated under Section 67 of the KLR Act is to be followed. 12. As per Section 67(4) of the KLR Act, even if the person concerned does not file the statement as required, within the prescribed period, the Tribunal may itself select the land which shall be surrendered by the person concerned, and pass an order to that effect. Subsection 3A of Section 67 of the KLR Act, gives the option to the tenant to select the land they propose to surrender. Therefore, an inquiry will have to be conducted by the Tribunal, before holding that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of the land. Even after the grant of the land, as - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 sought by the petitioner, if the total holding exceeds the ceiling limit, the procedure as contemplated under Section 67 of the KLR Act is to be followed, which the Tribunal has failed to follow. 13. Prime facie, the Land Tribunal has not held any enquiry by following the procedure as contemplated under the KLR Act but proceeded to form an opinion unanimously that 22.20 acres of land is the excess land. I do not find any justification for the same. Still worse is the situation where the members on majority decision ordered to give back the excess land measuring 22.20 acres to the legal representatives of the original landlord. This order of the Land Tribunal, as per majority opinion, cannot be accepted on any count. 14. The order impugned discloses that the Assistant Commissioner was pressurized by the members of the Land Tribunal to pass such an order hurriedly without holding proper enquiry to find out the excess land in accordance with law. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 the order impugned is to be set aside to the extent to which the Land Tribunal has held that, it is excess land in the hands of the tenant, ordering it to be given back to the legal representatives of Babasaheb Sirdesai, or to treat it as excess land in the hands of the Government. However, conferring occupancy right in favour of the petitioners in respect of 54 acres of land is to be confirmed. 15. It is also pertinent to note that, the respondents who are the legal representatives of the original owners including respondent No.35 had never challenged the order of the Land Tribunal at any point of time, since the beginning. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that, the writ petition is to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER (i) Writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) It is made clear that conferring occupancy rights in favour of the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 petitioners in respect of 54 acres of land as per the impugned order is confirmed. (iii) The order impugned, dated 14.02.2023 passed by Land Tribunal, Hungund, produced as per Annexure-A is quashed only in so far as forming the opinion that 22.20 acres of land is the excess land, which either is to be handed over to the legal representatives of Babasaheb Sirdesai, or to be treated as excess land in the hands of the Government. (iv) The Land Tribunal is directed to hold fresh enquiry to find out as to whether there is an excess land in the hands of the holder, and if so, what is the extent of the excess land, to be surrendered by the tenant, by following the procedure as contemplated under law. (v) If the Land Tribunal finds after holding enquiry that, there is excess land respondent No.35 can exercise his rights to seek re- grant of the land again in accordance with law. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6458 WP No. 102295 of 2023 (vi) Since the matter is pending for consideration for decades, the Land Tribunal, Hungund, is directed to expedite the matter and to dispose of the same at the earliest, at least within six months from the date of appearance of the parties. (vii) The parties are directed to appear before the Land Tribunal, Hungund, on 20.05.2025, without waiting for fresh notice. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM,VB CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15