- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14078 WP No. 106928 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.106928 OF 2018 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. VIJAY S/O PADMAKAR GOKALE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: #202, HACHPLIS SOCIETY, NARE ROAD, DHACHARI, TQ: DHACHARI, DIST: PUNE, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. 2. ATHUL S/O ACHUT GOKALE, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: #343, OPP. E-RAILWAY STATION, TQ: AND DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. 3. ANIL S/O ACHUT GOKALE, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: #343, OPP. E-RAILWAY STATION, TQ: AND DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. 4. 4A. KRISHNA S/O GOVIND GOKALE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’., SMT. RUKMINI KRISHNA GOKHALE, AGE: 73 YEARS, R/O: KACHERI GALLI, MACHHE, BELAGAVI-590 014, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 4B. SHRI MAHADEV KRISHNA GOKHALE, AGE: 55 YEARS, R/O: KACHERI GALLI, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14078 WP No. 106928 of 2018 MACHHE, BELAGAVI-590 014, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 4C. SHRI ANAND KRISHNA GOKHALE, AGE: 59 YEARS, R/O: KACHERI GALLI, MACHHE, BELAGAVI-590 014, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 4D. SHRI SHANKAR KRISHNA GOKHALE, AGE: 50 YEARS, R/O: KACHERI GALLI, MACHHE, BELAGAVI-590 014, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 4E. SHRI SADSHIV KRISHNA GOKHALE, AGE: 47 YEARS, R/O: KACHERI GALLI, MACHHE, BELAGAVI-590 014, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VADIRAJ PADAKANDLA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SRI. MALLAPPA BHEEMANNA AMBOLAKAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., JOTIBA S/O MALLAPPA AMBOLAKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WAGHAWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. YASHAWANT S/O KHEMAPPA AMBOLAKAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14078 WP No. 106928 of 2018 4A. MARUTI S/O YASHAWANT AMBOLAKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WAGHAWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 4B. SOMANATHA S/O YASHAWANT AMBOLAKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WAGHAWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. BALAWANTA S/O KHEMAPPA AMBOLAKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WAGHAWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. LAKSHMANA S/O KHEMAPPA AMBOLAKAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WAGHAWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 7. 7A. DAKHALU YALEBAILAKARA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., YALLAPPA S/O DAKHALU YALEBAILAKARA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WAGHAWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 7B. VITTALA S/O DAKHALU YALEBAILAKARA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WAGHAWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 8. 8A. NARAYANA SHANKARA VANI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., PRAKASHA S/O LATE NARAYANA VANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WAGHAWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14078 WP No. 106928 of 2018 8B. VIJAYA S/O LATE NARAYANA VANI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WAGHAWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 8C. 8C1. KRISHNA S/O LATE NARAYANA VANI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., SMT. VINODA S/O LATE KRISHNA VANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WAGHAWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 8C2. MAHESHA S/O LATE KRISHNA VANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WAGHAWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 8C3. MADANA S/O LATE KRISHNA VANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WAGHAWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 9. KUSUMA W/O GANGARAMA YALAGUKARA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KANDOLLI, ARADI, WADA, GOA. 10. SRIMANTHA W/O APPAJI MARIHALAKARA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WAGHAWADI, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 11. NARAYAN S/O SADASHIV GOKHALE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 12. 12A. SADASHIVA S/O MAHADEVA GOKHALE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., SMT. VIJAYA D/O LATE SADASHIVA GOKHALE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14078 WP No. 106928 of 2018 R/O: 343, E-WARD, KOLHAPUR, TQ: AND DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. 12B. SRIRANGA S/O LATE SADASHIVA GOKHALE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 343, E-WARD, KOLHAPUR, TQ: AND DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. 12C. PANDURANGA S/O LATE SADASHIVA GOKHALE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 343, E-WARD, KOLHAPUR, TQ: AND DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. 12D. SMT. ANJANI W/O A. KALE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 343, E-WARD, KOLHAPUR, TQ: AND DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. 12E. SMT. JAYASHREE W/O ARUN KALE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 343, E-WARD, KOLHAPUR, TQ: AND DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4(A AND B), R5, R6, R7(A AND B), R8 (A AND B), R8(C)(1 TO 3) AND R9; NOTICE TO R10, R11, R12A, R12B, R12D AND R12E ARE DISPENSED WITH; NOTICE TO R12(C) IS SERVED; SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14078 WP No. 106928 of 2018 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: A. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.03.2018 BRG.NO.Vaghvade-SR-56+90+72+93+71+8 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2/THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B. ISSUE SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDER/S OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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) 1. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the Land Tribunal, Belagavi. 2. The main contention of the petitioners is that they were not notified before passing the impugned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14078 WP No. 106928 of 2018 order. The genealogy, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, reads as under: Triambika Sridhar Vasudev Triambika Vittal Triambika Mahadev Sridhar (11/01/1966) (1928) Sadashiv Padmakar Vasudev Vasudev Madhusudan Dattatraya Achyut Gopal Vittal Vittal Vittal Vittal Vittal Vijay (29/11/1987) (Pet-1) Atul Anil (Pet-2) (Pet-3) Govind Narayan Ramchandra Mahadev Mahadev Mahadev Krishna Govind (died) (pet-4) Rukmini Mahadev Anand Shankar Sadashiv Krishna Krishna Krishna Krishna Krishna (pet-4a) (pet-4b) (pet-4c) (pet-4d) (pet-4e) 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property originally belonged to Shri Triambika Sridhar, who had three sons, namely, Vasudev, Vittal, and Mahadev. It is further submitted that there was a partition in the family and the family - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14078 WP No. 106928 of 2018 properties were divided in terms of a decree passed in Civil First Appeal No.435/1949 on the file of the High Court of Bombay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the petition properties were allotted to the share of Vittal Triambika in the said partition, some properties to Vasudev Triambika, and other properties to Mahadev Sridhar. 5. In terms of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, it is noticed that Sadashiv Vasudev S/o Vasudev Triambika and Narayan Mahadev S/o Mahadev Sridhar were respondents before the Land Tribunal. It appears that none from the branch of Vittal Triambika was made a party. On this ground, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order has to be set-aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for consideration. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14078 WP No. 106928 of 2018 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the matter was once remanded by this Court for fresh consideration by the Tribunal. Though the petitioners contend that the decree was passed in the year 1949, the records were not changed pursuant to the decree. 7. Inviting the attention of the Court to Annexure-A1 (M.E. No. 597) and Annexure-B (M.E. No. 355), it is contended that the property stood in the name of Sadashiv Vasudev Gokhale and Narayan Mahadev Gokhale, and that both were made parties before the Tribunal and were served with notice. The names of the members of Vittal’s branch were not mentioned in the property records. 8. The contention is supported by M.E.No.597 and M.E.No.355. M.E.No.597 is of the year 1947, which is certified after the death of Vasudev Gokhale, who represented one branch. M.E.No.355 is certified - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14078 WP No. 106928 of 2018 after the death of Mahadev Gokhale, who represented the third branch. Though it is stated that a decree was passed awarding a share to the branch of Vittal, the mutation was not certified based on the said partition. 9. It is relevant to note that the petitioners have not raised a contention that there is collusion between the tenants and the branches of Vasudev and Mahadev. It is noticed that petitioner No.1 is the son of Padmakar Vasudev, and his brother Sadashiv was a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. This Court is of the view that there was effective representation, as the petitioners have not raised the contention that there is collusion between the Form No.7’s applicant and members of the first branch. The Narayan Mahadev was also a party before the Tribunal. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14078 WP No. 106928 of 2018 10. It is not the case of the petitioners that there is collusion between the applicant and Narayan Mahadev. It is also noticed that petitioner No.4 is one of the members of the third branch of Mahadev. It is not the case that there is collusion between the members of the third branch and the tenant. 11. As far as petitioners No.2 and 3 are concerned, it is noticed that there was no representation from their branch. The records indicate that the third branch has around 100 acres of land. 12. The entry in the Record of Rights reflecting the names of the contesting private respondents is not disputed. One member each from Vasudev’s and Mahadev’s branches has accepted the contention that the contesting private respondents were tenants. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14078 WP No. 106928 of 2018 13. The entry in the Record of Rights reflecting the names of the contesting private respondents is not seriously disputed. No explanation is provided as to how the entry in the RTC in the names of the tenants is erroneous. 14. Though the Court finds a technical error in not issuing notice in light of the decree passed in Civil First Appeal No.435/1949, after considering the overall materials on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 96