- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5514 WP No. 65621 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.65621 OF 2011 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. GUNDU @ GUNADHAR APPASAB SAGARE, AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINCHALI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591317. 2. LEELAVATHI SURYAKANT SAGARE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 2(a). UMESH S/O. SURYAKANT SAGARE SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 2(a)(i). SARITA W/O. UMESH SAGARE AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2(a)(ii). SHREYAS S/O. UMESH SAGARE AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE. PETITIONER NO.2(a)(i) TO 2(a)(ii) ARE R/O. NIPPANI MANE PLOT, NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI- 591237). 2(b). SUJATA W/O. NITHIN PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SONAGE, TAL: RADHANAGARI, DIST: KOLHAPUR – 416001. 3. SMT. SUMITRA ANNASAHEB NAADE, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. YAVALUR, TALUK: PANNAL, DIST. KOLHAPUR – 416001. 4. PRABHAVATI TAVANAPPA PATIL, AGE: 72 YEARS, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5514 WP No. 65621 of 2011 OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BASAVANA KUDACHI, TAL: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590001. 5. SMT. PREMILA MOTICHAND TIGADOLLI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H. NO. 2801, OLD PB ROAD, SANKESHWAR, TAL: HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI - 591309. 6. SMT. SUVARNA GUNADHARE SAGARE, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHINCHANLI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM – 591317. 7. SMT. KASTURI CHANDRAKANT HUKKERI, SINCE DECEASE BY HER LR’S. 7(a). ASHOK CHANDRAKANT HUKKERI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 7(b). SAGAR CHANDRAKANT HUKKERI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. (PETITIONER NO.7(a) AND 7(b) ARE R/O. ARAGA, TAL: MIRAJ. DIST: SANGLI-416406). 8. SMT. MANGALA SHANTINATH ADAKI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. NANDIKURALI, TAL: RAIBAGH, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591317. 9. RAJENDRA NEMINATH BARANI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINCHALI, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591317. 10. PRABHAKAR NEMINATH BHIKAJE AGE: 59 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5514 WP No. 65621 of 2011 OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINCHALI, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591317. 11. PRAMOD NEMINATH BHIKAJE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINCHALI, TAL: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI – 591317. 12. SUNITA RAJENDRA GUNDE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KADOLI, TAL: HATHKANAGALA, DIST: KOLHAPUR – 416001. 13. VINOD NEMINATH BHIKAJE SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 13(a). SMT. UJJWALA W/O. VINOD BHIKAJE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 13(b). SIDDHANTH S/O. VINOD BHIKAJE, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 13(c). SMT. SUSHMITA W/O. SWAPNIL PATIL, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. (PETITIONER NO.13(a) TO 13(c) ARE R/O. CHINCHALI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI- 591317). 14. SANGEETA RUBNATH TAPAKIRE, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NINGANUR, TAL. ATHANI, DIST.BELAGAVI – 591304. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5514 WP No. 65621 of 2011 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, LAND TRIBUNAL, RAIBAG, DIST: 591317. 3. THE SECRETARY, LAND TRIBUNAL, RAIBAG DIST: 591317. 4. SMT. SHALINI W/O. GUNDAPPA MEKKALAKI. 5. ABHINANDAN S/O. GUNDAPPA MEKKALAKI. 6. SMT. SHAKUNTAL W/O. TAVANAPPA MEKKALAKI. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF ANKALI TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ANKUSH LIMBAJI JADHAV, S/O. LIMBAJI JADAHV, MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O CHINCHOLI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SHRI RAJASHEKAHR BHURJI, ADV. FOR R4 TO 6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-J PASSED ON 19/07/2011 IN NO.TNC/SR/462+420+430 CHICHALI PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT LAND TRIBUNAL, RAIBAG i.e. RESPONDENT NO.2. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5514 WP No. 65621 of 2011 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 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 19.07.2011 passed by respondent No.2 - the Land Tribunal, Raibagh, produced as per Annexure-J. 2. Heard Shri Jayakumar Patil, learned Senior Advocate for Shri Jagadish Patil learned counsel for petitioners, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State and Shri Rajashekhar Burji, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(c). Perused the materials on record. 3. The facts leading to the impugned order are that, the applicants being predecessors in interest of the petitioners filed Form No.7 seeking to confer occupancy rights in respect of four items of properties situated at Chinchali village, Raibag Taluk in Belagavi district, referred - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5514 WP No. 65621 of 2011 to in the impugned order. The names of three applicants as mentioned in the impugned order - Annexure-J are 1) Appasab Anant Sagare, 2) Smt. Laxmibai Bharama Sagare and 2) Smt. Indubai Surendra Sagar. The Land Tribunal held an enquiry on the Form No.7 submitted by these applicants. The Chairman of the Land Tribunal on the basis of the revenue records placed before him, formed an opinion that Appasab Sagare i.e., applicant No.1 was the tenant in respect of four items of the lands, and he was in possession and cultivation of the same. However, the members of the Land Tribunal by majority opinion rejected the claim of applicants on the ground that the family of the applicants owns 46 acres of land and, if the property measuring 42 acres as claimed is granted, it would exceed the ceiling limit. Secondly it was opined that the family of the applicant was having income of Rs.15,000/- per annum from the source other than the agricultural land, and therefore the applicants are not entitled for conferring of occupancy right. The said order is challenged before this Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5514 WP No. 65621 of 2011 4. The contesting respondent Nos.4(a) to (c) categorically submitted that, the tenancy of the applicant Appasab Sagare is not disputed by respondent No.4. When the tenancy of the land in question is admitted by the landlord, by operation of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘KLR Act’ for short), the land in question vests with the Government. Therefore respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(c) cannot have any right over the properties. The finding recorded by the Chairman of the Land Tribunal that the applicant Appasab Sagare was the tenant in possession and cultivation of the land in question on the appointed date is to be confirmed, as there is no dispute about the same. 5. The next question arises as to whether the lands held by the original applicant who is now represented by his legal representatives, exceeds the ceiling limit as provided under the provisions of the KLR Act. Section 63 of the KLR Act deals with the ceiling limit on holding of the land by a person who is not the member - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5514 WP No. 65621 of 2011 of the family or who has no family except as otherwise provided in the Act. 6. Section 66 of the KLR Act refers to filing of declaration of holding which mandates every person who on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act holds certain extent of lands and such declaration shall be filed on or before 31st December 1974. 7. Section 66A refers to the penalty for failure to furnish such declaration and Section 67 of KLR Act refers to surrender of land in certain cases. Once the land is surrendered by owner, it will vest with the Government as per Section 68 of the KLR Act. 8. Thus the KLR Act prescribes the ceiling limit regarding the holding of the land by a person. A detailed procedure is prescribed to find the excess land beyond the ceiling limit, to declare such excess land by the person concerned and to surrender the excess land. It also prescribes the procedure for the appropriate authority to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5514 WP No. 65621 of 2011 seek declaration of such excess land by the person. If in case, the person concerned does not file such declaration within the prescribed period, it gives an authority to the appropriate authority to select the land which shall be surrendered by the person concerned and to pass an order to that effect. Thereafter, the law deems that the said land is surrendered by the person concerned. The Act also provides an option to the owner to surrender any portion of the land held by him in excess of the ceiling limit. 9. Section 77A of the KLR Act, deals with the grant of land in certain cases. The second proviso to Section 77A of the KLR Act prescribes a cap on the grant of such lands, when the land so granted together with the land already held by such person exceeds 2 hectares of D Class land, or its equivalent. If the land held by such applicant, along with the land granted does not exceed 2 hectares of D Class land or its equivalent, then there cannot be any difficulty. However, if it exceeds, it can be said that, such holding will exceed the ceiling limit, and an - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5514 WP No. 65621 of 2011 inquiry will have to be held to determine the extent of the land that exceeds the ceiling limit, for which the procedure as contemplated under Section 67 of the KLR Act is to be followed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Lokayya Poojary and another vs. State of Karnataka and Others1, to highlight the principles regarding interpretation of statute. Full Bench of this Court referring the decision in Sant Ram vs. Rajinder Lal2, highlighted two rules which must be remembered while interpreting the deeds and statutes. While referring to interpretation of statute, it is held that so long as law is at the service of life, statutory constructions cannot be divorced from the social setting. It is observed that, welfare legislation must be interpreted in a third world perspective. This dictum laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court was extracted by the Full 1 ILR 2012 KAR 4345 2 AIR 1978 SC 1601 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5514 WP No. 65621 of 2011 Bench of this Court and there cannot be any dispute with regard to this position of law. 11. The KLR Act as amended from time to time, is an agrarian Act that came into effect with the laudable objective of safeguarding the interests of tenants, who are actually ploughing the land. When such objectives, with which it was enacted, is taken into consideration, it has to be held that, it is a beneficial legislation for the cultivators or the tenants. 12. In view of the above, the KLR Act provides an elaborate procedure to determine the excess land held by a person, and regarding surrender of the excess land, either by the person himself voluntarily and on his failure, by the Tribunal by passing necessary orders. Unless, such procedures are followed, the Tribunal cannot form an unilateral opinion that the person is holding the land in excess of the ceiling limit, merely because the head of the family gives a statement that the family owns certain extent of land, or to form an opinion that, if the said - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5514 WP No. 65621 of 2011 extent of land already held by the family coupled with the land which was claimed by the person would exceed the ceiling limit, if granted. 13. Without following any of these procedures, the Land Tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned order rejecting the claim of the applicant, by simply recording that one Bharmappa, the kartha of the joint family deposed that the family owns 46 acres of land and therefore concluding that, granting of the occupancy right in respect of the claim, would exceed the ceiling limit, is erroneous. Hence, I am of the opinion that the finding of the Land Tribunal, to that extent is required to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded back to the Tribunal once again for fresh consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The finding of the Tribunal that the original applicant Appasab Anant Sagare, was the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5514 WP No. 65621 of 2011 tenant in respect of the land referred to in the impugned order as on the appointed date is confirmed. (iii) The finding of the Land Tribunal that the land in question if granted, would exceed the ceiling limit is set aside. (iv) The matter is remanded back to the Land Tribunal, to hold an enquiry afresh in accordance with law, in the light of the discussions held above. (v) Both the parties are directed to appear before the Land Tribunal, Raibagh on 05.06.2025 without waiting for fresh notice. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM: CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2