- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14620 WP No. 104284 of 2025 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. 104284 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: BABU S/O SIDDAPPA KADAPATTI, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. VIJAYANAGAR, KUNCHANUR ROAD, JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH ARUN YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 101. 3. KALLAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA KADAPATTI, AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR ALAGUR PLOT, JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301. 4. CHANNAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA KADAPATTI, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR ALAGUR PLOT, JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R5; SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2025 PASSED BY Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14620 WP No. 104284 of 2025 THE RESPONDENT NO.2/LAND TRIBUNAL, JAMKHANDI IN NO.KLR-1- CR-54/JAMKHANDI VIDE ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 passed by the Land Tribunal which permitted respondents No.3 and 4 to come on record and participate in the proceeding which is being held to consider the petitioner's application seeking re-grant of 3 survey numbers. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the properties in question are in exclusive possession of the petitioner and as such, he alone is entitled to claim re-grant of the lands. It is his further submission that the respondents No.3 and 4 who intended to come on record have not filed application seeking re-grant within the time stipulated. Thus, he would urge that on these two - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14620 WP No. 104284 of 2025 grounds, the respondents No.3 and 4 are not entitled to come on record. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 would submit that the lands in question were originally held by the father of the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4. Thus, it is also urged that respondents No.3 and 4 had filed application seeking re-grant of lands of properties bearing R.S.Nos.639/5, 639/6 and 639/7 way back in the year 2014 well within the stipulated deadline. 4. In addition to that, it is also his contention that if there is a rival claim among the family members, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide whether the properties belong to the individual claimant or the joint family. Under these circumstances, it is urged that the Tribunal is justified in allowing the application. 5. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14620 WP No. 104284 of 2025 6. It is noticed that respondents No.3 and 4 have filed application for re-grant of 3 survey numbers referred to above. The petitioner claims that he has filed application for re-grant of 3 survey numbers and both are rival claimants, in the sense, the petitioner claims exclusive re-grant. The respondents No.3 and 4 claim re-grant for the petitioner as well as for themselves. 7. Since the Tribunal has a jurisdiction to decide whether the properties in question are the joint family properties or individual properties, the presence of respondents No.3 and 4 is necessary for adjudication of the case on hand. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner in case the respondents No.3 and 4 are allowed to come on record. 8. Assuming that the respondents No.3 and 4 are not necessary parties to the proceeding and further assuming that the re-grant is made in favour of the petitioner, still it is open for the respondents No.3 and 4 to file a suit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14620 WP No. 104284 of 2025 claiming partition and in case if it is established that the re- grant is in favour of the joint family, then the respondents No.3 and 4 will have a share in the properties. To avoid such situation, this Court is of the view that respondents No.3 and 4 should be permitted to participate in the proceeding. 9. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the claim of both the parties. That decision has to be taken by the Tribunal based on the evidence to be led by the parties. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 10. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NAA CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42