- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6145 WP No. 105560 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. 105560 OF 2014 (LR) BETWEEN: MR. SIDDAPPA S KUNDARAGI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O. MR. SHIVAPPA KUNDARGI, SHIVAPUR (HALLUR), TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, BAILHONGAL SUB DIVISION, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM. 2. MR. RAMAPPA Y. RADARATTI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O. MR. YALLAPPA V. RADARATTI SHIVAPUR (HALLUR) TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. 3. SMT. BHIMAVVA Y. RADARATTI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O. YALLAPPA V. RADARATTI, SHIVAPUR (HALLUR), TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6145 WP No. 105560 of 2014 4. MR. KRISHNAGOUDA A. DESAI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O. MR. ALLAPPA DESAI, HUNAGUNDI, TAL: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 5. MR. SHANKARAGOUDA A. DESAI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. ALLAPPA DESAI, HUNAGUNDI, TAL: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SMT. AMRUTA S. SULAKHE AND SRI. MARUTI KARENNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; R4 AND R5 - SERVED) ------ THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE-D, THE ORDER DATED 17TH MAR 2014 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.961/2010 BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, BELGAUM CAMP, AND ANNEXURE-C THE ORDER DATED 24TH FEB 2010, PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL SUB DIVISION, BAILHONGAL, IN KLR/7A/VIVA-1+19/98-99/SHIVAPUR(H), AS NOT SUSTAINABLE. B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT # 1 TO GRANT OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF S.NO.53 OF SHIVAPUR (HALLUR), GOKAK TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT, MEASURING 1 ACRE AND 10 GUNTAS TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6145 WP No. 105560 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 the order dated 17.03.2014, passed in Appeal No.961/2010 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAT', for short), produced as per Annexure-D, and the order dated 24.02.2010, passed by Respondent No.1 - the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, produced as per Annexure-C, and to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner to grant occupancy right in respect of the disputed property. 2. Heard Sri. Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent No.1, Ms.Amruta S. Sulakhe and Sri.Maruti Karennavar, learned counsel for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6145 WP No. 105560 of 2014 respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, Survey No.53, totally measuring 30.30 acres, situated at Shivapur (Hallur) village of Gokak Taluk, was belonging to the family of Respondent Nos.4 and 5. The said land was being cultivated by various tenants. Initially, the predecessors in title of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were cultivating 1.10 acres of land. Later, they handed over the possession of the property back to the landlord. It is thereafter the petitioner got the land and was cultivating the same as tenant. The petitioner has filed Form No.7A seeking grant of the land in his favour. The said Form No.7A was rejected by Respondent No.2 by passing the order produced as per Annexure-C, which was confirmed by KAT by passing the order produced as per Annexure-D. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6145 WP No. 105560 of 2014 4. From the materials on the record, it is revealed that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed Form No.7 in respect of Survey No.53, and the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right in respect of a portion of the land. It is stated that, such grant made by the Land Tribunal was in spite of the statement by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to the effect that they were not cultivating the land in Survey No.53 at any point of time. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that, he had filed the suit in OS No.390 of 2006 against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking permanent injunction. The said suit came to be decreed since the defendants therein have not contested the matter. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that, since the Civil Court has held that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, Respondent No.1 was bound to grant the land in his favour. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6145 WP No. 105560 of 2014 6. Admittedly, none of the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner. He bases his claim for grant of land in question only on the basis of the so-called statement given by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Land Tribunal, where they are said to have stated that they were not in cultivation of Survey No.53. Even if such statement by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 is to be accepted, it will not automatically enure to the benefit of the petitioner to claim the grant in respect of the said land. 7. My attention was drawn to ME No.1491 dated 12.10.1976 regarding vesting of the land with the Government, as the same was a tenanted land. Names of as many as 8 persons are recorded in the record of rights as the persons in occupation and cultivation of the land in question, but the name of the petitioner is not shown in any of the revenue records to suggest that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property as on 01.03.1974. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6145 WP No. 105560 of 2014 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner had produced tax paid receipts before the Assistant Commissioner. In the impugned order, the KAT has assigned the reason that such tax-paid receipts are not helpful to determine the issue for grant of occupancy rights. I do not find any illegality in the said observation made by KAT. In Annexures ‘C’ and ‘D’, the Assistant Commissioner and the KAT, on the basis of the materials produced before them, recorded a finding that none of the revenue records disclose the name of the petitioner to form an opinion that the petitioner was in possession and cultivation of 1.10 acres of land in Survey No.53 of Shivapur (Hallur) Village, as on 01.03.1974. 9. When this finding of Respondent No.1 – Assistant Commissioner and the KAT could not be controverted, as even according to the petitioner, none of the revenue records stand in his name to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6145 WP No. 105560 of 2014 suggest that he was in occupation and cultivation of the land as on the appointed date, I do not find any merit in the petition filed. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7