- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4823-DB WA No. 100024 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 100024 OF 2020 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. AAROODHA S/O LATE SIDDARAM GADDI SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S 1.A YAMUNAVVA W/O. SIDDHARUDHA GADDI AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 1.B UDDAVVA D/O. SIDDHARUDHA GADDI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 1.C TAMMANNA S/O. SIDDHARUDHA GADDI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O: ALAKHANUR, TQ: RAYABAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591220. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01, BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, RAYABAG DIST: BELAGAVI, BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SADASHIVA S/O GHULAPPA GADDI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ALAKHANUR, TQ: RAYABAG, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4823-DB WA No. 100024 of 2020 DIST: BELAGAVI-591220. 4. SHRI SIDDAPPA S/O GHULAPPA GADDI SINCE DEAD R/BY HER LRS 4.A SIDDAVVA W/O. SIDDAPPA GADDI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, 4.B MAHESH S/O. SIDDAPPA GADDI AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, 4.C KASHAVVA W/O. SIDDAPPA GADDI AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, 4.D PARASHURAM S/O. SIDDAPPA GADDI AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, 4.E VIDYASHRI W/O. SIDDAPPA GADDI AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, ALL ARE R/O: ALAKHANUR, TQ: RAYABAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591220. 5. KASHAVVA D/O BHIMAPPA GADDI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 6. SHRI ACHYOT S/O IRAPPA HORATTI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 7. SMT. SEETAVVA W/O ALLAPPA HASARE AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 8. SMT. UDDAVVA W/O BHIMAPPA HORATTI AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 9. SHRI SIDDAPPA S/O BABU GADDI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 10. KAREPPA S/O BABU GADDI AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4823-DB WA No. 100024 of 2020 11. MARUTI S/O BABU GADDI AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 12. SHIVASHANKAR S/O SIDRAM GADDI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 13. SARASAVVA D/O SIDRAM GADDI AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD/AGRICULTURE, RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 13 ARE R/O: ALAKHANUR, TQ: RAYABAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591220. 14. SHALAVVA W/O SADASHIV HUDEDAR AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD/AGRICULTURE, R/O: NANDAGAON, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591304. 15. MURARARAO S/O KRISHNARAO DESAI AGE: NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, OCC: NIL, R/O: ALAKHANUR, TQ: RAYABAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591220. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. SAMGAESH S. GULAPPANAVAR, ADV. FOR R3, R7-R11, R4(A-E); SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. H.H. BALANAIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R12; R4-DECEASED; NOTICE TO R6, R13, R14 & R15 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 22.11.2019 IN W.P.NO.104146/2019 (LR) AS IT IS ILLEGAL, & ETC., THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4823-DB WA No. 100024 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) 1. The petitioner/appellant is in intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, aggrieved by order dated 22.11.2019 passed in WP No.104146/2019 by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition only on the ground of delay and laches of 44 years. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for private respondents. Perused the entire writ appeal papers. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the petitioner/appellant is a protected tenant and under the impugned order of the Land Tribunal dated 17.11.1975, the occupancy rights were granted in favour of respondents No.3 to 15, uncle of the appellant and their family members. It is submitted that by playing fraud on the appellant/petitioner and his branches of LRs, the occupancy rights have been obtained. Further, learned counsel would submit that the fact of granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents No.3 to 15 came to the knowledge of the appellant only when the respondents disclosed the said fact in the suit filed by the petitioner in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4823-DB WA No. 100024 of 2020 year 2006. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the appellant immediately on coming to his knowledge about the fact of granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents, has taken steps to challenge the same before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Thus, learned counsel would pray for hearing the writ petition on merit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is inordinate delay of 44 years in filing the writ petition. Further, learned counsel Sri. Rajashekhar Burji for respondent No.5 would submit that the petitioner/appellant had the knowledge of order passed by the Land Tribunal, but he was sleeping over his right. Thus, pray for dismissal of appeal. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, the only point that falls for consideration in this intra-Court appeal is, whether the learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition. 6. Answer to the above point would be in the “affirmative” for the following reasons: The order of the Land Tribunal, which was challenged before the learned Single Judge, is dated 17.11.1975, whereas - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4823-DB WA No. 100024 of 2020 the writ petition was filed in the year 2019. Nearly more than 44 years from the date of order of the Land Tribunal. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant for approaching this Court belatedly is that, the fact of grant of occupancy right came to the knowledge of the petitioner/appellant only when the respondents filed their written statement in the suit filed by the petitioner in the year 2006. If that is accepted, even then there is delay of more than 10 years in approaching this Court. The suit is said to have been filed in the year 2006, whereas the present writ petition was filed in the year 2019. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the explanation of the appellant for delay in approaching this Court. We do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. No ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeal stands rejected. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE JTR, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2