- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17497 WP No. 108152 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 108152 OF 2015 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. NARASIMHA RAO S/O. KHANDE RAO GHORPADE, AGE: 88 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADABHAVI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. DAVALAT RAO S/O. NARASIMHA RAO GHORPADE, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADABHAVI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. KHANDE RAO S/O. NARASIMHA RAO GHORPADE, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADABHAVI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17497 WP No. 108152 of 2015 VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ATHANI, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ATHANI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, ATHANI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1-R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 19.03.1976 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, ATHANI, DISTRICT BELGAUM VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND SO ALSO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION PASSED BY THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, ATHANI, DISTRICT BELGAUM VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17497 WP No. 108152 of 2015 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 19.03.1976 passed by Special Tahsildar, Athani and also the notification dated 15.03.1976 issued under Section 73 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. 3. In terms of Annexure - A dated 19.03.1976, the Tahsildar has held that the family of Khanderao Anandrao Gorpade of Mahabhavi is entitled to retain 158 acres of land and the applicant should surrender 120 acres and 31 guntas of land in favour of the Government as the said extent of 120 acres and 31 guntas is in excess of the ceiling limit. Thereafter, the notification is issued in terms of Annexure - D treating 120 acres and 31 guntas as excess. 4. The petition is filed challenging the aforementioned order and the notification on the premise that the said extent of land could not have been treated as excess. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17497 WP No. 108152 of 2015 5. The petition is also filed to challenge the provisional order dated 19.03.1976 on the premise that the family is entitled to retain larger extent of land. 6. The Court wanted to know as to whether any third party right is created over the lands in question. 7. The Government has filed a report on 11.11.2025. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the said report in respect of Survey No.463/2 measuring 15 acres 5 guntas, Survey No.469 measuring 29 acre 38 guntas, Survey No. 230/2 measuring 9 acre 30 guntas and Survey No.410 measuring 11 acre 22 guntas. 9. In the said report, the Tahsildar has opined that Survey No.463/2 measuring 15 acre 5 guntas is a vacant land and Survey No. 469 measuring 29 acre 38 guntas is a vacant land and in Survey No.230/2 measuring 9 acre 30 guntas some structures are found in some portion of the land. The report is not clear as to whether remaining portion in Sy. No 230/2 is vacant or not. 10. As far as Survey No.410 is concerned, the extent is 11 acre 22 guntas and it is stated that except 5 acres remaining portion is vacant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17497 WP No. 108152 of 2015 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the aforementioned properties which are said to be part of 158 acres which were allowed to be retained by the petitioners family, the names of the members of the petitioner’s family is not entered and erroneously name of the State Government is recorded. 12. It is submitted that excluding the portion of the properties which are said to be in possession of the third parties pursuant to third party rights created, remaining properties are with the petitioners’ family and names of the members of the petitioners’ family are to be recorded in such property records. 13. It is urged that in view of the subsequent developments, more so, in view of the report filed by the Tahasildar, the petitioners should be given an opportunity to make an application to enter their names in the property records to the extent permissible under the law. 14. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioners are not entitled to retain anything in excess of what is permitted under law. It is also urged that the petition to challenge notification of 1976 is not maintainable. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17497 WP No. 108152 of 2015 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions would submit that the petitioners would not challenge the Annexure-A as well as Annexure-D. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ claim will be confined only in respect of the properties over which third party right is not created and claim is confined only is respect of the properties which are held to be within the ceiling limits in terms of notification dated 15.03.1976. 16. Since the submission is made that the petitioners' grievance is only confined to retain the property to the extent permitted under law, in terms of the earlier notification dated 15.03.1976 and the order dated 19.03.1976, the petitioners are permitted to make necessary application to the Tahasildar to enter their names in the property records to the extent permitted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. 17. While carrying out the said exercise, the Tahasildar shall have due regard to the report dated 11.11.2025 submitted before this court. While passing the orders, the Tahasildar shall also take into account the extent of the land held by the family other than the properties referred to above. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17497 WP No. 108152 of 2015 18. The respondent-State shall not create any third party right over the property in question till the exercise is completed. 19. The exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of the application. 20. It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated on the entitlement of the petitioners. 21. It is also made clear the property over which the third party rights are created in terms of the Tahasildar’s report, the petitioners shall not have any claim. 22. Writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/CHS CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13