- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5294 WP No. 83724 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 83724 OF 2013 (LR) BETWEEN: CHAMANSAB FAKRUSAB KAJJARI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS KASHEEMSAB S/O. CHAMANSAB KAJJARI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALEWE KALLAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE, REPTD BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL HANGAL, REPTD. BY ITS CHAIRMAN Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5294 WP No. 83724 of 2013 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COUR OF WARDS, SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: I) A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.10.2011 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 [LAND TRIBUNAL HANGAL] IN FILE NO.LRM:SR:RE:65:11 HANGAL VIDE ANNEXURE-A. II) A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO GRANT OCCUPANCY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING RS NO.61 MEASURING 3 ACRES 36 GUNTAS SITUATED AT NELLIBEED VILLAGE OF HANGAL TALUKA. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5294 WP No. 83724 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 14.10.2011, passed by the Land Tribunal - Respondent No.2, produced as per Annexure- A, and to direct it to grant occupancy right in respect of the land bearing Survey No.61 measuring 3.36 acres, situated at Nellibeed Village, Hangal Taluk. 2. Heard Sri. Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondents. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, he was cultivating the land in question since the time of his ancestors as tenant, and he continued to be the tenant even when the Court of Wards was appointed. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to confirmation of occupancy rights. The petitioner filed Form No.7, along with Kashimsab, for granting - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5294 WP No. 83724 of 2013 occupancy right in his favour. The owner of the land is mentioned as Court of Wards. Initially, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.1981. The petitioner filed W.P.No.4387/1985, before this Court, challenging the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner by the Land Tribunal. The said petition came to be allowed vide order dated 21.03.1985, directing the Land Tribunal to hold a fresh enquiry to find out as to when the Court of Wards assumed management of these lands and, secondly, to find out as to whether the claimant concerned was in possession and cultivation of the land prior to the assumption of the management by the Court of Wards. After remanding of the matter, the Tribunal once again held an enquiry and rejected Form No.7 of the petitioner, by assigning reasons, as per Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, even though liberty was reserved with the petitioner by this - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5294 WP No. 83724 of 2013 Court in W.P.No.4387/1985, permitting him to file a statement and also to lead evidence, no opportunity was given by the Land Tribunal. Secondly, it is his contention that, the Land Tribunal has not held an enquiry as to when the Court of Wards assumed the administration of the land in question. 5. The copy of the order sheet maintained by the Land Tribunal is produced as per Annexure-G. The order sheet discloses that, the petitioner had appeared before the Land Tribunal on 12.12.2003 along with his advocate to file the Vakalath on that day. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on 30.12.2003, 09.01.2004, 16.07.2010, 24.09.2010, 28.01.2011, 25.03.2011, 15.04.2011, and finally on 09.09.2011, and on some of these dates the petitioner was present and on some dates he was absent. But, no statement was filed and no evidence was led. Finally, the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 14.10.2011, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5294 WP No. 83724 of 2013 the Land Tribunal has not given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence cannot be accepted. Hence, the same is rejected. 6. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was in possession and cultivation of the land in question as evidenced by the Mutation Register extract, at Annexure-D. In Annexure-D, as per M.E. No.424, one Imamsab Khasimsab Dalayat, was the tenant from 1946-47. Even though an attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that this Imamsab Khasimsab Dalayat is the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, he could not justify the same with any materials. Even the surname of the petitioner does not tally with Imamsab Khasimsab Dalayat, whose name is shown as tenant from 1946-47. 7. As per M.E.No.514 dated 15.06.1953, the Court of Wards, Savanur, assumed administration, and its name came to be entered in the record of rights. As per - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5294 WP No. 83724 of 2013 M.E.No.623 dated 21.08.1956, Imamsab Khasimsab, referred to above, released the land during 1952-53 and therefore, his name was deleted. Thereafter, the name of one Mommadsab Rajesab Dalayat came to be entered as per M.E.No.652, as he was the tenant during 1953-54. As per M.E.No.699 dated 12.10.1958, the name of the present petitioner is entered as a tenant for the year 1958-59. 8. Therefore, it is clear that, as per the revenue records, the petitioner became the tenant in respect of Survey No. 61 of Nellibeed Village of Hangal Taluk, for the first time, only in the year 1958-59 for a period of 15 years. Accordingly, his name was mutated in the Revenue Register. Mutation Register also discloses that, M.E.No.699 dated 12.09.1958 was much after 15.06.1953 when M.E.No.514 was certified, to show that Court of Wards had assumed administration. 9. On the basis of these clinching records, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the petitioner was cultivating the land from 1958-59 till 1974-75 as a tenant. As - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5294 WP No. 83724 of 2013 Court of Wards assumed management of the land in question since 1952-53, as provided under Section 108 of the KLR Act, the petitioner is not entitled for confirmation of occupancy right. 10. As per Section 108 of KLR Act 1961, subject to the provisions of Section 110, nothing in the provisions of the Act, except Section 8 shall apply to the lands taken under the management of Court of Wards. Proviso (a) appended to Section 108 provides that in the case of a tenancy subsisting as on the date of taking over the management, the provisions of Section 44 shall apply, and the land shall vest in the Government. Proviso (b) of the said Section, is to the effect that, in case the tenancy created during the period of management when the land is released from such management, the tenant shall be dispossessed and the possession of the land shall be delivered to the person lawfully entitled to such possession. That exactly is the reasoning given by the Land Tribunal to hold that, the petitioner was the tenant during 1958-59 for a period of 15 years as per - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5294 WP No. 83724 of 2013 M.E.No.699 dated 14.11.1958 and hence he is not entitled for confirmation of occupancy right since the court of wards took over the administration under Section 108 of the KLR Act during the year 1952-53 itself. That being the case, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the order of the Land Tribunal. 11. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab – upto para 8 mkm – para 9 to end CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5