- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5516 WP No. 104091 of 2017 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. 104091 OF 2017 (LR-) BETWEEN: SMT. SATHU BAI W/O. BHANDU BHIMA HASURE SINCE DECEASED BY HIS ADOPTED SON, BHIMA BHANDU HASURE, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.H. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGLAURU. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SHRIKANT S/O. SHIVAPPA MURCHITTI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR BALAKRISHNA SHRIKANT MURCHITTI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5516 WP No. 104091 of 2017 4. MAHADEV S/O. SHIVAPPA MURCHITTI AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 4a. SMT. VILASMATI W/O. MAHADEV MURCHITTI AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 4b. SMT. MALUTHAYI D/O. MAHADEV MURCHITTI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 4c. SRI. SANJAY S/O. MAHADEV MURCHITTI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4d. SMT. NEELAVATI W/O. SANJAY KAGLE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD 4e. SMT. SHALAKKA W/O. THAMMANNA PATIL AEG: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 4f. SRI. SHANKAR S/O. MAHADEV MURCHITTI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL R/O. INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. GANGU S/O. KRISHNA MURCHITTI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5516 WP No. 104091 of 2017 6. SURESH S/O. KRISHNA MURCHITTI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 7. RAMU S/O. KRISHNA MURCHITTI AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 8. ANURADHA @ ANUSIYA D/O. KRISHNA MURCHITTI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD NEELAVVA D/O. KRISHNA MURCHITTI SINCE DECEASED AND DIED ISSUE LESS RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 8 ARE R/O. INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R6, R7 & R8; R4(A), R4(C), R4(F) – SERVED; R4(B), R4(D), R4(E) – HELD SUFFICIENT; R5- DECEASED (R6 TO R8 ARE TREATED AS LR’S OF DECEASED R5) ------- THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.10.2023 BEARING NO.KLR/INGALI/SR-108 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-K. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5516 WP No. 104091 of 2017 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 18.10.2003, passed by the Land Tribunal, Chikkodi, produced as per Annexure-K. 2. Heard Sri.S.H.Yadawad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.T.Hanumaredday, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.Sanjay S Katageri, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 6, 7, 8. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner being erstwhile landlord in respect of Sy.No.174, measuring 8 acres 15 guntas, and Sy.No.349/8, measuring 1 acre 29 guntas of Ingali village, Chikkodi is impugning the order passed by the land Tribunal, granting occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 8. The materials on record disclose that the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in favour of the tenants - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5516 WP No. 104091 of 2017 i.e. respondent Nos.3 to 8 by virtue of the order dated 04.07.1981 and the same was challenged by the petitioner No.1 being the wife of the original landlord by filing WP.No.14768/1982. The said writ petition came to be allowed vide order dated 31.03.1983 and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. 4. It is stated by the petitioner that, when the order dated 04.07.1981, granting occupancy right is already set aside by this Court in WP.No.14768/1982, vide order dated 31.03.1983, the Land Tribunal could not have issued Form No.10 produced as per Annexure-E on 12.05.1983. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, respondent Nos.3 to 8 are not tenants, and nor were their predecessor in title tenants. The land was vested in the State Government, and the Land Tribunal could not have passed the impugned order. But, my attention was drawn to the statement of the landlord - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5516 WP No. 104091 of 2017 recorded by the Land Tribunal during 1992, where he admitted that, about 30 years back, tenants were inducted in the land in question, which dates back to 1962. The Land Tribunal while passing the impugned order referred to the entries in the record of rights, where the name of Shivappa Malappa Murachitti was recorded as a tenant in occupation and cultivation of the land. Moreover, there is reference to the money order acknowledgment for the year 1947 -1962 for having sent the amount towards rent through money order. These clinching documents support the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent Nos. 3 to 8 were not the tenant in respect of the land in question cannot be accepted. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order produced as per Annexure-K. Annexure-E – Form No.10, dated 12.05.1983 is already quashed. The Land Tribunal is required to issue fresh Form No.10, in accordance with the order at Annexure-K, dated 08.10.2003. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5516 WP No. 104091 of 2017 ORDER Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7