- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4196 WP No. 67278 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 67278 OF 2011 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. LAXMAN SATYAPPA MANNIKERI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, SATYAPPA S/O. LAXMAN MANNIKERI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, SMT. LAKKAWWA SATYAPPA MANNIKERI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. SMT. TANGEVVA RANGAPPA UPPAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 3. SMT. MAYAVVA W/O. SADAPPA GOTURE, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 4. KALLAPPA S/O. SATYAPPA MANNIKERI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 5. BHIMAPPA S/O. SATYAPPA MANNIKERI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 6. MARUTI S/O SATYAPPA MANNIKERI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, (PETITIONER NOS. 1 TO 6 ARE RESIDENT OF KATAKBHAVI VILLAGE, V N BADIGER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4196 WP No. 67278 of 2011 TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. PETITIONER NO.1D. IS GPA HOLDER FOR PETITIONERS NOS. 1A TO 1C AND 1E TO 1F AND REPRESENT THE SAID PETITIONERS) 7. NINGAPPA S/O. LAXMAN MANNIKERI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KATAKBHAVI VILLAGE, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TO GOVT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, RAIBAG BY ITS CHAIRMAN, RAIBAG – 591317. 3. VENKATESH GANGADHAR DESHPANDE, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. HANUMANTH RAO DESHPANDE, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O ALIGAWADI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 4. MAHADEV S/O. HANUMANTH RAO DESHPANDE, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. ALIGAWADI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 5. ASHOK S/O. HANUMANTH RAO DESHPANDE, AGE: 56 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4196 WP No. 67278 of 2011 OCC: SERVICE, R/O.ALIGAWADI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 6. PRAKASH S/O. HANUMANTHRAO DESHPANDE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. ALIGAWADI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 7. DEELIP S/O. HANUMANTHRAO DESHPANDE, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. ALIGAWADI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 8. SRI. SURESH S/O. VENKATESH DESHPANDE, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALIGAWADI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 9. PAWADI S/O. YAMMANNAPPA MUDALGI, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, SRI. KRISHNA S/O. YAMMANNAPPA MUDALGI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KATAKBHAVI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 10. SRI. SHANKAR S/O. YAMMANNAPPA MUDALAGI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KATAKABHAVI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 11. SRI. UMESH S/O. YAMMANNAPPA MUDALGI, AGE: 32 YEARS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4196 WP No. 67278 of 2011 R/O. KATAKABHAVI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 12. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O. YAMMANNAPPA MUDALGI, AGE: 31 YEARS, R/O. KATAKABHAVI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 13. SRI. BHIMAPPA S/O. YAMMANNAPPA MUDALGI, AGE: 29 YEARS, R/O. KATAKABHAVI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 14. SRI. RANGAPPA S/O. YAMMANNAPPA MUDALGI, AGE: 27 YEARS, R/O. KATAKABHAVI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 15. SRI. BHARMA S/O. PAWADI MUDALGI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KATAKABHAVI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 15(a) UDDAVVA W/O. BHARAMAPPA MUDALAGI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NAGANURU VILLAGE, ARABHAMVI HOBLI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DT: BELAGAVI- 591224. 15(b) NINGAVVA W/O. GANGAPPA KOLI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NAGANURU VILLAGE, ARABHAMVI HOBLI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591224. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4196 WP No. 67278 of 2011 15(c) MALLAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA BABALI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NAGANURU VILLAGE, ARABHAMVI HOBLI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591224. 16. SHIVGOWDA S/O. PAWADI MUDALGI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADALAGI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA R1 & R2; SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R10, R9, R11 TO R14 R15(A) TO R15(C) & R16; (VK NOT FILED IN R/O OF R11 TO R14) R3, R5, R6, R8 ARE SERVED; R4 & R7 DELETED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.08.2011 IN NO.T.N.C/S.R.NO.452/121/ KATAKBHAVI/DEVAPURHATTI PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, RAIBAG VIDE ANNEXURE-H, IN SO FOR AS GRANTING OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT OF 4 ACRES AND AT SOUTHERN SIRSI IN FAVOUR OF 4TH RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4196 WP No. 67278 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 18.08.2011, passed by the land Tribunal, Raibag produced as per Annexure- H, granting occupancy rights in respect of 4 acres land (southern portion) in Sy.No.108/1 of Ktakabhavi village, in favour of respondent No.4. 2. Heard Sri.Laxman T Mantagani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.Sanjay S Katageri, learned counsel for caveator respondent No.10 and respondent Nos.9, 11 to 14, 15(A) to 15(c) and 16. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Laxman Satyappa Mannikeri, being the father of petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 was the tenant in respect of 11.26 acres of land in Sy.No.108/1 of Ktakabhavi village and he has claimed occupancy rights in respect of same before the land Tribunal, Raibag. The land Tribunal considered the application filed by Laxman Satyappa Mannikeri and passed the order as per Annexure-D dated - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4196 WP No. 67278 of 2011 01.01.1982, granting only 7.26 acres of land and remaining 4 acres of land in favour of the rival claimant Yamanappa i.e. predecessor in title of respondent Nos.9 to 14, 15(A) to (C) and 16. The order was challenged by Laxman Satyappa Mannikeri by filing the Writ Petition No.7501/1982. The said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The land Tribunal after considering the materials on record, passed the order dated 05.03.1992 as per Annexure-E and granted the entire land measuring 11.26 acres in favour of Laxman Satyappa Mannikeri. The land Tribunal referred to the materials that are placed before it by Laxman Satyappa Mannikeri for conferring occupancy rights in his favour. Thereafter, respondent No.9 challenged the said order- Annexure–E before this Court by preferring WP No.13526/1992. This Court has allowed the writ petition by remanding the matter to the land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the land Tribunal has once again taken into consideration the materials on record and has proceed to pass the impugned order dated 30.06.2005 as per Annexure-F, granting only 7.26 acres in favour of Laxman Satyappa Mannikeri, and granting 4 acres of land in favour Yamanappa Mudalagi. It is noticed that as per - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4196 WP No. 67278 of 2011 Annexure-F, the chairman of the land Tribunal was of the opinion that Laxman Satyappa Mannikeri was the tenant in respect of the entire 11.26 acres of land. However, as per majority opinion, the order as per Annexure-F was passed. This order was again challenged before this Court by preferring WP No.18713/2005. The said writ petition was allowed as per Annexure-G and the matter was once again remanded back to the land Tribunal to consider the claim of Laxman Satyappa Mannikeri in respect of 4 acres of land which was granted in favour of Yamanappa Mudalagi. In spite of that the land Tribunal again proceeded to confer occupancy rights in respect of 4 acres of land in favour of Yamanappa Mudalagi without there being any materials to substantiate his claim. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the revenue records at an undisputed point of time disclose that the name of Laxman Satyappa Mannikeri is entered as cultivator in Column No.12 and such entry was found since 1964-1965, but the name of Yamanappa Mudalagi was found only in column No.11 i.e. in the column which was meant to mention other rights and charges. Even though there is reference to the same - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4196 WP No. 67278 of 2011 in Annexure-F and Annexure-G, the land Tribunal ignoring those materials passed the impugned order. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents i.e. respondent Nos.9, 11 to 14, 15 (A) to (C) and 16 submits that as per Annexure-R2 record of rights for the year 1948-49, it was Pawadi Tippana Mudalgi, the father of Yamanappa Mudalagi, who was in occupation and cultivation of entire the 11.26 acres of land, and he was a protected tenant. Thus his name continued till 1953-54. Suddenly, during 1958-59 name of Laxman Satyappa Mannikeri came to be entered in respect of 11.26 acres of land without any basis. However, Tippana Mudalagi and thereafter his son Yamanappa continue to cultivate 4 acres of land on the southern side. 6. He further submits that the Special Tahsildar, Raibag held spot inspection and the spot inspection report is as per Annexure-R6 dated 30.12.1981. While holding spot inspection, the Special Tahsildar has recorded the statements of two neighbouring cultivators who have stated in unequivocal terms that 7.26 acres of land is being cultivated by Laxman Satyappa - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4196 WP No. 67278 of 2011 Mannikeri, whereas the remaining 4 acres on the southern side is being cultivated by Yamunappa Mudalagi and his brothers. 7. Learned counsel also submits that statement of Yamanappa Mudalagi was recorded by the land Tribunal wherein he has categorically stated regarding the cultivation of 4 acres of land by him. But, there is no cross examination to this witness. Under such circumstance, the land Tribunal was right in conferring occupancy right in respect of 4 acres of land. 8. Learned AGA supporting the impugned order passed by the land Tribunal, produced the original records from the land Tribunal, Raibag for perusal of the court and contented that based on the record of rights and statements of the witnesses, the land Tribunal has formed an opinion to confer occupancy rights in respect of 4 acres of land in favour of Yamanappa Mudalagi, and there is no error or illegality in the said order. 9. On perusal of the materials on record including the original records from the land Tribunal, it is found that in the record of rights for the year 1948-49, the name of Pawadi Thippanna Mudalagi was found to be as a protected tenant in respect of 11.26 acres of land, and his name continued till 1953- 54. But during 1958-59, the name of Laxman Satyappa - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4196 WP No. 67278 of 2011 Mannikeri was entered in respect of 11.26 acres as the tenant. It is stated that Laxman Satyappa Mannikeri and Yamanappa Mudalagi were relatives, and the same is stated by Yamanappa Mudalagi in his statement that was recorded by the land Tribunal which is produced as per Annexure-R6 by the contesting respondents. Strangely, this statement of Yamanappa Mudalagi, who states that he was in cultivation of 4 acres of land as tenant as on the appointed day was not subjected to cross examination. Moreover, at the time of spot inspection by the Special Tahsildar held on 30/12/1981, the statements of two neighbouring cultivators were recorded who have categorically stated that it was Yamanappa Mudalagi and his brothers who are cultivating 4 acres of land as tenants. When these materials on record are taken into consideration, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the land Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhimappa Channappa Kapali V/s. Bhimappa Satyappa Kamagouda, 1 in support of his contention that there must be documentary proof to prove that the land in question was being cultivated as tenants. In the 1 2003(2) Kar L R 148 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4196 WP No. 67278 of 2011 absence of such documents, the land Tribunal was not right in conferring occupancy rights. 11. The facts and circumstances considered under the judgement are entirely different. In the present case, contesting respondents produced copy of record of rights at an undisputed point of time i.e. during 1948-49, 1953-54 showing the name of Pawadi Tippanna Mudalagi, the father of Yamanappa Mudalagi as protected tenant. Later the name of Laxman Satyappa Mannikeri came to be entered in the record of rights from the year 1958- 59. However, the statement of witnesses recorded by the Special Tashildar, and also the statement of Yamanappa Mudalagi recorded by the land Tribunal who was not subjected to cross examination disclose that he was cultivating 4 acres of land on the southern side as tenant. 12. It is to be noted that the matter was remanded to the land Tribunal by this Court on three different occasions. On all such occasions, the land Tribunal consistently formed an opinion that Yamanappa Mudalagi and his family members were cultivating 4 acres of land on the southern side, and the remaining 7.26 acres was being cultivated by Laxman Satyappa Mannikeri. When such an opinion was consistently formed by the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4196 WP No. 67278 of 2011 land Tribunal, I do not find any ground to set aside the impugned order. At least at some point of time, the dispute between the parties is to be put at rest. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46