- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62647 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.62647 OF 2010 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. CHALLANGI BHASKAR RAO SINCE DEAD BY LRS. SMT. CHALLANGI KUMARI W/O. C.BHASKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2. C.H. SRINIVAS S/O. C. BHASKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 3. C.H.KOTESH S/O. C. BHASKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. 4. C.KRISHNAVENI D/O. C. BHASKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND RESIDING AT SRIRAMNAGAR (POST), GANGAVATHI TQ, KOPPAL DIST. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI B. CHIDANANDA, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL KUSTAGI REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DIST: KOPPAL. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62647 of 2010 3. THE TAHASILDAR KUSTAGI, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. 4. THE TAHASILDAR. GANGAVATHI, DIST: GANGAVATHI. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR NAVALI HOBLI, NAVALI, GANGAVATHI TQ., KOPPAL DIST. 6. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT YATTINATTI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. 7. VITTALRAO. S/O. RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI AGE: MAJOR, R/O. MENADEHAL (POST), TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 7(a). SMT. GEETHABAI DESAI W/O. VITTALRAO AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 7(b). RAGHAVENDRA RAO S/O. LATE VITTAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 7(c). SWAMI RAO S/O. LATE. VITTALRAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 7(d) SMT. VAIDEHI D/O. LATE VITTALRAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. ALL ARE R/O. PLOT NO.104, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, PARK AVENUE APARTMENT, DHARWAD, PIN – 580 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA, FOR R1 TO R6; SHRI SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R7 (A & B); R7(C) & R7(D) – ARE SERVED; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62647 of 2010 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO; 1. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12/9/2007 MADE IN NO.¸ÀASÉå:PÀA.¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ/ ¸ÀASÉå:PÀA.¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ/ ¸ÀASÉå:PÀA.¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ/ ¸ÀASÉå:PÀA.¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ/2007-08 PÀ¤ PÀ¤ PÀ¤ PÀ¤ :::: PASSED BY THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, NAVALI IN GANGAVATI TALUK (R5) IN SO FAR IT PERTAINS TO SY.NOS.13 TO 20, MEASURING 1 ACRE 33 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 39 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 22 GUNTAS, 2 ACRES 10 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 26 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 35 GUNTAS, 1 ACRES 15 GUNTAS, 2 ACRES 01 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT YATTINATTI VILLAGE, GANGAVATI TALUK (VIDE ANNEXURE-G). 2. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2008 MADE IN ¸ÀA.PÀAUÉÃtÂ/¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄ ¸ÀA.PÀAUÉÃtÂ/¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄ ¸ÀA.PÀAUÉÃtÂ/¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄ ¸ÀA.PÀAUÉÃtÂ/¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄ////06/07-08 PASSED BY THE TAHASILDAR, GANGAVATI (R4) IN ORDERING TO DELETE THE NAME OF THE FIRST PETITIONER'S HUSBAND AND FATHER OF THE PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 (C. BHASKAR RAO) TO ENTER THE NAME OF STATE GOVT. IN COLUMN NO. 9 & 12 OF R.T.C IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO SY.NOS.13 TO 20 OF YATTINATTI VILLAGE, VIDE ANNEXURE-H. 3. TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2008 IN RESPECT M.R.NO.8/2007-08 PASSED BY R.I.NAVALI IN RESPECT OF SY.NOS.13 TO 20, MEASURING 1 ACRE 33 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 39 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 22 GUNTAS, 2 ACRE 10 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 26 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 35 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 15 GUNTAS, 2 ACRES 01 GUNTAS, DELETING THE NAME OF THE FIRST PETITIONER'S HUSBAND AND FATHER OF PETITIONERS NOS.2 TO 4 (CHALLANGI BHASKAR RAO) IN COLUMN NO.9 AND 12 OF RTC AND ENTERING THE NAME OF THE STATE GOVT (KARNATAKA SARKAR) VIDE ANNEXURE-J. 4. TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES HEREIN I.E., R4 TO R6 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN RTC'S IN COLUMN NO.9 AND 12 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES THE LANDS BEARING SY.NOS. 13 TO 20, MEASURING 1 ACRE 33 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 39 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 22 GUNTAS, 2 ACRES 10 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 26 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 35 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 15 GUNTAS, 2 ACRES 01 GUNTAS, SITUATED YATTINATTI VILLAGE, NAVALI HOBALI, GANGAVATI TALUK IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62647 of 2010 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the (i) order dated 12.09.2007 passed by respondent No.5 – the Revenue Inspector, Navali, in Gangavathi Taluk, produced as per Annexure-G, (ii) order dated 26.02.2008 passed by respondent No.4 – the Tahsildar, Gangavati, produced as per Annexure-H, (iii) order dated 18.03.2008 certifying M.R.No.8/2007-08 passed by respondent No.5 – the Revenue Inspector, Navali produced as per Annexure- J, and (iv) directing the Revenue Authorities to continue the name of the petitioners in the Record of Rights at column Nos.9 and 12 in respect of the lands in question. 2. Heard Sri B. Chidananda, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6 – State and Shri Sangram S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62647 of 2010 respondent Nos.7(a) to 7(d). Perused the materials on record. 3. The husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 - C. Bhaskar Rao (“the purchaser” for short) is the purchaser of the lands bearing Sy.No.13 measuring 1.33 acres, Sy.No.14 measuring 1.39 acres, Sy.No.16 measuring 2.10 acres, Sy.No.17 measuring 1.29 acres, Sy.No.18 measuring 1.35 acres, Sy.No.19 measuring 1.15 acres, Sy.No.20 measuring 2.01 acres, and Sy.No.15 measuring 1.22 acres situated at Yattinatti village from its earlier owner under the registered sale deed dated 09.05.1989. After purchase of the lands, the purchaser filed an application for mutating the lands in the revenue records in his name. Accordingly, M.E.No.20/1988-89 was certified. The Record of Rights from 1988-89 till 2007-08 reflect the name of the purchaser both in column No.9 and 12. However, the Tahsildar, Gangavati had issued Annexure-D dated 17.07.2007, in the name of the original owner assuming - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62647 of 2010 that the lands in question are the excess lands, and the same were to be taken possession of by the State. 4. Pursuant to the same, Annexures-G, H and J came into existence. According to which, the Revenue Inspector held spot inspection, took possession of the land, proclaiming it as excess land. Annexure-G is the order passed by the Tahsildar, Gangavati directing to remove the name of the petitioner and to enter the name of the Government in the revenue records. Annexure-H is the order setting aside M.E.No.20/1988-89, which was effected on the basis of the registered sale deed and entering the name of the Government by certifying M.R.8/2007-08. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the vendor of C.Bhaskar Rao is shown as the owner of the land in the impugned order, even though he had died on 20th April 2001. Therefore, it is an order passed against a dead person. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62647 of 2010 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in none of these proceedings the petitioners are parties or were notified. The entire proceedings were held behind the back of the petitioners. Even though there is a reference in the order of the Land Tribunal declaring that the lands are excess held by the holder, no enquiry whatsoever was held at any time by the Land Tribunal. Under such circumstances, he prays for allowing the petition. 7. Learned Counsel for respondent No.7, supporting the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, at an undisputed point of time, i.e., on 09.05.1989, respondent No.7 sold various lands referred to above, situated at Yattinatti village, in favour of the purchaser under the registered sale deed. On the basis of the registered sale deed, the mutation entry was certified. Without following the procedure as contemplated under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (“KLR Act” for short), the Revenue Authorities have - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62647 of 2010 proceeded to pass the orders, which are impugned in this petition. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition by quashing the impugned orders. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6 submits that, even though the Land Tribunal, Kustagi had passed the order dated 25.10.1981, produced as per Annexure-E determining the excess land, the said order was never challenged by the petitioners. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot maintain this petition. Based on the order of the Land Tribunal produced as per Annexure-E, the impugned orders came to be passed by the Revenue Authorities. Hence, the petition is not maintainable and prays for dismissal of the petition. 9. On perusal of materials on record, Annexure-E is the order of the Land Tribunal dated 25.10.1981 showing the name of owner of the land as Vittal Rao that is the vendor of the lands to C.Bhaskar Rao. There is reference to checklist, which is not part of Annexure-E. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62647 of 2010 Therefore, by referring to Annexure-E, it cannot be made out as to in respect of which property, situated in which village or Taluk, the order came to be passed. 10. The KLR Act provides detailed enquiry to be held to determine the excess land held by the holder. There is no reference to any such enquiry held by the Land Tribunal to declare that, the lands held by the original owner are in excess of the ceiling limits. Admittedly, the orders impugned produced as per Annexures-G, H and J were passed on the basis of this order of the Land Tribunal. When, the Land Tribunal has not followed the procedure as contemplated under law to determine the excess land in accordance with law, I am of the opinion that the Land Tribunal and the Revenue Authorities have committed an error in passing the orders and in setting aside the mutation entry that was certified on the basis of the registered sale deed. 11. It is stated that, the lands belonging to the original owner were situated at various places in different - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62647 of 2010 villages and Talukas. Under such circumstances, the Land Tribunal, Kustagi should have held an extensive enquiry about the lands held by the holder to determine the excess land. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.7 and the learned Additional Government Advocate submit that even if Annexure-E is to be quashed by this Court, it will not effect the rights of any third parties. But in such case, the matter is to be remanded back to the Tribunal to determine the excess land in accordance with law. Unless such an exercise is made, the parties will not get justice. 13. In view of the discussions held above, I deem it appropriate to quash Annexure-E – the order dated 25.10.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Kustagi and the matter is to be remanded back to hold an enquiry in accordance with law, by providing opportunity to the petitioners. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62647 of 2010 ORDER (i) Writ Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The Order dated 25.10.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Kustagi produced as per Annexure-E is hereby quashed. (iii) The orders dated 12.09.2007 produced as per Annexure-G, order dated 26.02.2008 produced as per annexure-H and order dated 18.03.2008 produced as per Annexure-J are hereby quashed. (iv) The matter is remitted back to the Land Tribunal, Kustagi for fresh consideration in accordance with law in the light of the *discussion held above. (v) *If the Land Tribunal, Kustagi finds that there is no excess land owned by the landlord, enter the name of the petitioner in the concerned Record of Rights on the basis of the registered sale deed, by restoring M.E.No.20/1988-89. (vi) The parties shall appear before the Land Tribunal, Kustagi on 04.06.2025 without waiting for fresh notice. *Corrected and replaced vide Court Order dated 29.04.2025 (MGUJ) - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62647 of 2010 (vii) If the parties do not appear before the Land Tribunal on the date fixed, the Land Tribunal may proceed to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62647 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [CHALLANGI BHASKAR RAO AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS] 29.04.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER ON “BEING SPOKEN TO” Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 6 – State on ‘Being Spoken to’. In the order dated 22.04.2025, there is typographical error at page No.11, in point No.(iv) of the operative portion. The word “discussion” wrongly typed as “discontinuous” and the same may be corrected as “discussion”. Further point No.(v) may be replaced with the following; (v) “If the Land Tribunal, Kustagi finds that there is no excess land owned by the landlord, enter the name of the petitioner in the concerned Record of Rights on the basis of the registered sale deed, by restoring M.E.No.20/1988-89.” Office is directed to make necessary corrections in operative partition at Point No.(iv) and (v) as directed above, and issue fresh certified copy. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2