- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17280 WP No. 68588 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 68588 OF 2011 (LR) BETWEEN: BASAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA PUJAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, DUNDAPPA S/O. LAKKAPPA PUJAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS. 1(a) BASAVVA W/O. DUNDAPPA PUJAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 1(b) LAKKAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA PUJAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, 1(c) NAGAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA PUJAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHAKARA VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-583 217. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17280 WP No. 68588 of 2011 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, HAVERI, AT: A.C. OFFICE, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-581110. NINGANAGOUDA ADOPTED FATHER OF BHARAMAGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 3. PUTTANAGOUDA S/O. NINGANAGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DECEASED. 3(a) SHANKARAVVA W/O. PUTTANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLDS, 3(b) KARABASANGOUDA S/O. PUTTANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, 3(c) MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA S/O. PUTTANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHAKARA VILLAGE, TQ/DIST: HAVERI-583217. 4. BASANAGOUDA S/O. NINGANAGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 4(a) GANGAWWA W/O. BASAVANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17280 WP No. 68588 of 2011 4(b) NINGANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: MINOR, OCC: STUDENT, 4(c) NIVEDITA D/O. BASAVANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: MINOR, OCC: STUDENT, RESPONDENT NO.4B AND 4C ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER 4A. 5. BHARAMAGOUDA S/O. NINGANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. SHAKARA VILLAGE, AT POST: HOLALU, TQ:DIST: HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a-c) AND R4(a); R4(b) AND R4(c) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R4(a); NOTICE TO R4(b) AND R4(c) IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER i.e. ANNEXURE-K (ORDER OF LAND TRIUBNAL, HAVERI CASE NO.LRT/OCP/SR-6/75-76 DATED 20/08/1976); ANY OTHER RELIEF DEEMED FIT IN THE EYES OF LAW INCLUDING ORDER OF REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE LAND TRIBUNAL HAVERI FOR A FRESH CONSIDERATION OF DUE SERVICE OF NOTICE TO THE PETITIONERS, BE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17280 WP No. 68588 of 2011 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 20.08.1976 granting occupancy right in favour of the respondent/ Ninganagowda Patil. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is blind by birth and notice to the petitioner is not served before the Tribunal passed the order granting occupancy right. It is his submission that though order is passed in 1976, since notice is not served on the petitioner, he was unaware of the order and only in the year 2011, after the death of the landlord, the petitioner who is the son of the brother of the landlord-Basappa has filed the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would urge that the landlord was present before the Land Tribunal and notice is duly served on him. The respondent/landlord appeared before the Tribunal and gave a statement that original Form No.7 applicant is cultivating the property as a tenant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17280 WP No. 68588 of 2011 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the address of the landlord shown in Form No.7 would urge that landlord's address is shown as resident of Havanur whereas he was a resident of Shakari Village. He would also refer to the order sheet maintained by the Tribunal to contend that notice is issued to the landlord in Havanur Village and same is not served as the landlord (petitioner's father's brother) was residing in Shakari Village. 5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 6. From the original record it is noticed that the address of the landlord is shown as Havanur Village in Taluka Haveri and notice is issued to one Basappa Malappa Pujari, resident of Havanur. The Original file also contains the thumb impression of Basappa Malappa Pujari. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that at that point of time the landlord was a resident of Havanur and not Shakari Village and it is quite possible that after the grant of occupancy right, he might have shifted his residence. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17280 WP No. 68588 of 2011 No material is produced to show that the landlord Basappa was a resident of Shakari Village when the notice was issued. It is also noticed that statement is recorded by the Tribunal wherein it is stated that landlord has made a statement that the applicant is cultivating the land as a tenant. Apart from that it is also required to be noticed that record of right from 1967 to 1976 would clearly indicate that Form No.7 applicant was the tenant upto 01.03.1974. That being the position, the Court is of the view that the order is passed based on the acceptable evidence. 8. The contention that the petitioner's father's brother was not heard on the premise that he was resident of Shakari Village, is not supported by any documents before this Court to conclude that the was the resident of Shakari Village when the notice was issued. Had the petitioner produced any records to show that petitioner's father's brother who was the original landlord was the resident of Havanur when the notice was issued, probably the Court could have examined whether the notice is duly served or not. 9. Apart from that it is also required to be noticed that the order is passed in the year 1976 and the Writ Petition is filed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17280 WP No. 68588 of 2011 in the year 2011 challenging the order, that too by the brother's son of the original landlord. 10. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5