- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15451 WP No. 101172 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 101172 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. DODDASATHAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA KICHADI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., RANGAPPA S/O. DODDASATTAPPA KICHADI, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DURADUNDI, TA. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 307. 2. MAHADEVA S/O. DODDASATTAPPA KICHADI, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DURADUNDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 307. 3. SHIVAMURTHY S/O. DODDASATTAPPA KICHADI, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DURADUNDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 307. 4. BASAPPA S/O. DODDASATTAPPA KICHADI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DURADUNDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 307. 5. ANAND S/O. DODDASATTAPPA KICHADI, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DURADUNDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 307. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.19 12:20:51 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15451 WP No. 101172 of 2025 AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590 001. 2. VENKATESH @ ARUN NARAYAN DESHPANDE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.319, MAJANAGATTI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 307. 3. SANNASATHAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA KICHADI, AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DURADUNDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 307. 4. HANMANTH S/O. BHIMAPPA KICHADI, AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DURADUNDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 307. RESPONDENTS NO. 3 AND 4 ARE DELETED V/O/DATED 18.06.2025. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1; SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE R2; V/O/DATED 18.06.2025 R3 AND R4 ARE DELETED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07/09/2016 BEARING NO. KabhuSu/7A/vv- 01/98-99/DURADUNDI PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ORDER DATED 07/02/2020 PASSED BY KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BEARING NO.865/2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15451 WP No. 101172 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel Sri. Vinay S. Koujalagi appearing for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, and learned counsel Sri. Dinesh M. Kulkarni appearing for respondent No.2. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order marked as Annexure-C dated 07.09.2016, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, and the order marked as Annexure-D dated 07.02.2020, passed in (Revenue) Appeal No:865/2016 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. 3. The Additional Deputy Commissioner rejected the Form No.7A application filed by the petitioners’ father, and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, dismissed the petitioners’ appeal, wherein, the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 19611, is confirmed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners’ father was a tenant in respect of the property 1 For short, ‘Act of 1961’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15451 WP No. 101172 of 2025 and was in possession of the property as on immediately before the cut-off date, i.e., 01.03.1974, as well as on immediately before the date of filing the Form No.7A application. It is his submission that the petitioners’ holding is within the permissible limit, as such they are eligible for grant of occupancy rights under Section 77A of Act of 1961. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, wherein it is held that the petitioners’ father was found to be in possession of the property as on the date of inspection, i.e., 24.12.1999. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting private respondent would submit that the name of the petitioners’ father was not found in Column No.12 of the property records as a tenant, and earlier there was an order of surrender of tenancy in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of Act of 1961, whereby the tenancy was surrendered. 7. It is submitted that the petitioners’ father had filed suits in O.S.Nos.245/1999, 401/1996 and 344/1993, all of which were decided against the petitioners’ father, and the appeals filed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15451 WP No. 101172 of 2025 against the said judgments and decrees were also dismissed, thereby confirming the findings against the petitioners’ father. 8. Thus, it is urged that the finding of the Deputy Tahsildar, that the petitioners’ father was in possession on 24.12.1999, is incorrect. The Court, after considering the materials on record, has held that the petitioners’ father was not in possession of the scheduled property. It is also submitted that entry in the record of right would reveal the name of the contesting respondent in both Column Nos.9 and 12. Thus, it is established that the petitioners’ father was not a tenant immediately before 01.03.1974, nor on the date of filing Form No.7A application. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that the requirements of Section 77A of Act of 1961, are not fulfilled, and that both authorities were justified in rejecting the application under Section 77A of Act of 1961. 10. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15451 WP No. 101172 of 2025 11. The record of right would indicate that the name of the contesting respondent was appearing in the property records both in Column Nos.9 and 12. The decree passed by the Competent Civil Court, is not in dispute. It is held that the petitioners’ father was not in possession of the property. 12. Under Section 77A of Act of 1961, one of the requirements is that a person seeking occupancy under Section 77A of Act of 1961 must establish that he continued in actual possession of the property as on the date of the amendment in 1998. Since the Competent Courts’ finding that the petitioners’ father was not in possession has attained finality, the Court is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 13. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, has assigned valid reasons to reject the petitioners’ claim over the property. 14. The Court does not find any error in the impugned orders. 15. It is also forthcoming from the records that the surrender proceeding was initiated under the Karnataka Land - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15451 WP No. 101172 of 2025 Reforms Act, 1961, and in SLC No.1/1971, as such there was no tenancy subsisting immediately before 01.03.1974. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 49