- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.964 OF 2008 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SHIVAPAD S/O. GURULINGA MULLATTI, (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S) 1A. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. SIDARAYA NAMGODA, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BALAWAD VILLAGE, TALUKA. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591304. 1B. SMT. KASTURI W/O. IRAPPA NAIK, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SANKONATTI VILLAGE, TALUKA. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591304. 1C. SHRI. PARAMANAND S/O. SHIVAPAD MULLATI, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKATTI VILLAGE, TALUKA. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591304. 1D. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. BASAVARAJ MULLATTI, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. CHIKKATTI VILLAGE, TALUKA. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591304. 1E. SHRI. SACHIN S/O. BASAVARAJ MULLATTI, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. CHIKKATTI VILLAGE, TALUKA ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591304. 1F. SHRI. SHANKAR S/O. BASAVARAJ MULLATTI, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. CHIKKATTI VILLAGE, TALUKA. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591304. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI PRASHANT F.GOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANKAR MALLAPPA MULLATTI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S) 1A. SMT. BHAGGAWWA W/O. SHANKAR MULLATTI, AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: CHIKKATTI VILLAGE, TALUKA. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591304. 1B. SMT. SHANTA W/O. NARASU SANAKI @ SHANTA D/O. SHANKAR MULATI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: BEHIND SAI CLINIC, PATIL GALLI, SHASTRI CHOUK, NADI VES, MIRAJ, TALUKA. MIRAJ, DISTRICT. SANGLI-416410. 1C. SHRI. SURESH S/O. SHANKAR MULLATTI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKATTI VILLAGE, TALUKA. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591304. 1D. SHRI. MURAGESH S/O. SHANKAR MULLATTI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKATTI VILLAGE, TALUKA ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591304. 1E. SHRI. CHANDRAKANT S/O. SHANKAR MULATTI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKATTI VILLAGE, TALUKA. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591304. 1F. SMT. DRAKSHAYANI W/O. DHANPAL SAUDI @ DRAKSHAYANI D/O. SHANKAR MULLATTI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: SANKONATTI VILLAGE, TALUKA. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591304. 1G. SMT. REKHA @ SUREKHA W/O. MALLIKARJUN KHOT, D/O. SHANKAR MULATTI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: MADABHAVI ROAD, MASARGATTI VILLAGE, TALUKA ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591304. 2. SHANUMAK MALLAPPA MULLATTI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 3. PARAPPA MALLAPPA MULLATTI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 4. MAHADEV MALLAPPA MULLATTI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 5. SADASHIV MALLAPPA MULLATTI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RESPONDENT NO.5 ARE R/O. CHIKKATTI VILLAGE, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591304. 6. SMT. JAIRABI BABASAHEB SHEIKH, RAHAMSHA GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590001. 7. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ATHANI TALUKA, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591304. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADV. R1 (A TO G); SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2 TO R5; SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACTS, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P.NO.16097/2005 (LR) DATED 09.04.2008, AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ATHANI PASSED IN NO.TNC;SR:2999/74-75, DATED 24.05.2005 AND ETC., THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 18.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The present intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court, Act, 1961, by the 3rd respondent, calling in question the order dated 09.04.2008, passed in W.P No.16097/2005, whereunder, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 24.05.2005 passed by the land Tribunal, Athani and remanded the matter to the land Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition, for the sake of convenience. 3. The factual matrix leading to the present appeal in a nutshell is that the land measuring 17 acres 21 guntas in Sy.No.1004 situated in Athani taluk originally belonged to one Mohammad Sab. One Mallappa Mullatti filed Form No.7 on 31.12.1974 seeking occupancy rights in respect of entire extent of land under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 Act, 19611. In the meanwhile, upon the death of Mohammad Sab, properties were partitioned amongst their family members on 17.12.1972, which was recorded in Mutation Entry No.17034, whereunder it was agreed that ½ portion of the property fell to the share of Patyaadam Nadaf2, who is the 2nd son of deceased Mohammad Sab and the other ½ portion of the property fell to the share of his sister Jairabi Baba Shabshiekh3. 4. One Shivapad Gurulingappa Mullatti4 entered into an agreement of sale dated 21.05.1977 with Patyaadam for purchase of his ½ share in Sy.No.10045 for a total sale consideration of ₹9,000/- and an earnest money of ₹5,500/- was paid. Subsequently, the said Shivapad filed a suit in O.S No.117/1980 for specific performance against Patyaadam and an exparte decree was passed in the said suit. Thereafter, pursuant to execution proceedings in Execution Case No.6/1991, been filed by the Shivapad, to execute the decree passed in O.S No.117/1980, Sale Deed was executed through Court Commissioner. The said Shivapad filed an application for 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Land Reforms Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Patyaadam’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Jairabi’ 4 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Shivapad’ 5 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘1/2 share of the said property’ - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 impleading himself before the land Tribunal, which was rejected by the land Tribunal. The same was challenged in W.P No.35180/1992, which was allowed on 30.08.1982 and he was permitted to implead in the proceedings before the land Tribunal. The said Shivapad also filed a suit in O.S No.175/1999 against Malappa for injunction. The said suit was dismissed on 04.08.2015. 5. The application in Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights were rejected by the land Tribunal on 09.07.1994. Being aggrieved, the Mallappa filed W.P No.5623/82, which was allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded to the land Tribunal. Subsequently, the land Tribunal, consequent to remand, partly allowed the application vide order dated 08.12.1988 and granted occupancy rights only in respect of ½ share, as ½ share was purchased by Shivapad. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 08.12.1988 passed by the land Tribunal, Mallappa (tenant) filed W.P No.2168/1999 and Jairabi (owner of ½ share) filed W.P No.3069/1999. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and allowed and the matter was remanded to the land Tribunal vide order dated - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 02.08.2001. Consequent to remand, the land Tribunal, vide order dated 24.05.2005, rejected the application of Mallappa with respect to the entire extent of land. Being aggrieved, the Mallappa filed W.P No.16097/2005, which writ petition was dismissed on 25.07.2005. Thereafter, Jairabi executed GPA and registered Sale Deed in favour of one A. Huddar. 6. Mallappa filed W.A No.3250/2005, challenging the order dated 25.07.2005, passed in W.P No.16097/2005. The said writ appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition. Accordingly, Review Petition No.298/2006 was filed. The said review petition was allowed and consequently W.P No.16097/2005 was allowed and the matter was remanded to the land Tribunal vide order dated 09.04.2008. Being aggrieved, Jairabi (owner of ½ share) filed W.A No.6204/2009 and Shivapad (purchaser of ½ share from Patyaadam) filed the above appeal. 7. This appeal was dismissed on 07.07.2009 and W.A No.6204/2009 was dismissed on 09.07.2009. Vide the said orders, this Court confirmed the order of remand. Being aggrieved, Jairabi preferred SLP No.2533/2011, which was - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 dismissed on 19.8.2013. SLP No.16996/2011 (renumbered as Writ Appeal No.3990-3991/2018) filed by Shivapad was allowed vide order dated 18.07.2024 and the order dated 07.07.2009 passed in the above appeal was set aside and the matter has been remanded to this Court for fresh adjudication of the above appeal. 8. It is relevant to note that learned Single Judge, vide order dated 09.04.2008, while allowing W.P No.16097/2005, has noticed that learned Single Judge of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, vide order dated 25.07.2005, has allowed the writ petition on the ground that no documents are filed evidencing tenancy as on 01.03.1974 for conferment of occupancy rights. Further, it was noticed that the petitioners apart from producing some geni receipts regarding which a contention was raised by the respondents in the said writ petition that the same were concocted, held that the finding as to whether the documents produced are concocted or not has to be verified by the land Tribunal, as the same is a finding of fact. Further, learned Single Judge noticed that the oral evidence led by petitioners, has also said to have not been - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 considered by the land Tribunal. Noticing the said aspects of the matter, learned Single Judge ordered as follows: “Apart from that, when specifically some geni receipts are produced, if they are really concocted there should have been a finding to that effect by the Land Tribunal as contended by the petitioners’ counsel. It is the specific case of the petitioners that there was a rapport and good relationship maintained by the father of the petitioners and the land owner and there is no such entry being made in the RTC for having cultivated the land. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that there were some geni receipts produced and some of them are lost. The Land Tribunal although has taken note of the receipts which are produced, nothing has been stated as to whether those receipts which are produced, nothing has been stated as to whether those receipts could be accepted or not. In the circumstances, it is for the Land Tribunal once again to ascertain as to whether the land in question was tenanted as on 1.3.174 and prior thereto and also to give reasons as to whether the so called receipts produced are in the hand writing of the respondent or it is only created for the purpose of claiming tenancy and also to consider the oral evidence let in by the parties and pass orders in accordance with law.” (emphasis supplied) - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 9. The said order was challenged by Shivapad - the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, vide the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 07.07.2009, ordered as follows: “The impugned order reveals that the matter is remitted back to the Land Tribunal, Athani, for disposal in accordance with law. Since, the appellant will have full opportunity to represent before the Land Tribunal, Athani, we do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Certain valid reasons are assigned for remitting the matter to Tribunal. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal fails. Dismissed.” 10. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred Special Leave Petition6 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in which, leave was granted and renumbered as Civil Appeal No.3990- 3991/2018. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 18.07.2024, ordered as follows: “5. It may be seen that the matter was repeatedly dealt with by the High Court, in various rounds of litigation, wherein on each occasion it came to be remanded to the Tribunal. However, the issue of occupancy rights claimed by the respondents or the 6Hereinafter referred to as the ‘SLP’ - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 unencumbered title of the appellant emanating from the sale deed executed by Patte Adam have not been even briefly discussed or answered. The impugned judgment does not seem to have dealt with the requirement of a reasoned order. We do not have the advantage of the reasons which prevailed upon the High Court to turn down the Intra-Court appeal. It seems to us that the appropriate recourse would thus be to remit the matters to the High Court, with a request to decide the writ appeal after hearing the parties, by way of a reasoned order. 6. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to allow these appeals in part; set aside the impugned orders dated 07.07.2009 & 17.08.2010 and remit the matters to the High Court for afresh adjudication of Writ Appeal No.964/2008. 7. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 22.08.2024. 9. Since the controversy relates back to the year 1974 when occupancy rights were claimed by the respondents, we request the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously and preferably within six months.” (emphasis supplied) 11. In view of the aforementioned circumstance, the present appeal is taken up for consideration. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 12. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri.Prashant.F.Goudar for appellant, Sri.V.M.Sheelvanth for respondent No.1(a to g), learned counsel Sri.Mallikarjunswamy.B.Hiremath for respondents No.2 to 5 and learned AGA Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath for respondent No.7. 13. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that records produced by the petitioners who were the tenants before the land Tribunal i.e., geni receipts are false and concocted and that the petitioners have failed to produce geni receipts at an earliest point of time. Hence, it is contended that the said documents ought not to be looked into. It is further contended that the appellant/3rd respondent is in possession and enjoyment of ½ portion of land ever since the date of purchase and all the revenue entries are in the name of appellant and 6th respondent herein. It is further contended that having regard to the order of remand made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said contention put forth by the appellant in the present appeal is required to be considered. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that learned Single Judge has remanded the matter to - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 the land Tribunal to record a finding of fact having regard to the contention raised by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition that the documents produced by the petitioners are concocted. It is further contended that the present appeal is only with regard to ½ share of the entire property and not with respect to the other ½ share, wherein, the order passed in the writ petition has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, it is contended that the above writ appeal is liable to be rejected. 15. The submissions of learned counsels for the parties have been considered and the material on record have been perused. 16. The relevant factual matrix is undisputed inasmuch as the original property in Sy.No.1004, measuring 17 acres 21 guntas, belonging to one Mohammad Sab fell to the share of Patyaadam and his sister Jairabi. It is further undisputed that one Mallappa claiming to be a tenant filed Form No.7 on 31.12.1974. It is further undisputed that in the latest round of litigation, wherein, learned Single Judge, vide order dated 09.04.2008, remanded the matter to the land Tribunal. Being - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 aggrieved, Jairabi filed W.A No.6204/2009 and Shivapad filed the present writ appeal. It is further undisputed that W.A No.6204/2009 was dismissed on 09.07.2009 and SLP No.2533/2011, challenging the said order, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.08.2013. 17. The present appeal was dismissed on 07.07.2009 and in SLP No.16996/2011 filed by the present appellant leave was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, consequent to which, the same was renumbered as Civil Appeal No.3990- 3991/2018, which was allowed vide order dated 18.07.2024, by remanding the matter to this Court. It is clear that the present appellant was arrayed as respondent No.3 in the writ petition and Jairabi was arrayed as respondent No.2 in the writ petition. Hence, it is clear that with respect to 2nd respondent, the order remanding the matter to the land Tribunal has attained finality, whereas, with regard to 3rd respondent, the same is being considered in the present appeal. 18. The learned Single Judge, while noticing the contention put forth by petitioner/tenant, who specifically relied on geni receipts, as also the contention of petitioner that the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 oral evidence led before the Tribunal has not been considered, as well as noticing the contention of respondents that the said documents are concocted, recorded a finding that the adjudication as to whether the documents are concocted or not, has to be recorded by the Tribunal, as the same is a finding of fact. Further, learned Single Judge directed the land Tribunal to also consider the oral evidence led by the petitioners/tenants in that regard. 19. The course adopted by learned Single Judge in remanding the matter to the Tribunal is just and proper in view of the fact that a finding of fact was required to be recorded with regard to the documents produced by the petitioner as also the contention of petitioner that the oral evidence has not been considered. 20. The vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that geni receipts have been produced belatedly and were never produced at an earlier point of time and hence, are concocted documents is required to be adjudicated in the present appeal is liable to be rejected since the said aspect of the matter has been considered by learned Single Judge, - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 wherein, it has been held that they might require some explanations in producing the documents belatedly and record a finding of fact. Hence, it is clear that the Tribunal was required to adjudicate upon all aspects of the matter in terms of the order passed by learned Single Judge. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while remanding the matter to this Court, has requested this Court to adjudicate upon the appeal by way of a reasoned order. 22. The vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the geni receipts are concocted documents, cannot be adjudicated upon in the present appeal, having regard to the same, being a finding of fact, wherein the learned Single Judge has rightly remanded the matter to the Tribunal for recording a finding in that regard. 23. In view of the aforementioned, the appellant has failed in demonstrating that the order passed by learned Single Judge is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6673-DB WA No. 964 of 2008 24. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1