- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 3788 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: MR MARIAN PERES BHATT S/O LATE GILBERT FELIX BHAT AGED 57 YEARS R/AT SUMMER DELIGHT, LIGHT HOUSE ROAD MANGALURU-575 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575001. 3. TAHSILDAR, MANGALURU TALUK MANGALURU -575001 4. SRI SADANANDA S/O LATE GIRIJA Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT KELLARAIKODI, POOJARY HOUSE THIRUVAIL VILLAGE, VANANJOOR POST MANGALORE, D.K 5750028. 5. SMT DEVAKI D/O LATE GIRIJA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT KELLARAIKODI, POOJARY HOUSE THIRUVAIL VILLAGE, VANANJOOR POST MANGALORE, D.K 5750028 6. SMT AMITHA D/O LATE GIRIJA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT KELLARAIKODI, POOJARY HOUSE THIRUVAIL VILLAGE, VANANJOOR POST MANGALORE, D.K 5750028 7. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE GIRIJA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT KELLARAIKODI, POOJARY HOUSE THIRUVAIL VILLAGE, VANANJOOR POST MANGALORE, D.K 5750028 8. SRI SUNIL S/O LATE VASANTHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT KELLARAIKODI, POOJARY HOUSE THIRUVAIL VILLAGE, VANANJOOR POST MANGALORE, D.K 5750028 9. SRI SUDESH S/O LATE VASANTHI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT KELLARAIKODI, POOJARY HOUSE THIRUVAIL VILLAGE, VANANJOOR POST MANGALORE, D.K 5750028 10. SRI SANATH S/O LATE VASANTHI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT KELLARAIKODI, POOJARY HOUSE THIRUVAIL VILLAGE, VANANJOOR POST MANGALORE, D.K 5750028 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SESHU.V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. SANDEEP M.K. A/W SRI. B.ROPPESH., ADVOCATES FOR R4 TO R10) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 24/01/2025 PASSED BY TAHSILDHAR MANGALORE TALUK (R3) IN NO. SAM.LRY CR 159/2023-34 (B2) (ANNEXURE-A) AND DIRECT THE TAHSIDLAR MANGALORE TALUK (R3) TO NOT TO DEDUCT ANY EXTENT OF LAND FROM PETITIONER PROPERTY IN SY NO. 36/2 OF THIRUVALI VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.09.2024 (ANNEXURE-K) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A dated 24.01.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Mangaluru Taluk. 2. The matter brought before this Court has a checkered history. Earlier too, this Court had an occasion to deal with the matters between the rival parties in W.P.No.14613/2022. But before venturing into the said dispute and decisions rendered by this Court, a few facts have to be narrated. 3. The Land Tribunal, Mangaluru Taluk considered an application filed by Smt.Girija w/o Sheena Poojari, who had sought for occupancy rights in respect of various survey numbers including Sy.No.36/2A. In Form No.7, Smt.Girija, had sought for occupancy rights to an extent of 2 Acres 60 Cents in respect of Sy.No.36/2A. An order was passed by the Land Tribunal on 23.07.1981 confirming the occupancy rights in favour of Smt.Girija including - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 Sy.No.36/2A. However, Smt. Girija once again moved the Land Tribunal by filing an application on 11.10.1996, invoking the proviso to sub-section (6) sub-section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. At this juncture, it would be relevant to notice the contents of the application filed by Smt.Girija. It can be seen from Annexure-E, the application filed by the Smt.Girija on 11.10.1996 that Smt.Girija clearly stated by giving tabular columns as to what was the occupancy rights sought by Smt.Girija in respect of each survey numbers and the extent of lands and what was granted by the Land Tribunal was shown in the last column. 4. On a close reading of the application, it is clear that Smt.Girija sought to contend that she had sought for declaration and grant of occupancy rights in respect of 2 Acres 60 Cents in Survey No.36/2A. However, the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights only in respect of 1 Acre 65 Cents. This would clearly show that the correction made by the Land Tribunal in its order dated 23.07.1981 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 striking out 90 Cents and showing 20 Cents were the true facts as accepted by Smt.Girija herself. Therefore, in the application Smt.Girija contended that she was entitled for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of another 95 Cents, other than 1 Acre 65 Cents which were already granted by the Land Tribunal. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, appearing for the petitioner submits that when these were the true facts and it is clear that Smt.Girija had accepted the fact that the Land Tribunal had passed an order in the year 1981 conferring occupancy rights insofar as Sy.No.36/2A is concerned, in two parcels i.e., 1 Acre 45 Cents and 20 Cents. This Court in W.P.No.14613/2022 was concerned with the validity of the application itself and not precisely in respect of Sy.No.36/2A. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out the statement recorded by this Court in paragraph No.6 of the order dated 12.08.2022 in W.P.No.14613/2022 that the learned Counsel for the petitioners therein (the contesting respondents herein) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 submitted on instructions that the petitioners gave up their claim in respect of the application made at the hands of Smt.Girija on 11.10.1996. In other words, it was recorded that the petitioners wish to confine their claims in terms of the original order dated 23.07.1981. It is submitted that pursuant to this, the Court allowed the writ petition in part restoring the original order dated 23.07.1981 while setting aside the subsequent order passed by the Land Tribunal on 06.07.2022. 6. It is noticeable that by order dated 06.07.2022, the Tribunal had withdrawn the grant made in respect of lands, which according to the Tribunal were non- agricultural in nature. However, insofar as Sy.No.36/2A is concerned, the original extent of land which was granted in favour of Smt.Girija, namely 1.45 Acres and 0.20 acres were maintained as it was in the original order. Learned Senior Counsel submits that what is now sought to be contended on behalf of the contesting respondents herein is that at Annexure-B in the original order dated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 23.07.1981, the extent of land shown in Sy.No.36/2A is 1.45 acres and 00.90 acres, which clearly is contrary to the admitted facts. The correction carried out in Annexure ‘B’ order striking out 00.90 and showing 00.20 along with the signature is sought to be overlooked by the contesting respondents. Learned Senior Counsel submits that despite all these admissions at the hands of the contesting respondents, they have approached the Tahsildar seeking mutation and entry of their names to an extent of 1.45 Acres and 00.90 Acres, contrary to the admitted position that the same was corrected as 00.20 Acres. However, the Tahsildar issued an endorsement dated 02.03.2023 to the private respondents herein, directing them to approach the Assistant Commissioner, if such correction and entry is required to be made showing 00.90 Acres in Sy.No.36/2A in favour of the private respondents herein. 7. Being aggrieved of such an endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, the private respondents herein filed W.P.No.6613/2024 without impleading the petitioners - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 herein as party respondents in those proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the private respondents herein have misused the process of this Court, concealed the true facts and sought a direction at the hands of this Court keeping the petitioners herein in dark and this Court issued directions to the Tahsildar to enter the name of the legal representatives of deceased Smt.Girija in the revenue records within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 8. No sooner the petitioner came to know of such an order passed at the hands of this Court, the petitioner raised an objection with the Tahsildar on 13.09.2024 at Annexure ‘K’ seeking an opportunity of hearing before considering the representation given by the private respondents herein. However, the Tahsildar issued the impugned endorsement at Annexure ‘A’ dated 24.01.2025 declining to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on the ground that directions have been issued - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 to the Tahsildar in W.P.No.6613/2024 to carry out the mutation entry in the revenue records while also carrying out the hudbasth within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 9. Learned Senior Counsel submits that it was never the case of the private respondents before this Court, either in W.P.Nos.35794-35795/2013 or in W.P.No.14613/2022 that the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights in favour of Smt.Girija to an extent of 00.90 acres. This position is also clear from the application filed by Smt. Girija on 11.10.1996 wherein Smt.Girija clearly stated that the Land Tribunal had conferred occupancy rights only to an extent of 1.65 acres (1.45 + 0.20). If it was otherwise, there was no need for Smt. Girija to seek modification of the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that this Court should take note of the conduct of the private respondents in trying to hoodwink this Court to pass an order directing the Tahsildar to make entry in the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 revenue records, as if the Land Tribunal had granted rights in respect of 00.90 acres. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the writ petition is required to be allowed while imposing exemplary costs on the private respondents herein. 10. Learned Senior Counsel would place reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Padmawati and Others Vs. Harijan Sewak Sangh 2008 SCC Online Del 1202, wherein it was held as follows: “9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the reasons for overflowing of Court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong-doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong- doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong-doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts.” 11. Per contra, learned Counsel for the private respondents would submit that this Court while disposing of W.P.No.14613/2022 dated 12.08.2022 had clearly set aside the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the Land Tribunal while restoring the original order dated 23.07.1981. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 12. Learned Counsel would submit that the understanding of the private respondents is that the Tribunal had conferred occupancy rights in respect of 1.45 acres and 00.90 acres having regard to the plain reading of Annexure ‘B’, order dated 23.07.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal. The private respondents therefore approached the Tahsildar seeking such an entry in terms of the order passed by the Land Tribunal. It is submitted that since the private respondents were seeking the revenue entries in terms of the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, they did not feel any need to implead the petitioner herein and there was no intention to mislead the authorities or this Court. 13. Heard the Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar for the petitioner, learned Counsel Sri B.Roopesh for respondent nos.4 to 10, learned HCGP and perused the petition papers. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 14. What is interesting is the statement given by Smt.Girija at Annexure ‘C’, which was taken note of by the Land Tribunal while passing the order dated 23.07.1981. The statement at Annexure ‘C’ given by Smt.Girija clearly shows that she contended that she was in occupation of 1.45 acres and 0.20 acres in Sy.No.36/2A. This is the reason why the Land Tribunal passed such an order confining grant of occupancy rights in favour of Smt.Girija to an extent of 1.45 acres + 0.20 acres in Survey No.36/2A. The correction made in the order passed by the Land Tribunal striking out 0.90 and showing 0.20 with a signature is clearly visible even in terms of Annexure ‘B’. This fact is substantiated by the subsequent application filed by Smt.Girija on 11.10.1996. Smt. Girija clearly stated that what she sought in Form No.7 in respect of Survey No.36/2A is 2.60 acres and what was granted by the Tribunal was 1.65 acres (1.45 + 0.20). It was never the case of Smt.Girija that the Tribunal had already granted 1.45 + 0.90. This correction that is carried out in - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 the order of the tribunal which is not very clearly visible in the photocopies is sought to be taken advantage of by the private respondents herein. In that view of the matter, this Court accepts the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 15. Coming to the conduct of the private respondents herein, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if benefit of doubt is sought by the private respondents herein, that could be given if they had impleaded the petitioner herein as party respondents in the writ petition in W.P.No.6613/2024. This act on the part of the private respondents herein not impleading the petitioners herein in a writ petition filed before this Court and seeking directions to the Tahsildar to mutate the names of the parties in respect of 0.90 acres in Survey No.36/2A is a clear act of misleading this Court and the revenue authorities. It is noticeable that the Delhi High Court has made such observations as noticed hereinabove, witnessing such incidents and petitions coming up before - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 the Court, where frivolous litigations are filed engaging the litigants and dragging on the other side as long as possible only to frustrate the parties at the cost of public time. Wrongdoers will have to be dealt with firm and iron hands. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition has to be allowed while imposing exemplary costs on respondents No.4 to 10. 16. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 24.01.2025 at Annexure ‘A’ issued by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Mangaluru Taluk, is hereby quashed and set aside. Liberty is however reserved to the respondent-Tahsildar, to consider the claim of the private respondents herein only to an extent of 0.20 acres, as granted by the Land Tribunal in its order dated 23.07.1981. If 0.9 acres are already standing in the name of Sri Sadananda-respondent no.4 herein, the private respondents no.4 to 10 are entitled to have their names entered to an extent of another 0.11 acres and not more than that. Private respondent nos.4 to 10 shall pay - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30341 WP No. 3788 of 2025 costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). Out of the said Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.50,000 shall be paid to the petitioner and the remaining Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. Acknowledgment for payment shall be filed in the office as directed hereinabove. Ordered accordingly. Pending I.As., if any stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL/JT CT: JL