- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44312 WP No. 2412 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 2412 OF 2021 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. RAGHURAMA DASA S/O LATE SHEENADASA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT: BANGARABAILU HOUSE, PERDOOR VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 124 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, TALUKA UDUPI AND DISTRICT UDUPI 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 3. SMT RADHA KULAL W/O LATE MAHALINGA KULAL, Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44312 WP No. 2412 of 2021 MAJOR, R/AT BANGRABAILU HOUSE, POST PERDOOR, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 124 SINCE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS DEAD REPRESENTED BY LR's: 4. SMT BABY KULAL D/O LATE MAHALINGA KULAL, MAJOR, R/AT: BANGARABAILU HOUSE, POST PERDOOR, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 124 5. SMT MANJULA KULAL D/O LATE MAHALINGA KULAL, MAJOR, R/AT: BANGRABAILU HOUSE, POST PERDOOR, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 124 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; V/O DATED 27.08.2024, R4 AND R5 ARE LR's OF DECEASED R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL DTD. 20.11.1976 IN SO FAR AS GRANTING OCCUPANCY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF LAND AT SURVEY NO.129/46 (DENOTED AS SURVEY NO.129/46-B) TO AN EXTENT OF 70 CENTS OF PERADURU VILLAGE TALUKA UDUPI, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH ORDER IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44312 WP No. 2412 of 2021 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The present petition has been filed seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 20.11.1976 insofar as granting occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 129/46 (also referred as Sy. No. 129/46-B) with respect to an extent of 70 cents in Peraduru Village, Udupi Taluk and Udupi District. 2. Petitioner is the grandson of Govinda Dasa and it is the case of the petitioner that they were granted occupancy rights by virtue of the order of the Land Tribunal in Case No.LRY-39-102-TRI-238-76-77 dated 16.10.1976, whereby the Land Tribunal had granted an extent of 70 cents in Sy. No. 129/46B. Further, after the order of the Land Tribunal at Annexure-F, Form-10 came to be issued at Annexure-G. It is also borne out from the records that the Tribunal had made a grant with respect to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44312 WP No. 2412 of 2021 the same survey number by virtue of the order at Annexure-A in case No.LRY-39-478-TRI-1353-76-77, wherein an extent of 2 acres 16 cents of occupancy rights were granted in Sy. No. 129/46 by virtue of the order dated 20.11.1976 which is about 30 days after the order at Annexure-F. Further, in terms of the order of the Land Tribunal, Form-10 came to be issued on 16.01.1981 copy of which is produced at Annexure-R1. 3. It is not in dispute that the grant of occupancy rights as per the orders at Annexures-A and F overlap. The only contention raised by the respondents is that the writ petition is filed belatedly after an unreasonable period of time and as the respondents were already in enjoyment of the property, that the rights accrued by lapse of time ought not to be disturbed. It is however submitted by respondents 4 and 5 that with respect to Sy. No. 129/46, there is another claimant by name Appi Bai who had filed Form-7 and copy of which is filed along with a memo. It is submitted at this point of time, disturbing such rights - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44312 WP No. 2412 of 2021 would be inequitable and the writ petition be disposed of due to latches. 4. It must be seen that in terms of the procedure applicable as contained in Rule 17(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 where there are more applications than one for the registration of occupancy rights by different persons in respect of the same land, those cases shall be clubbed together and a common order passed. The mandate of such Rule has been reiterated in number of judgments including by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basappa, Gurusangappa v. land Tribunal, badami and others - 1979(2) Kant. L. J 370. The Division Bench at para No. 10 has made certain observations which are of immediate relevance and are extracted below: "When rival applications are made before the Tribunal for grant of occupancy right in respect of the same land, it is, in our opinion, the duty of the Tribunal to consider together those rival applications and decide them by a common order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44312 WP No. 2412 of 2021 Otherwise, there cannot be a proper adjudication of the rival claims. Even if one of the rival applicants had filed his application earlier and the Tribunal had granted him occupancy right in respect of that land and subsequently another applicant makes an application within the time limit provided by S. 48A in respect of the same land, the Tribunal cannot decline to consider the subsequent application on the ground that it has already granted occupancy right in respect of that land to the earlier applicant. The Tribunal is bound to consider every application filed within the time limit provided by the Act and it is no answer to such application to say that land is not available for grant of occupancy right therein. The only way in which the Tribunal can be enabled to consider the later application, is to set aside its earlier order and to direct it (the Tribunal) to consider together both the rival applications and to decide thereon. It may look startling that an order of the Tribunal which was valid when it was made and did not suffer from any infirmity, should be set aside, merely because another person makes a rival application in respect of the same land after the Tribunal has granted occupancy right in respect of that land to the earlier applicant. But there is no other way in which the Tribunal can - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44312 WP No. 2412 of 2021 discharge its obligation to consider all applications filed in time." 5. The Division Bench in the aforementioned case has also taken note of the contingency where an application filed by one of the tenants has been considered and order is passed, in such a situation where subsequent application is filed, the Division Bench holds that the only way in which the Tribunal can be enabled to consider the later application is to set aside its earlier order and direct the Tribunal to consider both the rival applications and decide the same together. The Division Bench has also noticed that though such an approach would look unenforceable, “startling that an order of the Tribunal which was valid when it was made and did not suffer from any infirmity, should be set aside, merely because another person makes a rival application in respect of the same land after the Tribunal has granted occupancy right in respect of that land to the earlier applicant." Further, the observations of the Division Bench to the effect, "there is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44312 WP No. 2412 of 2021 no other way in which the Tribunal can discharge its obligation to consider all applications filed in time". 6. It must be noticed that mere delay in approaching the Court would not have the effect of defeating the rights of the parties as no party can be prejudiced or affected by the Act of the Court itself. In the present case, despite the mandate under Rule 17(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, the Tribunal having committed an error, the first order of the Tribunal could not have the effect of snuffing away the rights of other applicants who have filed applications within time and otherwise were eligible for consideration. 7. Accordingly, taking note of the admitted overlap and also, that apart from the petitioner and respondents, there was another claimant, the only manner in which rights of the parties could be upheld is to set aside the orders at Annexures-A and F and remand the matter for fresh consideration by the Land Tribunal. The Land - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44312 WP No. 2412 of 2021 Tribunal is not only to take note of the claim made by the predecessors of petitioner as well as the predecessors of respondents 4 and 5, but also to take note of the claim as contained in Form-7 of Smt. Appi Bai. Accordingly, the orders of the Land Tribunal at Annexures-A and F are set aside only insofar as Sy. No. 129/46 and the matter is remitted for reconsideration in light of the discussion supra. 8. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP