- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4334 WP No. 61412 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 61412 OF 2012 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. SHRINIVAS S/O. LAXMAN PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAUNSHI CHAWL, GOPANAKOPPA, HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. RAVINDRA S/O. LAXMAN PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAUNSHI CHAWL, GOPANAKOPPA, HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURESH P. HUDEDAGADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAND TRIBUNAL KUNDAGOL TALUKA, KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDAH, BANGALORE – 001. 3. (IMAMSAB S/O. SAIDSAB DARGAD Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4334 WP No. 61412 of 2012 AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAUNSHI, KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD) 3a. SMT. NOORJANBI W/O. SALEEMSAB NANAPUR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SAUNSHI, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 24.01.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT ON I.A.NO.1/2012) 4. GOVING VIRUPAKSHA PATIL AGE: MAJOR, R/O. TIRTAHALLI, TQ & DIST: SHIMOGGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3-DECEASED SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A); SRI. D.M. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT A CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.12.2011, PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL KUNDAGOL, IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.KLR:SR:51/173, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE LAND TRIBUNAL KUNDAGOL TO REJECT THE FORM NO.7, VIDE ANNEXURE-K. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4334 WP No. 61412 of 2012 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal Kundagol, in proceedings bearing No.KLR.SR.51/173 vide Annexure-A and to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Land Tribunal Kundagol to reject Form No.7 vide Annexure-K. 2. Heard Sri Suresh P. Hudedagaddi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri. S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel for respondent No.3(A) and Sri D.M.Manjunath, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Sy.No.499 measuring 23.15 acres, and Sy.No.489/1 measuring 11.03 acres of Saunshi Village, Kundagol Taluk is the disputed land. The petitioners are the owners of Sy.No.499 whereas respondent No.4 is the owner of Sy.No.489/1. The father of respondent No.3 was the tenant of both the properties. However, he surrendered both the lands during 1952. M.E. No.682685 dated 08.07.1952 was effected by deleting the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4334 WP No. 61412 of 2012 name of tenant and entering the name of the landlords both in columns Nos.9 and 12. The mode of cultivation shown in the record of rights as ‘2’ i.e. cultivation through hired laborers. Inspite of that, the father of respondent No.3 started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the landlords. Accordingly, the Long Cause Suit.No.146/1956 came to be filed by the father of the petitioners seeking permanent injunction against the father of respondent No.3. The said suit came to be decreed during 1958 granting permanent injunction against the defendants herein. 4. It is contended that, after the death of his father, respondent No.3 started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by the landlords. Therefore, the father of the petitioners filed the Long-Cause Suit.No.8/1963 seeking permanent injunction against respondent No.3 and his legal representatives. The said suit also came to be decreed in the year 1968 granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Even though such clinching materials are available on record regarding surrendering of the land and occupation of the lands in question by the landlords, the Tribunal has ignored all such material documents and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4334 WP No. 61412 of 2012 proceeded to confer occupancy right in favour of respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that in the impugned order, the Land Tribunal made an observation that the suit filed by the Landlord for permanent injunction against the tenant was dismissed. It is apparently a wrong observation made by the Land Tribunal. The Tribunal has disputed even the revenue receipts produced by the Landlord which is illegal and perverse. The finding of the Land Tribunal, that the owner was not cultivating the land is also without any basis. The revenue records clearly disclose that the land is being cultivated through hired laborers. Under such circumstances, the land had not been vested with the Government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short, ‘KLR Act’). Inspite of all these materials on record, the Land Tribunal accepted the contention of respondent No.3 that he is in cultivation of the land for more than 50 years. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4334 WP No. 61412 of 2012 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate, while opposing the petition, submitted that, in some revenue records, the name of the tenant is found to be in cultivation of the land and therefore, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3(a), opposing the petition, submitted that respondent No.3 and his predecessor in title were in occupation of the disputed land since more than 50 years. The revenue records at an undisputed point of time, disclose the name of the tenant. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly formed an opinion that respondent No.3 was the tenant in cultivation of the land at the relevant point of time, and granted occupancy right. There are no illegalities or perversities in the said order. 8. Learned counsel also submitted that, if his submissions are not accepted for any reason, the matter once again may be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 9. On perusal of the materials on record, the father of respondent No.3 was in fact the tenant in respect of two lands bearing Sy.Nos.499 owned by the father of the petitioner and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4334 WP No. 61412 of 2012 Sy.No.489/1 owned by the father of respondent No.4. Admittedly, the father of respondent No.3 was cultivating both these lands as a tenant. But the documents further show that during 1952, the father of respondent No.3 surrendered both these lands in favour of the owner-landlord. Accordingly, M.E.No.682865 dated 08.07.1952 was certified deleting the name of the tenant and showing the names of the landlords both in column Nos.9 and 12. It is specifically entered in the revenue records that the mode of cultivation as ‘No.2’ i.e. through hired laborers. 10. The materials on record further disclose that during 1956, the father of the petitioners filed a Long-Cause Suit No.146/1956 against the father of respondent No.3, seeking permanent injunction. The said suit came to be decreed in the year 1958, granting permanent injunction against the father of respondent No.3. The documents also disclose that during 1963, the father of the petitioner filed the Long-Cause Suit.No.8/1963 against respondent No.3, seeking permanent injunction. The said suit came to be decreed during 1968 granting permanent injunction against respondent No.3. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4334 WP No. 61412 of 2012 11. Now, it is the contention of respondent No.3 that, his predecessor in title was the tenant in respect of the lands in question since time immemorial, and further respondent No.3 was in cultivation of the land for more than 50 years. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has no explanation whatsoever to the proceedings to surrender the lands by the father of respondent No.3 to the landlords during 1952. He has no explanation for mutation entry dated 08.07.1952 and entering the names of the landlords both in column Nos.9 and 12, and the mode of cultivation shown as No.2 i.e. through hired laborers. 12. Interestingly, at an undisputed point of time i.e. during 1956 and 1958, the father of the petitioners got filed Long-Cause Suit Nos.146/1956 and 8/1963 and decreed one against the father of respondent No.3 and the other against respondent No.3. The Civil Court having competent jurisdiction, formed an opinion twice that, it was the father of the petitioner who was the owner in occupation of the lands in question. It is not the contention of respondent No.3 that the said decrees were either challenged or set aside by the competent Court of Appellate Jurisdiction. When such clinching materials are - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4334 WP No. 61412 of 2012 available on record, the Land Tribunal has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Unfortunately, in the impugned order, the Land Tribunal observed that the suit filed by the father of the petitioner was dismissed. Apparently, the same is against the materials that are available on record. 13. When there are clinching materials to show that the lands which were tenanted at one point of time, and subsequently the same was surrendered in favour of the Landlords and thereafter twice the suit for permanent injunction, one against the father of respondent No.3 and the other against respondent No.3 were decreed by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, by holding that the landlord himself is in possession and enjoyment of the disputed land, I do not find any reason for the Land Tribunal to accept the contention of respondent No.3, that since, for more than 50 years either respondent No.3 or his predecessor in title were in occupation and cultivation of the disputed land. Once the owner of the land is successful in showing the surrender of land at an undisputed point of time in the year 1952, and the subsequent documents i.e. mutation entry, the decrees of the Civil Court in O.S.Nos.146/1956 and 8/1963, the same are sufficient to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4334 WP No. 61412 of 2012 reject the claim of respondent No.3 or his legal representatives. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the land in question was not a tenanted land as on the appointed date and it never got vested with the Government under Section 44 of the KLR Act. Under such circumstances, the Land Tribunal has no authority to confer occupancy right in favour of respondent No.3. 14. Regarding the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.3(a), that the matter is to be remanded back to the Tribunal once again I have considered the checkered history of the case. Initially, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in favour of respondent No.3 during 1981. The same was challenged by the petitioners by filing W.P.No.26604/1981. The said writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy right in favour of respondent No.3 was quashed. The matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal, and once again the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in favour of respondent No.3 during 1988. Again an appeal was preferred before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in LRA.No.177/1988 by the petitioners. Since the Land Tribunal was already abolished, C.P.1614/1991 was renumbered as - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4334 WP No. 61412 of 2012 W.P.No.40179/1993. The said writ petition was once again allowed as per order dated 12.01.2004 and the matter was once again remanded to the Land Tribunal. It is thereafter, the Land Tribunal has passed the impugned order, once again conferring occupancy right in favour of respondent No.3 on 14.12.2011. It is thereafter, that the present writ petition came to be filed. When the matter was remanded to the Tribunal twice by allowing the writ petitions filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal has again proceeded to confer occupancy right in favour of respondent No.3 by making erroneous observation that the suit filed by the petitioner against respondent No.3 was dismissed. When the impugned order being based on such erroneous observation, I do not find any reason to remand the matter once again to the Tribunal. 15. In view of the discussion made above, I am of the opinion that the petitioners shall succeed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER (I) The petition is allowed. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4334 WP No. 61412 of 2012 (II) The impugned order dated 14.12.2011 passed by Land Tribunal, Kundagol, in proceedings bearing No.KLR.SR.51/173, vide Annexure-A, is hereby quashed. (III) Consequently, Form No.7-Annexure-K stands rejected. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4