- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17286 WP No. 104888 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 104888 OF 2015 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI. HANUMANT S/O ANNAPPA CHAVAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DESAIRATTI, KOKATNUR VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH ANNAPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ATHANI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17286 WP No. 104888 of 2015 3. SRI. APPASAHEB S/O MALLAPPA DESAI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DESAIRATTI, KOKATNUR VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SRI. NARAYANA S/O APPASAHEB PAWAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DESAIRATTI, KOKATNUR VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 02.04.2002 IN NO.TNC:T.SR:497+4304, PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ATHANI, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-N; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER, OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE LAND TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AND GRANT OCCUPANCY RIGHT AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17286 WP No. 104888 of 2015 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order, marked at Annexure-A, dated 02.04.2002 passed by the Land Tribunal, Athani. 2. In terms of which, the occupancy right was granted in favour of respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the impugned order was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he would refer to the order sheet, which does not bear the petitioner’s signature and contains only the signature of contesting respondent No.4. Thus, it is his contention that said order is in violation of the principles of natural justice, and is also contrary to the rules under the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, which require that notice be issued to the parties before passing such an order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17286 WP No. 104888 of 2015 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that the dispute between Appasaheb Vital Pawar and the present petitioner, who was respondent No.3 in W.P.No.26374/1992, is settled in terms of order dated 24.07.1999. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: - ORDER - “The instant writ petition had come up before Court in the orders list, since the LCR had not been received by the Registry. However, the contesting parties, the petitioner duly represented by his Power of Attorney Holder (also his son) on the one side and the respondent No.3 on the other had filed a joint memo. The effect of the joint memo is to say that the petitioner herein be conferred with the occupancy right as the dispute between the parties, they being closely related, had already been settled within themselves. They also prayed that the Land Tribunal, Athani, be directed to confer with the occupancy right by setting aside the impugned order in the writ petition. 2. The Power of Attorney of the petitioner as well as the contesting respondent No.3 are before - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17286 WP No. 104888 of 2015 Court. The Power of Attorney is identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. G.B. Shastry. The respondent No.3 had been identified by his counsel Sri. Balikai. I am satisfied as to the identities of the parties. 3. Therefore, I pass the following order in terms of the joint memo: The order dt. 20-8-92 in case No.TNC.T.SP- 497:4304, passed by the respondent No.1-Land Tribunal, Athani, copy at Annexure ‘A’ to writ petition is quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.1- Land Tribunal, Athani, with a direction to pass considered order in the light of the order herein passed and further in the light of the joint memo filed before Court. 4. The writ petition therefore succeeds and accordingly stands allowed. Rule issued is made absolute. 5. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the order herein passed together with the copy of the joint memo of the parties and further a copy of the Power of Attorney filed before Court to the respondent No.1 – Land Tribunal, Athani, at the earliest.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17286 WP No. 104888 of 2015 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would also contend that an application was filed to recall the order dated 24.07.1999 and the said application was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2014. The relevant portion of the order dated 17.12.2014 reads as under: “6. On perusal of the order dated 24/07/1999, it becomes clear that respondent No.3 is a signatory to joint memo and he was also present in Court on the said date and he was identified by his counsel Sri. Balikai. 7. The applicant – respondent No.3, cannot after 15 years, claim ignorance of what was stated in the joint memo and also order passed by this Court on that date. Therefore, there is no reason to condone the delay in seeking recall of order dated 24.07.1999. 8. It is also noted that subsequent to remand of the matter by this Court, Land Tribunal has disposed the proceeding on 02.04.2002. That is another reason as to why the order dated 24/07/1999 cannot be recalled as that order has been given effect to. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17286 WP No. 104888 of 2015 9. Hence, I.A.No.II/2014 is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.I/2014 also stands dismissed.” 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 7. Though it appears that the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order, what is required to be considered is that the petitioner had already given up his claim in the earlier round of litigation in WP No.26374/1992. The petitioner in the present petition was respondent No.3 in that writ petition, and the Court had noticed that he was present along with this advocate and had filed a joint memo giving up his claim over the petition property. The order dated 24.07.1999 has attained finality. In case this petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal that amounts to setting aside the order dated 24.07.1999 as well as the order dated 17.12.2014. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17286 WP No. 104888 of 2015 8. No grounds are made out to set aside the impugned order, since the petitioner himself had given up his claim in the earlier round of litigation. 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 8