- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4895 WP No. 60792 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 60792 OF 2010 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. BASAPPA YALLAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASE, BY HIS L.RS 1a. SMT. NAGAVA W/O. BASAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 1b. MADIWALAPPA S/O. BASAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR AGE: 32, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NARENDRA, TQ and DIST DHARWAD. 1c. SMT. MALLAVVA D/O. BASAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR, AGE:30, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NARENDRA, TQ and DIST DHARWAD. 1d. GOURAVVA D/O. BASAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR AGE: 29, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, NARENDRA, TQ and DIST DHARWAD. 2 CHANNABAAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 2a. YALLAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NARENDRA, TQ and DIST DHARWAD. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4895 WP No. 60792 of 2010 2b. SHIVAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NARENDRA, TQ and DIST DHARWAD. 2c. SUBHASH S/O. CHANNABASAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARENDRA, TQ and DIST DHARWAD. 3. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O. SHANKRAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR (DECEASED) 4. SMT. NAGAVVA KOM. SHANKRAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR AGE: 21, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NARENDRA, TQ and DIST DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURESH P. HUDEDAGADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, LAND TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD. 3. CHANNABASAPPA SANGAPPA AYATTI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 3a. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. CHANNABASAPPA AYATTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARENDRA, TQ and DIST DHARWAD. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4895 WP No. 60792 of 2010 3b. MUDAKAPPA CHANNABASAPPA AYATTI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NARENDRA, TQ and DIST DHARWAD. 3c. NAGAPPA CHANNABASAPPA AYATTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARENDRA, TQ and DIST DHARWAD. 4. SMT. AKKAVVA W/O. GANGAPPA KALLIMANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, NARENDRA, TQ and DIST DHARWAD. 5. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O. NINGAPPA DHARWAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, NARENDRA, TQ and DIST DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; MS. KAVITA JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADV. FOR C/R3(A) TO R3(C), R4, R5) ------ THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN KLR/KA.MA/NARENDRA/SR/3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4895 WP No. 60792 of 2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 07.01.2010 passed by Respondent No.2, produced as per Annexure-F. 2. Heard Sri. Suresh P. Hudedagaddi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and Ms.Kavita Jadhav, learned counsel for respondents No.3(a) to 3(c), 4 and 5. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the impugned order at Annexure-F is an order passed against the dead persons. Petitioner No.2 Channabasappa, died on 17.03.2004, and his legal representatives were not brought on record before passing the impugned order. Similarly, Respondent No.3 died on 19.11.1995, and even his legal representatives were not brought on record. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4895 WP No. 60792 of 2010 Therefore, the petitioners contend that the order impugned is bad in law. 4. Per contra, counsel for Respondents No.3 to 5 drew the attention of the Court to the order sheet dated 26.10.2009, maintained by the Land Tribunal, which discloses that, the son of the deceased petitioner No.2, Irappa Lagamannavar, and the son of the deceased Respondent No.3, by the name Mudakappa, have signed the order sheet. It is therefore clear that the legal representatives — the son of the deceased Petitioner No.2 and the son of the deceased Respondent No.3, were present before the Land Tribunal during the proceedings, and represented the estate of the deceased. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the order in question was passed against dead persons cannot be accepted. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, Annexure-C is the GAqÀÄ ©qÀĪÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ GAqÀÄ ©qÀĪÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ GAqÀÄ ©qÀĪÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ GAqÀÄ ©qÀĪÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4895 WP No. 60792 of 2010 which is as good an usufructuary mortgage, given by the petitioners to the respondents. Therefore, the disputed land is not a tenanted land. Annexure-C dated 23.12.1975, was made much after the appointed day, and no reliance can be placed on this document to contend that, as on the appointed date, Respondent No.3 being the original tenant, was not the tenant under the landlord. 6. It is pertinent to note that, the respondents have produced Annexure-R3, a document executed by Basappa and Channabasappa, sons of Yallappa Lagamannavar, i.e., deceased petitioner No.1 and deceased petitioner No.2. This document does not bear a date. However, the terms of the document discloses that, the land in Block No.84, measuring 6.72 acres of Narendra Village, was given to the tenant during March, 1974, for a period of 11 years on lease. The terms of Annexure-R3 discloses that, the owners of the land i.e., Basappa and Channabasappa, have - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4895 WP No. 60792 of 2010 categorically stated that the land in question was in possession of the deceased Respondent No.3 on lease. 7. The respondents have also produced the record of right for the year 1973-74, where the names of the tenants are entered as the occupants of the land. Moreover, M.E.No.539, relating to the subject property, is dated 13.05.1975, where the Tahsildar has ordered vesting of the land with the government as it is a tenanted land. 8. Therefore, at the relevant point of time, there are sufficient documents to substantiate the contention of the tenant that he had a right in the land. Under these circumstances, granting occupancy right in favor of the respondents cannot be held to be bad in law. Even though it is contended that Respondent No.3 had died prior to passing of the impugned order, his legal representatives, who are impleaded in the present petition as Respondents No.3(a) to 3(c), have no grievance with the impugned order. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4895 WP No. 60792 of 2010 9. In view of all these facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to quash the impugned order. According I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9