- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11329-DB WA No. 100424 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 100424 OF 2023 (LR) BETWEEN: PADEPPA RAMAPPA IDUDDI, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1. RAMASIDDAPPA @ SIDDAPPA S/O. PADEPPA IDUDDI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOVANAKOPPA, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126. 2. MAHADEVI D/O. MARUTI MURI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AKKISAGAR, (TOTADAMANE), TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591129. 3. SUNANDA D/O. KALLAPPA MADEPPAGOL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AKKISAGAR, (TOTADAMANE), TQ. SOUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591129. 4. GANGAVVA D/O. PADEPPA IDUDDI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11329-DB WA No. 100424 of 2023 R/O. AKKISAGAR, (TOTADAMANE), TQ. SOUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591129. 5. TANGEVVA D/O. PADEPPA IDUDDI, AGE 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AKKISAGAR, (TOTADAMANE), TQ. SOUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591129. 6. NAGAVVA W/O. PADEPPA IDUDDI, AGE 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AKKISAGAR, (TOTADAMANE), TQ. SOUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591129. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL, SUB DIVISION, BAILHONGAL, BELAGAVI-591102. KENCHAPPA YALLAPPA TAPASHI @ TUKKANATI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 4. SMT. SHAKUNTALA D/O. KENCHAPPA TAPASHI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11329-DB WA No. 100424 of 2023 AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AKKISAGAR, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591129. 5. SHRI YALLAPPA S/O. KENCHAPPA TAPASHI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AKKISAGAR, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591129. 6. SMT. MALLAWWA D/O. KENCHAPPA TAPASHI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AKKISAGAR, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591129. 7. SIDDAPPA S/O. PADEPPA IDUDDI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, R/O. GOVONAKOPPA, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. GURUDAS KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADV. FOR R4 TO R6, NOTICE TO R7 SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2023 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.85470/2013 (LR) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11329-DB WA No. 100424 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present appeal has been filed by the respondents in the writ proceedings challenging the order passed in W.P.No.85470/2013. The land owners had filed the said writ petition seeking for setting aside the order dated 20.03.2013. The order that was challenged in the writ proceedings was the order of the Regional Commissioner, Belagavi, whereby, the Revision Petition was allowed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 26.05.2009 was set aside and the Assistant Commissioner was directed to maintain status of RTC as prior to passing of the order dated 26.05.2009. 2. The learned Single Judge by a detailed consideration has disposed off the writ petition in terms of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11329-DB WA No. 100424 of 2023 the observations made at paragraph Nos.7 and 8, which reads thus: 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent being the original authority, has considered the entire material on record and taking into account the statement made by the contesting respondent, that they have not filed Form No.7 or 7A, seeking occupancy right in respect of the subject land, so also it is stated in Annexure-A and B that the contesting respondents sought for deletion of their names in the record of rights, has arrived at a conclusion that the names of the petitioners should be incorporated in the RTC records. Undisputably, no application has been made by the contesting respondents seeking occupancy rights. In that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent herein ought to have arrived at a conclusion that, the land in question is not a tenanted land under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and in that view of the matter, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the contesting respondent. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 20.03.2013 is liable to be set aside, accordingly it is set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11329-DB WA No. 100424 of 2023 8. Having confirming (sic) the order passed by the 3rd respondent herein, I am of the view that the name of the ‘Government’ be deleted from the revenue records and the name of the petitioners be restored in the revenue records. The order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the 3rd respondent is restored and accordingly, name of the petitioners be required to be incorporated in the revenue records pertaining to the subject land. 3. The learned Single Judge had recorded a finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and hence, set aside the order of the Regional Commissioner dated 20.03.2013 and further directed that the name of Government be deleted from the revenue records and name of the petitioners, who are land owners to be restored in the revenue records. 4. In the present appeal, the respondents in the writ proceedings are unable to controvert the finding of the learned Single Judge regarding absence of landlord and tenant relationship. It is an admitted position by the respondents in the writ proceedings that no Form No.7 or - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11329-DB WA No. 100424 of 2023 7A was filed in respect of the subject land. If that were to be so, on merits, there is no legally enforceable right that is canvassed in the present proceedings nor any ground made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. Insofar as the only contention regarding protection of possession, it is to be noticed that the aspect of possession ought not to be commented upon, except to state that consequent to affirming the order of the learned Single Judge, the private respondents are at liberty to take possession as per law. 6. The further contention of the appellant that the land vested with the State as on the cut off date and the land is now open for being granted, upon application made by the persons in possession is a contention that cannot be considered as the question of vesting of land in the State would arise only if tenancy was proved. In the absence of proof of tenancy which contention of the appellant has been rejected by the learned Single Judge, the question of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11329-DB WA No. 100424 of 2023 vesting does not arise and accordingly, the aspect of vesting does not require any comment by this Court. 7. In light of the above, writ appeal stands disposed off. 8. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending I.A’s, if any, do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44