- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18174 WP No. 109061 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.109061 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. CHANNAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA NAVALAGI, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHINGANAHALLI, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SUNANDABAI D/O. MALLAPPA NAVALAGI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHINGANAHALLI, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.17 12:04:08 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18174 WP No. 109061 of 2025 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL DHARWAD, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD-580001. 3. RAJESAB S/O. HASANSAB HOLI AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINGANAHALLI, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 4. SMT. UMA DESAI AGE: 60 YEARS, R/O. HANGARAKI, DHARWAD TQ AND DIST: 580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. VINAYKUMAR M.SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI WHEREBY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14/11/2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO KLR/7/SHINGANAHALLI/SR-3+82+94 AND THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18174 WP No. 109061 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4. 2. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Dharwad granting occupancy right in favour of contesting respondents No.3 and 4. 3. The petitioners are also the rival claimants, who are claiming that occupancy right in respect to the petition property. 4. It is noticed that the landlord is not a party to the proceeding. The dispute is between rival claimants i.e, petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4. 5. The order granting occupancy right on earlier occasion was subject matter of Writ Petition - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18174 WP No. 109061 of 2025 No.68572 of 2010. This Court vide order dated 24.01.2023, had remanded the matter to respondent No.2-Land Tribunal to consider the case afresh. The operative portion of the order in Writ Petition No.68572 of 2010 reads as under: “1. Writ Petition is allowed; 2. Order dated 09th August, 2010 passed in No.KLR/Shinganahalli/ SR/3+82+94 passed by the Land Tribunal, Dharwad is set- aside and the matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal, Dharwad for fresh consideration in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Writ petition No.27767 of 1992 decided on 08th October, 1999. 3. To avoid further delay in the matter, the parties are directed to appear before the Land Tribunal, Dharwad on 13th February, 2023, without waiting for notice from the Land Tribunal.” 6. It is noticed from the operative portion extracted above, a reference has been made to the order dated 08.10.1999 in W.P.No.27767 of 1992 and the Court had directed fresh consideration in terms of the directions issued in W.P.No.27767 of 1992. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18174 WP No. 109061 of 2025 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that while passing the order, the Tribunal has referred to the earlier order passed by the Tribunal on 09.08.2010, which is set aside by this Court to come to the conclusion that the contesting respondents are in possession of the property. It is his contention that original applicant's name - Malappa appeared in the record of right for the year 1973-1974 and earlier to that, same is not considered by the Tribunal in a proper perspective. 8. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 would urge that the Tribunal has taken note of the actual cultivation of the property based on the records and other evidence available and rightly held that the contesting private respondent’s ancestor– Shri Rajesab was in possession and cultivation of the property as a tenants and granted occupancy right. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18174 WP No. 109061 of 2025 9. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 10. Respondent No.2-Land Tribunal has referred to the order dated 09.08.2010 to hold that Rajesab S/o Hasansab Holi was cultivating the property. 11. It is to be noticed that the order dated 09.08.2010 was set-aside by this Court. Under these circumstances, the impugned order has to be set aside as said order is passed with reference to an order, which is already set-aside by this Court. 12. It is also noticed that there is no further discussion as to why the petitioners’ claim relating to the occupancy right has to be rejected or why the claim of the contesting respondents have to be accepted. The Court is of the view that there is no proper consideration of the materials on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18174 WP No. 109061 of 2025 13. Under these circumstances, without expressing anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties, keeping all questions open, the impugned order is set-aside. 14. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Without expressing anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties, keeping all questions open, the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Dharwad is set- aside. iii. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Dharwad. iv. It is also noticed that the matter is already remitted to the Land Tribunal twice noticing the procedural errors and lack of reasoning in the order. Hence, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18174 WP No. 109061 of 2025 the Land Tribunal shall consider the directions issued in the earlier order dated 08.10.1999 in Writ Petition No.27767 of 1992. v. The Land Tribunal shall also give reasons as to why the Tribunal is accepting claim of one party and rejecting claim of another party. While passing the order, the Tribunal shall not make reference to the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal. The finding has to be given based on the materials on record other than the earlier findings. vi. The Tribunal shall dispose of the applications within 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM/-. Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63