- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15827 WP No. 65045 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.65045 OF 2012 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. 1A. SRI. SURESH S/O. NARAYANACHARYA CHAPPAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., ABHINANDAN S/O SURESH CHAPPAR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD TALUK, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, TAHSILDAR, DHARWAD. 3. SUNDRABAI W/O. RANGACHARYA CHAPPAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., MOHAN S/O. RANGACHARYA CHAPPAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANGALAWAR PETH, NEAR NAGARESHWAR TEMPLE, DHARWAD. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.20 12:45:42 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15827 WP No. 65045 of 2012 4. RAMACHANDRA S/O. SRINIVASACHARYA CHAPPAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., SMT. TULASHI W/O. KRISHNACHARYA MATHAD, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. AMBADAGATTI, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 5. SMT. SHOBHA @ ARATI W/O. VAADIRAJ ATAGUR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. NAGARAKAR COLONY, MENASI PETH, DHARWAD. 6. SRIDHAR S/O. RAMACHANDRA CHAPPAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. II CROSS, KUMBAR ONI, SHUKRAWAR PETH, DHARWAD. 7. SMT. BANASHANKARI W/O. VIJAYAKUMAR KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE MAKER, R/O. NEAR SYNDICATE BANK, BELGAUM. 8. SHRIKANT RAMACHANDRA CHAPPAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BAKKAVANA ONI, SHUKRAWAR PETH, DHARWAD. 9. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. SRINIVASACHARYA CHAPPAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., SHRINIVASA S/O. RAGHAVENDRA CHAPPAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVARAHUBBLLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. 10. BALAVANTH S/O. SRINIVASACHARYA CHAPPAR, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC: NIL, C/O. RAMAMURTHY HOUSE, NEAR GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHIKKALASANDRA, BENGALURU. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15827 WP No. 65045 of 2012 11. HANUMANTH S/O. SRINIVASACHARYA CHAPPAR, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O. II CROSS, III MAIN ROAD, BEHIND BHATA SHOW ROOM, SHRINIVASA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050. 12. RADHABAI W/O. SRINIVASACHARYA CHAPPAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S., SMT. SUSHILABAI W/O. BHIMRAO SAMOPATI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, III CROSS, YALAKKI SHETTAR COLONY, DHARWAD. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6, R8, R9 TO R12; SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R4 AND R7 ARE SERVED; V/O/DATED 29.08.2013 R10 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE, A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07.03.1988 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD, IN CASE NO.KLR/NARAYANADEVARAKOPPA/LR.19 VIDE ANNEXURE- C AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15827 WP No. 65045 of 2012 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. This petition is filed assailing order dated 07.03.1988 passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Dharwad. 2. In terms of order dated 07.03.1988, an application under Form No.1 seeking regrant filed by the deceased petitioner herein/Suresh Narayanacharya Chappar, is rejected. 3. To a pointed question put by the Court as to why there is delay in filing the writ petition challenging the order dated 07.03.1988, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, challenging the said order, an appeal was filed in the year 1988 itself before the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad in Appeal No.224 of 1988. Before the matter was adjudicated by the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15827 WP No. 65045 of 2012 Appellate Authority was abolished; and in the year 2011, the petitioner came to know that Form No.7A is filed in respect of the property in question and thereafter, he realised that the Form No.1 which is agitated before the Appellate Authority is not adjudicated on merits. 4. It is further submission that Form No.7A filed by the applicant is rejected and the petition is filed challenging the order rejecting Form No.1 seeking regrant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would support the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.3 that respondent No.3 had filed Form No.1 seeking re-grant to the extent of his share and same is rejected on the premise that impugned order is passed rejecting the Form No.1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15827 WP No. 65045 of 2012 filed by the petitioner's father and thereafter, respondent No.3 filed a writ petition challenging the order rejecting his Form No.1. The said writ petition No.86138/2013 is dismissed by this Court and thereafter, an appeal is filed in W.A.No.100889/2014. In the said appeal, the liberty was granted to present respondent No.3 to implead himself in present writ petition to challenge the order dated 07.03.1988, which is the basis for rejection of Form No.1 filed by respondent No.3. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent-State would defend the impugned order on the premise that the Land Tribunal has rightly rejected Form No.1, as the applicant has not produced any records to show that he was cultivating the land immediately before the cut-off date. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the petition is hit by delay and latches. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15827 WP No. 65045 of 2012 8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father filed Form No.1 seeking re-grant to certain extent of land and respondent No.3 filed Form No.1 seeking re-grant of certain extent of petition land. The Form No.1 filed by the petitioner's father was rejected in terms of the impugned order. Later, Form No.1 filed by respondent No.3 is rejected on the ground that the Form No.1 filed by the petitioner's father is rejected. 10. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.100889 of 2014, had permitted respondent No.3 to participate in the present proceeding to assail the impugned order, which is assailed by the petitioner. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15827 WP No. 65045 of 2012 11. Admittedly, the impugned order is passed on 07.03.1988 and in the year 1988 itself, an appeal is filed by the petitioner before the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad. By amending the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the Appellate Authority was abolished. Appeal filed by the deceased petitioner before the Appellate Authority, was not returned by the Government to enable the appellant to question the same before the appropriate forum. It is only in the year 2011, when the Form No.7A application was filed by some other persons seeking occupancy in respect of the petition property, the petitioner was notified; he contested the matter and Form No.7A application filed by the third party was rejected. Thus, the writ petition is filed in the year 2012. The Court is of the view that the petitioner has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15827 WP No. 65045 of 2012 12. That being the position, the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, more so, in a situation when the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is not a speaking order, and records produced before the Court that petitioner’s claim is not appreciated in proper perspective. 13. In terms of the impugned order, the Land Tribunal has held that the petitioner has not produced the records to show that, who are the legal representatives in respect of the petition property and no documents are produced relating to the cultivation. 14. Before this Court, a memo is filed along with the documents. The records would reveal that from the year 1965-1966 onwards, the names of the propositus Balacharya, are mentioned. It appears that these documents were not placed before the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15827 WP No. 65045 of 2012 Land Tribunal when the matter was heard in the year 1988. 15. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The impugned order dated 07.03.1988 passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Dharwad at Annexure-C is set-aside. iii. The matter is remitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal for further consideration. iv. The Tribunal shall issue notice to all the concerned parties and thereafter, hold inquiry as contemplated under law and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15827 WP No. 65045 of 2012 v. Since the Form No.1 filed by respondent No.3 is dismissed on the premise that Form No.1 filed by the deceased petitioner is rejected, the order rejecting petitioner's Form No. 1 is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal, the Form No.1 filed by respondent No.3 shall also be considered on merits. vi. It is also noticed that Rule 11 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 is amended by extending the time to claim occupancy by filing Form No.1 and time is extended from 18.01.2022. Thus, the application filed by the petitioner is in time. vii. It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM/- CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 5