- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14619 WP No. 70663 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 70663 OF 2012 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NANARAO @ NARAYAN RAO S/O VENKATARAO DESHPANDE, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KUNKUR VILLAGE, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SRI. NARASIMHARAO S/O VENKATARAO DESHPANDE, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KUNKUR VILLAGE, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. SRI. GOPALRAO S/O VENKATARAO DESHPANDE, SINCE DIED BY HIS LRS. WIFE SMT. VIMALA BAI W/O LATE GOPALRAO DESHPANDE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KUNKUR VILLAGE, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. SMT. LAXMI R.G. W/O RAJESH D/O LATE GOPALRAO DESHPANDE, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GADAG, TQ. GADAG, DIST. GADAG. 5. SMT. SUNANDA D/O LATE GOPALRAO DESHPANDE, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14619 WP No. 70663 of 2012 R/O. KURADIKERI, TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU, BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD, BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SRI. BASAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA IRAPPANNAVAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. KUNKUR VILLAGE, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2011 BEARING NO.KLR:SR:36/74 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14619 WP No. 70663 of 2012 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal, Kundgol. In terms of the order at Annexure-B, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in respect of R.Sy.No.139 of Kunkur Village in favour of Basappa Rudrappa Irappanavar to the extent of 2 acres 21 guntas of land on the premise that he was properly cultivating the said land immediately before 01.03.1974 as a tenant under the landlord. The Tribunal has noticed that the name of the applicant Basappa Rudrappa Irappanavar is found in the record of right of R.Sy.No.139 to the extent of 2 acres 21 guntas immediately before 01.03.1974. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that there was an order relating to resumption of land. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners Sri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar would vehemently urge that husband of petitioner No.3- Gopalrao Deshpande died during the pendency of proceeding before the Land Tribunal on 09.01.2005 as such, the order is against a dead person and same is nullity. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14619 WP No. 70663 of 2012 3. It is to be noticed that there were 10 respondents before the Tribunal. Husband of petitioner No.3 is respondent No.7. The respondents are before the Tribunal. Petitioners No.1 and 2 and husband of defendant No.3 are all brothers. 4. This Court is of the view that estate of deceased husband of petitioner No.3 i.e. Gopalrao Deshpande was adequately represented as it is not the case of the petitioners that there is collusion between the tenant and petitioners No.1 and 2. 5. This Court having perused the records is of the view that name of Basappa Rudrappa Irappanavar is found in the record of right as a tenant immediately before 01.03.1974. The law on this point is well settled. A person who is lawfully cultivating the land immediately before 01.03.1974 as a tenant is entitled to grant occupancy right. The entry in the record of right has got a presumptive value. Said presumption is not rebutted by the landlord. 6. It is also relevant to notice that all the petitioners together filed a petition along with petitioners No.1 and 2. Thus - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14619 WP No. 70663 of 2012 not substituting the legal representatives of deceased husband of petitioner No.3 has not caused any prejudice to the case of the petitioners. Moreover, no records are produced before this Court to take a contrary view from what emerges from the undisputed entry in the record of right which revealed name of the applicant Basappa. 7. Learned counsel would also urge that respondent No.3 has during the pendency of the writ petition as such the petition cannot be heard on merit and he has filed an application to substitute the legal representatives. 8. Since the order is in favour of a dead person, the benefit would go to the legal representatives of the dead person and no prejudice is caused to the legal representatives. Hence, the contention is rejected. 9. Under these circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14619 WP No. 70663 of 2012 10. In case, the petitioner is to file a writ appeal against this order, the petitioners are at liberty to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 14