- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.110948 OF 2017 (LR-) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.105345 OF 2016 WRIT PETITION NO.103274 OF 2017 IN WP NO.110948/2017 BETWEEN: 1. HULIGEMMA W/O. SHANMUKHAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HER SON SHRI. YERRISWAMY S/O. SHANMUKHAPPA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL LABOURER, R/O: SANKLAPUR, 22ND WARD, HOSPETE, TQ: HOSPETE, DIST: BALLARI. 2. MALLAYYA S/O. SANNAHALAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS WIFE SMT. HANUMANTHAMMA W/O. MALLAYYA AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL LABOURER, R/O: SANKLAPUR, 22ND WARD, HOSPETE, TQ: HOSPETE, DIST: BALLARI. 3. N. ERANNA S/O. SHIVAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL LABOURER, R/O: SANKLAPUR, 22ND WARD, HOSPETE, TQ: HOSPETE, DIST: BALLARI. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 4. D.VENKATESH S/O. GALEPPA AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL LABOURER, R/O: SANKLAPUR, 22ND WARD, HOSPETE, TQ: HOSPETE, DIST: BALLARI. 5. L.BHEEMIBAI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL LABOURER, R/O: SANKLAPUR, 22ND WARD, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSPETE, DIST: BALLARI. 6. T.LEPAXI S/O. MALLAYYA AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL LABOURER, R/O: SANKLAPUR, 22ND WARD, HOSPETE, TQ: HOSPETE, DIST: BALLARI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRUTHVI K. S., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI, TQ. & DIST. BALLARI. 3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL HOSPET, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOSPET, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BALLARI. 4. THE TAHASILDAR HOSPET, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 5. BASAVESHWARA DEVARU BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE, SANKLAPUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, T. GNANESHWARA, S/O. T. BHARAMAPPA, SANKLAPUR, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BALLARI. 6. RAMANAHALLI RUDRAPPA @ SANNA RUDRAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS. 6A. SMT. SOMAKKA W/O. LATE RAMANAHALLI RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: 22ND WARD, SANKALAPUR, HOSPET, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI. 6B. R. THIPPESWAMY S/O. R.RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. 22ND WARD, SANKALAPUR, HOSPET, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI. 6C. R. MANJUNATHA S/O. R.RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: 22ND WARD, SANKALAPUR, HOSPET, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.5 - SERVED; SHRI K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADV. FOR R6(A) TO R6(C); THIS WRIT PETITION 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 08.06.1995 IN WRIT PETITION NO.12920/1992 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-F, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.01.1999 IN WRIT PETITION NO.12920/1992 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-G, DECLARE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS VIDE ANNEXURES-F & G ARE NOT BINDING ON THE PETITIONERS, AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN PASSED WITHOUT MAKING THE PETITIONERS AS PARTIES AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT NOS.6(A) TO 6(C) BY ISSUING THE ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION FROM INTERFERING WITH ACTUAL POSSESSION AND WAHIWAT OF PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THEIR HOUSES AND THE OPEN LAND BEARING SY.NO.99/2 TOTALLY MEASURING 5 ACRES 72 CENTS SITUATED AT SANKLAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IN WP NO.105345/2016 BETWEEN: BASAVAESHWAR GUDI TRUST, SANKALAPUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE/SECRETARY 1. N. MALLIKARJUN S/O. N. RUDRESHAPPA, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SANKALAPUR, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BALLARI. 2. T. GNANESHWAR S/O. T. BHARAMAPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SANKALAPUR, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BALLARI. 3. G. MARIANKALAPPA S/O. DODDA ANKALAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND ADVOCATE, R/O. SANKALAPUR, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BALLARI. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. PALLAVI PACHHAPURE, ADV. FOR SHRI F.V. PATIL, ADV.) AND: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL HOSPET, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HOSPET, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BALLARI. 3. RAMANAHALLI RUDRAPPA S/O. TIPPANNA, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. SANKALAPUR, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SHRI K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADV. FOR R3) 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 IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.06.2016 CASE NO.1611/1983 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, HOSPET- RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IN WP NO.103274/2017: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SOMAKKA W/O. LATE RAMANAHALLI RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT 22ND WARD, SANKALAPURA, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583201. 2. R.THIPPESWAMY S/O. R. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT 22ND WARD, SANKALAPURA, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583201. 3. R.MANJUNATHA S/O. R. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 AGRICULTURIST, R/AT 22ND WARD, SANKALAPURA, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583201. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HOSAPETE SUB-DIVISION, HOSAPETE. 4. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, HOSAPETE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. BASAWESHAWARA TEMPLE, SANKALAPURA POST, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. PALLAVI PACHHAPURE, ADV. FOR SHRI F.V. PATIL, ADV. FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 29.04.1991 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-K IN NO.CUM:BHU:SU:79-B:96:89-90 AND ALSO ALL FURTHER STEPS TAKEN PURSUANT TO THE VOID IMPUGNED ORDER ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COST AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS HAS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners in W.P.No.110948/2017 have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 08.06.1995 and order dated 05.01.1999 passed in W.P.No.12920/1992 by this Court produced as per Annexures-F and G and to declare that those orders are not binding on the petitioners to restrain respondent Nos.6(a) to 6(c) by issuing an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the actual possession and enjoyment of the land in question by the petitioners. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.105345/2016 has approached this Court for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 09.06.2016 passed by respondent No.2 - Land Tribunal, Hosapete, produced as per Annexure-E. 3. The petitioners in W.P.No.103274/2017 have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 29.04.1991 passed by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari, produced as per Annexure-K and all the steps taken pursuant to the said order. 4. Heard Shri Pruthvi K.S. learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri K.Raghavendra Rao learned counsel for respondent Nos.6(a) to 6(c) in W.P.No.110948/2017; Shri Pallavi Pachhapure, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Shri K.Raghavendra Rao learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.105345/2016; and Shri K.Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Smt.Pallavi Pachhapure, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.103274/2017. Perused the materials on record in all the matters in all the matters. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the land bearing Sy.No.99/2 measuring 3.20 acres out of total extent of land measuring 5.72 acres, situated at Sankalapura village, Hosapete taluk in Ballari district, was claimed to be the land belonging to the Temple by name Basaweshwara Devaru, Sankalapura village managed by Basaveshwara Gudi Trust, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trust’ for short) – the petitioner in W.P.No.105345/2016, represented by its Trustees. 6. It is the contention of the Trust that Ramanahalli Rudrappa, the respondent in W.P.Nos.110948/2017 and 105345/2016 with an intention to knock of the property, filed From No.1 claiming occupancy right contending that he was in possession and cultivation of the said land, and he is entitled for confirmation of occupancy right. The Land Tribunal by order dated 09.02.1987, rejected the claim of the claimant holding that the land in question is covered under the provisions of Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 Into Ryotwari), Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act, 1948’) and therefore it does not fall under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘KLR Act’). 7. The said order was challenged by the claimant by filing W.P.No.12920/1992 before this Court against the Temple. The said writ petition came to be allowed vide order dated 05.01.1999 by this Court setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal and remanding the matter once again to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. It is specifically observed in the order that since the records indicated that pattas stood in the name of Temple, the question as to whether the petitioner as the Archak was entitled to claim occupancy right, is to be decided by the Land Tribunal. While disposing of the writ petition, the interim order granted earlier was ordered to be continued till disposal of the matter before the Land Tribunal. 8. During the pendency of the writ petition vide order dated 08.06.1995, this Court has passed an interim order staying dispossession of Ramanahalli Rudrappa – - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 claimant from the land in question by the respondents i.e., State, Land Tribunal and the Basaveshwara Temple. Thus, while disposing of the writ petition on merits, the impugned order staying dispossession of the claimant from the disputed land was extended, till disposal of the matter by the Land Tribunal after remand. 9. The parties were directed to appear before the Land Tribunal on a specified date fixed by this Court while disposing of the writ petition. It is stated that the parties have appeared before the Land Tribunal and the matter is pending consideration. However, on filing of W.P.No.105345/2016, the Trust obtained an interim order against the Land Tribunal not to pass any order till the next date of hearing. The said interim order was extended from time to time. Therefore, it is stated that the proceedings before the Land Tribunal is stayed, and is pending for consideration. However, the Land Tribunal passed an order dated 09.06.2016, which reads as under: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 “In the absence of any documents, rel. to the existence of the trust, the complainant is permitted to continue cultivating the land till further orders”. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, the Trust has filed W.P.No.105345/2016 seeking to quash the said order. It is the contention of the petitioner in this writ petition that, the Tribunal could not have passed this order permitting respondent No.1 to continue to cultivate the land, when the proceedings are still under consideration. 11. In the meantime, W.P.No.110948/2017 was filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 6 seeking to quash the order dated 08.06.1995 passed in W.P.No.12920/1992 staying dispossession of the claimant from the disputed land and to quash the order dated 05.01.1999 disposing of the said petition by setting aside the impugned order i.e., the order passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting the claim of the claimant for confirmation of occupancy right and remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal once again for fresh consideration, while extending the interim order - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 against dispossession of the claimant till disposal of the matter before the Land Tribunal. 12. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are among the 38 other residents were the landless agricultural labourers eligible for allotment of sites under the Ashraya Scheme. The Tahsildar, Hosapete by order dated 19.11.1991 allotted various sites and issued Hakku Patra to such allottees including the petitioners. Thus, it is contended that the petitioners are the owners in occupation of sites in question formed in the disputed land. It is also contended that the land in question was already ordered to be vested in the Government as per order dated 29.04.1991, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari under Section 79B of the KLR Act. It is only thereafter, the Tahsildar identified the petitioners and other beneficiaries for grant of land, and subsequently Hakku Patra was issued. With such averments in the petition, the petitioners contended that even though W.P.No.12920/1992 was filed before this Court, the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 petitioner has not arrayed the allottees as respondents, and took the order of setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal rejecting the claim and remanding the matter once again to the Land Tribunal behind their back. Hence, they are claiming to set aside the orders produced as per Annexures-F and G, and to declare that the said orders are not binding on the petitioners. 13. In the meantime, the claimant has filed W.P.No.103274/2017 seeking to quash the order dated 29.04.1991 passed by respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari produced as per Annexure-K, whereunder the Deputy Commissioner has declared that the land in question is vested in the Government, in view of Section 79B of KLR Act. 14. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.105345/2016 that the Land Tribunal should not have passed the order dated 09.06.2016 produced as per Annexure-E permitting the claimant to continue cultivation of the land till further orders. It is an - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 undisputed fact that this Court had granted an interim order in favour of the claimant in W.P.No.12920/1992 against his dispossession from the land in question. While disposing of the writ petition on merits vide order dated 05.01.1999, this Court extended the interim order passed earlier to continue till the disposal of the matter by the Land Tribunal. When this Court has extended benefit of the interim order in favour of the claimant not to dispossess him, the Trust could not have found any illegality in the order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the Land Tribunal permitting the claimant to continue cultivation of the land till further orders. 15. Learned counsel for the claimants seriously disputed the existence of the Trust, and the authority of the Trustees to file and maintain W.P.No.105345/2016. However, learned counsel for the Trust contended that, necessary documents are already produced before the Land Tribunal to prove the existence and authority of the Trust. But no such document is produced before this Court. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 The Land Tribunal may consider any of those documents, if produced to give a finding on the same. 16. Admittedly, the Trust has not challenged the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10920/1992 nor it had challenged the interim order granted in favour of the claimant. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the Trust in seeking to quash the order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the Land Tribunal produced as per Annexure-E. Therefore the W.P.No.105345/2016 is liable to be dismissed. 17. The petitioners in W.P.No.110948/2017 claiming to be the allottees of various sites under Ashraya Scheme have approached this Court contending that, the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12920/1992 on 08.06.1995 and 05.01.1999 are not binding on them as they were not arrayed as respondents in the same. 18. A strong objection was raised by the learned counsel for the claimant that the writ petition is not - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners therein, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Shivdev Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others1 to content that the petition is maintainable. In Shivdev Singh (supra), the Apex Court considered the power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vested in the High Court. But this decision is not helpful to the petitioner to contend that an order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court could be sought to be challenged by seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, even if, the petitioners were not arrayed as respondents in the said writ petition. The remedy for the petitioner lies elsewhere but definitely they cannot maintain the writ petition to seek quashing of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in a similar writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. Admittedly, the petitioners are not praying this Court to exercise the power of review over the order 1 AIR 1963 SC 1909 - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 impugned. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that W.P.No.110948/2017 is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is to be dismissed. 20. However, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they may be reserved liberty to appear before the Land Tribunal and seek their impleadment. Such liberty could be reserved in favour of the petitioners as they claim that they are grantees of the land in question. However, it is made clear that the Land Tribunal is at liberty to consider the contention to be taken by the petitioners before it, and pass an order either to permit them to participate in the proceedings or not. 21. The wife and sons of the claimant who are the petitioners in W.P.No.103274/2017 are seeking the writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 29.04.1991 passed by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari produced as per Annexure-K. It is the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari acting under Section 79B of the KLR Act and declaring that - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 the land in question belongs to the Temple, which is vested in the Government without any encumbrance. When this order dated 29.04.1991 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari, the claimant had already filed Form No.1 before the Land Tribunal seeking occupancy right. Even though the Land Tribunal initially rejected his claim, but as per order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12920/1992, the said order was set aside and remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Therefore, the matter is still pending consideration before the Land Tribunal. Whether the claimant is entitled for confirmation of occupancy right or not is to be decided by the Land Tribunal and not by the Deputy Commissioner. 22. Section 79B(3) of the KLR Act refers to an enquiry that is to be held by the Tahsildar upon receipt of the declaration under Sub-Section (2) for the purpose submitting a report to the Deputy Commissioner, who is - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 authorized to declare that the land is vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. 23. Learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pattan vs. State of Maharashtra and others2 in support of his contention that W.P.Nos.110948/2017 and W.P.No.105345/2016 are not maintainable as they do not have any right over the land in question. The writ petition to invoke the power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India could be maintainable only if the person aggrieved has approached the Court. When the Trust itself is not in existence and when no right is accrued in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.110948/2017, there is no question of invasion of their legal right, and therefore they cannot be considered as the persons aggrieved. Since matter is still pending before the Land Tribunal for consideration, I do not 2 (2013) 4 SCC 465 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 propose to give any finding on these contentions raised by the claimants. 24. When a claim by the claimant is pending before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy right on his contention that he is in occupation and cultivation of the land in question and his possession was recognized by this Court and protected by the order i.e., passed in W.P.No.12920/1992, I am of the opinion that the impugned order as per Annexure-K in W.P.No.103274/2017 is liable to be quashed. 25. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that the Land Tribunal, where the matter is pending for consideration, is required to consider the same in accordance with law by providing reasonable opportunity to both the parties to put forth their contention. It can also consider the contentions that may be taken up by the petitioners in W.P.No.110948/2017 to get themselves impleaded in the matter, and to participate in the proceedings and take a decision oin this regard, in - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 light of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussions held above. 26. The claimant had filed Form No.1 before the Land Tribunal seeking registration of occupancy right in his favour in respect of the disputed land which was initially enquired into by the Land Tribunal and rejected by it vide order dated 09.02.1987. Under such circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) W.P.Nos.110948/2017 and 105345/2016 are hereby dismissed. (ii) W.P.No.103274/2017 is hereby allowed. (iii) The impugned order dated 29.04.1991 passed by respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari produced as per Annexure-K is hereby quashed. (iv) The Trustees representing the Basaveshwara Gudi Trust and the claimants being legal representatives of the original claimant are directed to appear before the Land Tribunal, - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5760 WP No.110948 of 2017 C/W WP No.105345 of 2016 WP No.103274 of 2017 Hosapete on 28.04.2025 in the pending proceedings without waiting for fresh notice. (v) Upon appearance of the parties, the Land Tribunal, Hosapete is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law expeditiously, at least within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. (vi) The petitioners in W.P.No.110948/2017 are permitted to approach the Land Tribunal seeking permission to participate in the proceedings. If such an application is filed, the Land Tribunal, Hosapete is at liberty to take a decision in accordance with law. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8