- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62146 of 2009 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.62146 OF 2009 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: G. SURYANARAYANA S/O. SUBBARAJU, AGED ABOUT: 52 YRS, R/O. UPPALADODDI (POST), MATTUR CAMP, SINDHANUR TALUK, RAICHUR DIST. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI B. CHIDANANDA, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, BANGLAORE. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL KUSTAGI R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DIST: KOPPAL. 3. THE TAHASILDAR KUSTAGI TALUK, KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. 4. THE TAHASILDAR GANGAVATI, TQ: GANGAVATHI. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR NAVALI HOBLI, NAVALI. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62146 of 2009 GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DIST. 6. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, YATTINATTI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. 7. VITTALRAO S/O. RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI, SINCE DEAD BY L.R.S, 7(a) SMT. GEETHABAI V. DESAI, W/O. LATE VITTAL RAO DESAI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 7(b) RAGHAVENDRA RAO S/O. LATE VITTAL RAO DESAI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 7(c) SWAMI RAO S/O. LATE VITTAL RAO DESAI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 7(d) VAIDEHI D/O. LATE VITTALRAO DESAI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. ALL ARE R/O. PLOT NO.104, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, PARK AVENUE APARTMENT, DHARWAD – 580 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA, FOR R1 TO R6; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.7 - SERVED SHRI SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R7 (A) TO (D); R7(A) IS GPA HOLDER OF RESPONDENT 7(C) & 7(D) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: 1. ISSUE 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¤: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62146 of 2009 53, PASSED BY THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, NAVALI IN GANGAVATI TALUK (R5) IN SO FOR IT PERTAINS TO SY.NOS.7, 21 TO 25, MEASURING 2 ACRES 02 GUNTHAS, 1 ACRES 38 GUNTHAS, 1 ACRES 36 GUNTHAS, 1 ACRES 38 GUNTHAS, 2 ACRES, 1 ACRES 28 GUNTHAS, SITUATED AT YATTINATTI VILLAGE, GANGAVATI TALUK (VIDE ANNEXURE-F). 2. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2008 MADE IN ¸ÀA.PÀA.UÉÃtÂ/¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄ ¸ÀA.PÀA.UÉÃtÂ/¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄ ¸ÀA.PÀA.UÉÃtÂ/¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄ ¸ÀA.PÀA.UÉÃtÂ/¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄ////06/07-08 PASSED BY THE TAHASILDAR, GANGAVATI (R4) IN ORDERING TO DELETE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND TO ENTER THE NAME OF STATE GOVT. IN COLOMN NO.9 & 12 OF R.T.C. IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO SY.NO.7, 21 TO 25 OF YATTINATTI VILLAGE VIDE ANNEXURE-G. 3. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2008 IN RESPECT OF M.R.NO.8/2007-08 PASSED BY R.I. NAVALI IN RESPECT OF SY.NOS.7, 21 TO 25, MEASURING 2 ACRES 02 GUNTHAS, 1 ACRES 38 GUNTHAS, 1 ACRES 36 GUNTHAS, 1 ACRES 38 GUNTHAS, 2 ACRES, 1 ACRES 28 GUNTHAS, DELETING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN COLOMN NO.9 & 12 OF R.T.C’S AND ENTERING THE NAME OF THE STATE GOVT. (KARNATAKA SARKAR). VIDE ANNEXURE-H. 4. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES HEREIN I.E., R4 TO R6 TO CONTINUE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN R.T.C.’S IN COLUMN NO.9 & 12 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES THE LANDS BEARING SY.NO.7, 21 TO 25 MEASURING 2 ACRES 02 GUNTHAS, 1 ACRES 38 GUNTHAS, 1 ACRES 36 GUNTHAS, 1 ACRES 38 GUNTHAS, 2 ACRES, 1 ACRES 28 GUNTHAS, SITUATED YATTINAHATTI VILLAGE, NAVALI HOBALI, GANGAVATI TALUK, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62146 of 2009 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has 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-F, (ii) order dated 26.02.2008 passed by respondent No.4 – the Tahsildar, Gangavathi, produced as per Annexure-G, (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- H and (iv) directing the Revenue Authorities to continue the name of the petitioner 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 petitioner, 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. 62146 of 2009 respondent Nos.7(a) to 7(d). Perused the materials on record. 3. The petitioner is the purchaser of the lands bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 2.03 acres, Sy.No.21 measuring 1.38 acres, Sy.No.22 measuring 1.36 acres, Sy.No.23 measuring 1.38 acres, Sy.No.24 measuring 2 acres and Sy.No.25 measuring 1.28 acres from its earlier owner under the registered sale deed dated 09.05.1989. After purchase of the lands, he filed an application for mutating the lands in the revenue records in his name. Accordingly, M.E.No.18/1988-89 was certified. The Record of Rights from 1988-89 till 2007-08 reflect the name of the petitioner both in column No.9 and 12. However, the Tahsildar, Gangavathi had issued Annexure-C dated 17.07.2007, in the name of the original owner assuming that the lands in question are the excess lands and the same were to be taken possession by the State. 4. Pursuant to the same, Annexures-F, G and H came into existence. According to which, the Revenue - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62146 of 2009 Inspector held spot inspection, took possession of the land, proclaiming it as excess land. Annexure-G is the order passed by the Tahsildar, Gangavathi 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.No.18/1988-89, 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. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in none of these proceedings, the petitioner is a party or was notified, the entire proceedings were held behind the back of the petitioner. 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 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62146 of 2009 6. 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 petitioner 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 proceeded to pass the orders, which are impugned in this petition. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition by quashing the impugned orders. 7. 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-D determining the excess land, the said order was never challenged by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62146 of 2009 the petitioner cannot maintain this petition. Based on the order of the Land Tribunal produced as per Annexure-D, the impugned orders came to be passed by the Revenue Authorities. Hence, the petition is not maintainable and prays for dismissal of the petition. 8. On perusal of materials on record, Annexure-D 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 the petitioner. There is reference to checklist, which is not part of Annexure-D. Therefore, by referring to Annexure-D, it cannot be made out as to in respect of which property, situated in which village or Taluk, the order was came to be passed. Moreover, the KLR Act provides detailed enquiry that is 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 excess in nature. Admittedly, the orders impugned produced as per Annexures-F, G and H were - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62146 of 2009 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 impugned, and in setting aside the mutation entry that was certified on the basis of the registered sale deed. 9. It is stated that, the lands belonging to the original owner were situated at various places in different 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. Learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.7 and the learned Additional Government Advocate submit that even if Annexure-D is to be quashed by this Court, it will not effect the rights of any third parties. But in such case, the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62146 of 2009 matter is to be remanded back to the Tribunal to determine the excess land in accordance with law. 10. In view of the discussions held above, I deem it appropriate to quash Annexure-D – the order dated 25.10.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Kustagi. The matter is to be remanded back to the Land Tribunal to hold an enquiry in accordance with law by providing the opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER (i) Writ Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The Order dated 25.10.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Kustagi produced as per Annexure-D is hereby quashed. (iii) The orders dated 12.09.2007 produced as per Annexure-F, order dated 26.02.2008 produced as per annexure-G and order dated 18.03.2008 produced as per Annexure-H are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Land - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62146 of 2009 Tribunal, Kustagi for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (iv) *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.18/1988-89. (v) The parties shall appear before the Land Tribunal, Kustagi on 04.06.2025 without waiting for fresh notice. (vi) 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. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5.1 *Replaced vide Court Order dated 29.04.2025 Sd/- (MGUJ) - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6738 WP No. 62146 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [G SURYANARAYANA S/O SUBBARAJU 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 petitioner and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 6 – State on ‘Being Spoken to’. Point No.(iv) in the operative portion of the order dated 22.04.2025, be replaced with the following : (iv) “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.18/1988-89.” Office is directed to make necessary corrections by replacing point No.(iv) as directed above, and issue fresh certified copy. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1