- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 68921 OF 2012 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. SHANTADEVI W/O. ADIVEPPA SULLAD, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEWIFE, R/O. GURUKRUPA, BINDARGI ONI, GANESH PETH, HUBLI. 2. DR. LEELAVATI W/O. LINGARAJ BILEKAL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR R/O. LINGARAJ NAGAR, TALUK HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. MR. MAHESH S/O. ADIVEPPA SULLAD, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. GURUKRUPA, BINDARGI ONI, GANESH PETH, TALUK HUBLI. 4. MR. RAJESH S/O. ADIVEPPA SULLAD, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GURUKRUPA, BINDARGI ONI, GANESH PETH, HUBLI. 5. SHRI. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA SULLAD, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GURUKRUPA BINDARGI ONI, GANESH PETH, HUBLI. 6. SHRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA SULLAD, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 R/O: GURUKRUPA, BINDARGI ONI, GANESH PETH, HUBLI, 6a. DANAVVA W/O. MAHADEVAPPA SULLAD, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: #557, BINDARGI ONI, GANESH PETH, TALUK HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 6b. MANJULA W/O. MAHANTESH BELAWADI AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE, R/O. VINAYAK NAGAR VIDYANAGAR, TALUK HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 6c. SHRIDEVI W/O. NINGARAJ KUNDAGOL AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BAGEGEER ONI, TALUK HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 6d. RAVIKUMAR S/O. MAHADEVAPPA SULLAD AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. #557 MATTI ONI, TALUK HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 6e. RATANA W/O. SHANKAR HEBBALLI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: FLAT NO.09 GANGOTRI BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR KALYAN NAGAR, SHIVAMANDIR ROAD, NEAR SHOBHA HOSPITAL AMBERNATH EAST, THANE, MAHARASTRA. 6f. SHOBHA W/O. BAHUBALI KADKATTI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: # 1652 PIPE LINE ROAD, MALLASANDRA T. DASARAHALLI, NEAR SELECTION CORNER BENGALURU NORTH, DIST: BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR P1 TO P4; SHRI M. B. HIREMATH, ADV FOR P5 & P6 (A TO F) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 AND: 1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL HUBLI BY ITS CHAIRMAN ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD CAMP AT HUBLI. 2. SMT. RAMABAI W/O. NARAYANACHARYA HAVANOOR, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SHUKRAWAR PETH, DHARWAD. 3. SMT. SATYABODHA S/O. NARAYANACHARYA HAYANOOR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. SHUKRAWAR PETH, DHARWAD. 4. SMT. SHEELA W/O. VASANTARAO BHADAGUNDI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. SHUKRAWAR PETH, DHARWAD. 5. SHRI. RAMACHARYA S/O. BHIMACHARYA HAVANUR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. SHUKRAWAR PETH, DHARWAD. 6 . SMT. SUDHABAI W/O. VADHIRAJ BHANDIWAD, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. NAVANAGAR, HUBLI. 7. SHRI. JAYATHEERTH S/O. NARAYANACHARYA HAVANUR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. APARANJI, NO. 32/1, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE. 8. MR. KASHEEMSAB S/O. NANNESAB DHARWAD - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BROKER, R/O.: 2ND CROSS, TABIB LAND GANESHPETH, HUBLI. 9. MR. DAVALSAB S/O. GOUSUSAB BHUDIHAL AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BROKER, R/O. HATTIMATTUR VILLAGE, TQ: SAVANUR. 10. MR. BASAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA HAJERI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BROKER, R/O. H.NO.265, MADHANBHAVI, DHARWAD. 11. MR. SHANTAVEERAYYA S/O. SANGAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE AGENT, R/O. HITTANAL VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL. 12. MR. IBRAHIMKHAN S/O. USHMANKHAN LODHI, AGE: ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE AGENT, R/O. TABIB LAND, GANESHPETH, HUBLI. 13. MR. KHADHARSAB S/O.HUSSENSAB NAIKAR, AGE: ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: BROKER, R/O. BHANDIWAD AGASI, MAKANDHARGALLI, HUBLI. 14. MR. JAFARSAB S/O. NANNESAB DHARWAD, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BROKER, R/O. 3RD CROSS, TABIB LAND, HUBLI. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 15. MR. MAHANTESH @ BABU S/O. MAHABALESHWAR KHODHANPUR AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BROKER, R/O. HINDU ARCAD, VITOBHA GALLI, DURGAD GALLI, HUBLI. 16. MR. DODDAYYA S/O. SHIVARUBRAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BROKER, R/O. PATRAKARTHARNAGAR, HUBLI. 17. MR. DUNDAYYA S/O. SHIVARUDRAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BROKER, R/O. PATRAKARTHARNAGAR, HUBLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7; SRI. B.S.KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R10 & R15; SRI. C.R. SHIVAPUJI, ADVOCATE FOR R8, R11 & R17; SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R13; SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR R12 R14; SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R16) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2012 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN KLR/SR/BAMMAPUR/27 AT ANNEXURE-’M’. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 01.08.2012 passed by respondent No.1, the Land Tribunal, Hubli, produced as per Annexure-M, rejecting the claim of Sidlingappa Adiveppa Sullad, now represented by his legal representatives, for confirmation of occupancy right. 2. Heard Sri Mahesh Wodeyar learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1 to 4, Sri Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath learned counsels for petitioner Nos.5 and 6(a) to 6(f), Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 - State, Sri Sunil S. Desai, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7, Sri B.S.Kamate, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9, 10 and 15, Sri C.R.Shivapuji learned counsel for respondent Nos.8, 11 and 17, Sri A.S. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.13, Sri S.M.Tonne, learned counsel for respondent - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 Nos.12 and 14 and Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.16. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Sidlingappa Adiveppa Sullad was cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.13 measuring 9.18 acres situated at Bammapur village, Hubli Taluk much prior to 1950. Accordingly his name was entered in column No.11 of the Record of Rights as per ME.No.1106 effected on 10.04.1956 produced as per Annexure-C. The owners of the land by name Ramachandra B. Havanoor and Narayan B. Havanoor have filed an application under Section 14 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘KLR Act’ for short) seeking resumption of the land. The said application came to be dismissed as per order dated 25.8.1972. After coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1974 the land in question got vested with the Government as per ME.No.1945 certified by the Tahsildar on 24.09.1974 as it is a tenanted land. Accordingly, Form No.7 filed by Sidlingappa Adiveppa - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 Sullad was considered by the land Tribunal conferring occupancy right in his favour as per order dated 22.10.1981. 4. The owners who are the predecessors in title of respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein have challenged the aforesaid order before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, which was subsequently converted into W.P.No.18818/1982 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 03.12.1984 and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. In the meantime, on 13.07.1986, Sidlingappa Adiveppa Sullad died. It is contended that, without issuing notice to the legal representatives of deceased, the Land Tribunal rejected Form No.7 as per its order dated 04.06.1988. When the same was challenged by the legal representatives of the original tenant by preferring an appeal before the Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authority, which was later converted into W.P.No.25304/1993. This writ petition came to be allowed - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 vide order dated 05.08.1997 again remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that the original owner Narayan B. Havanoor along with two others had filed the suit in O.S.No.339/1996 before the learned III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hubli, seeking permanent injunction in respect of the subject land, but the suit came to be dismissed. In the meantime, the Land Tribunal has rejected From No.7 as per the order dated 04.10.2002, only on the ground of delay in bringing the legal representatives of deceased Sidlingappa Adiveppa Sullad and the application filed by the tenant is abated. The above said order was again challenged before this Court by filing W.P.No.40848/2002. It is stated that the said petition came to be allowed, quashing the order passed by the Land Tribunal and again remanding the matter once again to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. It is thereafter that the Land Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 01.08.2012, again - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 rejecting From No.7 filed by the original tenant, which is produced as per Annexure-M. Being aggrieved by the the same, petitioners are before this Court. 6. It is stated that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are sailing with the petitioners. The facts narrated above disclose that the matter was remanded several times to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration for one or the other reasons. 7. It is the contention of the petitioners that the disputed land bearing R.S.No.13 of Bammapur village of Hubli taluk measuring 9.18 acres was under the cultivation of the original tenant and there are sufficient materials to prove the same. The Land Tribunal passed the impugned order holding that the total land under the cultivation of the original tenant was 63.38 acres, which is Class-D land and therefore it exceeds the ceiling limit. It also held that no documents are produced to show the cultivation of the land by the tenant as on 01.03.1974. The Land Tribunal based its order on the statement of one Fakkirappa Gunjal - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 said to be the neighbouring land owner, who stated that the claimant was not in possession and cultivation of the land. 8. It is noticed that by majority decision of the members, the Land Tribunal rejected Form No.7 by assigning the above reasons. But the Chairman has given his opinion to state that the name of the original tenant appears in column No.12 of the revenue records. As per ME.No.1945, the land is already vested with the State Government, which means that the land was a tenanted land. ME.No.1106 dated 10.04.1956 produced as per Annexure-C discloses that Sidlingappa Adiveppa Sullad was cultivating the land in question since 1955-56 and accordingly the mutation was certified. Annexure-D is the Record of Rights for the years 1968-69 to 1970-71. The column No.12 of the Record of Rights refers to the name of Sidlingappa Adiveppa Sullad as the person in occupation and cultivation of the land and the mode of cultivation is No.3 i.e., as tenant. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 9. It is brought to the notice of the Court that Annexure-K is the order dated 25.08.1972 passed in RLC No.672/1970, on the file of the learned Principal Munsiff at Hubli. According to which, the application filed by the owner Sri H.B.Havanoor for resumption of the land bearing R.S.No.13 of Bammanpur village, Hubli taluk measuring 9.18 acres was dismissed by observing that, the land in question are deemed to be non-resumable under Section 14 (3) of Mysore Land Reforms Act. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Harsha V. Rai Vs. State of Karnataka and another1, to contend that, for registration of a person as an occupant, he is required to satisfy that he was the tenant cultivating the land personally as on the appointed date i.e., 01.03.1974. 11. Even though, learned counsel for the contesting respondents contended that ME.No.1106 was disputed by 1 (2013) 10 SCC 484 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 them, admittedly, the same was never challenged in accordance with law. However, the impugned order refers to said mutation entry as disputed by the private respondents. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents contended that Annexure-D, the Record of Rights bears the name of Sidlingappa Adiveppa Sullad as tenant, only on the basis of ME No.1106. Even if, the same is to be accepted, the entries in the Record of Rights carry presumptive value, unless the same is challenged in accordance with law. 12. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents could not justify rejection of the application filed by the original owner H.B.Havanoor seeking resumption of the land with a clear finding that the land in question is non resumable as the same is leased out to the tenant. 13. My attention is also drawn to Annexure-L, the copy of the decree dated 23.08.1997 passed in O.S.No.339/1996. The suit was filed by Narayan B. Havanoor and two others as plaintiffs against Adiveppa - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 Siddalingappa Sullad and two others seeking permanent injunction by contending that, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. But the suit came to be dismissed. The description of the suit property as per the decree is the land bearing R.S.No.13 measuring 9.13 acres situated at Bammapur village of Hubli taluk. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents could not justify dismissal of the suit O.S.No.339/1996 by the Civil Court. 14. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents contended that the impugned order came to be passed as per majority opinion and mainly the Land Tribunal has considered that, the land held by the tenant was in excess of the ceiling limit and therefore the occupancy right could not be conferred on him. 15. As per the majority opinion, the tenant as referred to R.S.No.790 measuring 5.11 acres, R.S.No.790 measuring 00.28 acres of Kusgal village, R.S.No.37/2 measuring 4.07 acres, R.S.No.39/3B measuring 00.36 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 acres and R.S.No.148/2 measuring 7.08 acres of Bammapur village totally measuring 18.11 acres. The Land Tribunal has also observed that as per the order passed by the Land Tribunal, 36.18 acres of land referred to therein were granted in favour of the tenant conferring occupancy right. The claimant has claimed the land on behalf of the joint family, consisting of his wife Gurawwa, who owns 8.22 acres of land in R.S.No.185/2A of Bammapur village. It is held that this information was withheld by the petitioners while filing Form No.7 and that, if all the properties held by the petitioners and their family members are taken into consideration, its extent will be 63.38 acres, which are of Class-D category lands. Therefore it was opined that holding of tenanted land exceeds the ceiling limit and under such circumstances he is not entitled for confirmation of occupancy right in respect of R.S./Block No.13 measuring 9.18 acres of Bammapur village. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 16. Secondly, it was observed that, the land in question remains with the possession of the landlord as per statements of the witnesses Fakkirapppa Gunjal and Abdulrasheed Byali and the claimant was not in possession and cultivation of the same and therefore as per majority opinion decided to reject From No.7. But however, the Chair Person of the Land Tribunal given his opinion that as per column No.12(2) of Record of Rights from the year 1955-56 till appointed date i.e., 01.03.1974, the name of the claimant was entered in the Record of Rights and the mode of cultivation is shown as No.3 i.e., tenanted land and there is also reference to growing of agricultural crops. It was also observed that as per ME.No.1945, the land in question is already vested with the State Government as per Section 44 of the KLR Act as the same was the tenanted land. The name of the original claimant is mutated as per ME.No.1106, showing him as tenant, and therefore it was opined that land in question is a tenanted land and the claimant is entitled for confirmation of occupancy right. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 17. Even though, the statements of Fakkirappa Gunjal and Abdulrasheed Byali referred by the Land Tribunal to deny occupancy right in favour of the claimant, their statements were recorded by the Land Tribunal much after the appointed date. But there are clinching documents, such as ME Nos.1945 and 1106, which were certified at an undisputed point of time. The Record of Rights for the year 1955-56 onwards disclose the name of the tenant in column No.12(2), which prima facie discloses that the land in question was a tenanted land as on the appointed date. Coupled with Annexure-K i.e., Record of Rights and Annexure-E i.e., rejection of RLC application filed by the owners for resumption of the land and dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction by landlord in O.S.No.339/1996. All these materials support the contention of the claimant that he was in possession and cultivation of land in question as tenant as on 01.03.1974. 18. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 that no formal order was passed by - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 the Tahsildar to contend that the land in question was vested under Section 44 of the KLR Act cannot be accepted as Section 44 of the KLR Act do not refer to passing of any such formal order, either by the Tahsildar or by the Land Tribunal, but it is the settled proposition of law that vesting of the land with the State Government was automatic by operation of law, once it is found to be in possession of the tenant. 19. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Smt.Nanjamma and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and others2, State of Karnataka Vs. Gangadhar Mari Naik3 and Abdul Khadar Vs. Land Tribunal4. The facts and circumstances narrated in the said cases are entirely different and therefore the same are not applicable to the case in hand. 2 ILR 2002 KAR 2795 3 1988 (2) KarLJ 200 4 1985 ILR (Kar) 3923 - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 20. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 referred to Section 45 (2) (ii) of KLR Act to contend that, when the tenant cultivates any land in excess of the ceiling area he shall not be entitled to be registered as an occupant of the land. Section 45 refers to the tenants to be registered as occupants of the land on certain conditions and Sub-Section (2) while referring to Sub- Section (1) deals with three contingencies i.e., Sub-clause (i) holds land partly as owner and partly as tenant but the area of the land held by him as owner is equal to or exceeds a ceiling area, he shall not been entitled to be registered as an occupant of the land held by him as a tenant before the date of vesting. 21. Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 45 of KLR Act refers to failure to cultivate the land personally as owner, but he holds the land as a tenant cultivating the same personally in excess of the ceiling area entitles him to be registered as an occupant to the extent of ceiling area. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 22. Sub-Clause (iii) of the said Section refers to holding and cultivating the land personally as owner, which is less than the ceiling area making him entitled to be registered as an occupant to the extent of such area as will be sufficient to make up his holding to the extent of a ceiling area. 23. Sub-Section (3) of Section 45 deals with a contingency where the land held by a person before the date of vesting and in respect of which he is not entitled to be registered as an occupant shall be disposed of in the manner provided under Section 77 of KLR Act, after evicting such persons. Therefore, as per Section 45 of KLR Act, even if the tenant is held to be not entitled to be registered as an occupant since the land in question was a tenanted land, and since the same vests in the State Government by operation of law as per Section 44 of KLR Act, procedure as contemplated under Section 77 of the KLR Act, will have to be adopted for evicting such persons. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 But the owner of the land will not get any benefit even under such circumstances. 24. As per the original Form No.7 filed by the tenant, he is the member of a Hindu joint family having wife, unmarried daughters and three married sons. Section 2 (12) of KLR Act defines the word ‘Family’ to mean, spouse or spouses, their minor sons and unmarried daughters. Therefore, even though unmarried daughters constitute the members of the family, married sons cannot be considered as members of the family. The tenant has given the details of the land held by him at Kusgal village as well as at Bammapur village. He refers to the land situated at Bammapur village held in the name of his wife. 25. Section 66 of KLR Act deals with filing of declaration regarding the holdings. It mandates every person who holds certain extent of land referred to in Sub- Section (1) on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act to file a declaration regarding his holdings on or before 31st day of December 1974. Sub-Section 1(c) - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 of Section 66 of the KLR Act, refers to a situation where a person whose land is deemed to be in excess of ceiling area under Section 66 shall furnish a declaration to the Tahsildar within the prescribed period. 26. Section 67 refers to surrender of land in certain cases and Sub-Section (1) (b) refers to enquiry by the Tribunal to determine the extent of the holding and the area by which such extent of land exceeds the ceiling area. Sub-Section (2), refers to serving of the notice specifying therein the extent of the land which the person is liable to surrender and requiring him to file a statement specifying the land which he proposes to surrender. Therefore Sub-Section (2) of Section 67, gives an option to the tenant to choose the land which he proposes to surrender. 27. Sub-Section (4) of Section 67 goes a step further to deal with a situation, where such person does not file any statement before the Tribunal exercising his option to select the land which he is going to surrender, - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 authorizing the Tribunal to pass an order, specifying the land referred to in the order deemed to have been surrendered by such person. 28. Section 75 of the KLR Act refers to the situation where excess land was not required to be surrendered in certain cases as it exempts a person from surrendering the land, if he satisfies certain requirements referred to in the Section. Therefore it is clear that the provisions referred to above provide elaborate procedure for surrendering of land exceeding the ceiling limit. 29. It is only after the Tribunal forms an opinion as to whether the land in question was a tenanted land or not as on the appointed date i.e., 01.03.1974 it can proceed to confer occupancy right. But however, initiating proceedings to find out as to what is the extent of the land held by him or his family members in excess of the ceiling limit, and calling upon him to surrender the same, requires following the procedures as contemplated under the Act. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal could not have - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 rejected the claim of the tenant for conferring occupancy right solely on the ground that the land held by him exceeds the ceiling limit, without following any of the procedures as referred to above. 30. The materials on record i.e., M.E.Nos.1945 and 1106 certified at an undisputed point of time showing the land as tenanted, held by the claimant resultant entry in the Record of Rights showing the name of the claimant as tenant in possession and cultivation of the land at an undisputed point of time i.e., from 1968-69 till 1970-71, filing of the application for resumption of the land held by the tenant Sidlingappa Adiveppa Sullad and rejection of the same in RLC No.672/1970 as per Annexure-K and also dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.339/1996 filed by the owner of the land against the children of the tenant Sidlingappa Sullad seeking permanent injunction makes it very clear that the land in question was the tenanted land. The claimant Sidlingappa Sullad was the tenant who was in possession and cultivation of the land as tenant as on - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 the appointed date. When such clinching materials are available on record, I do not find any justification for the Tribunal to pass the impugned order. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside and the claimant Sidlingappa Sullad, and after his death petitioners being the legal representatives are required to be declared as occupants who are entitled for confirmation of occupancy right. 31. The contention of respondent Nos.9 to 16 that they are the subsequent purchasers of portions of the land from respondent Nos.2 to 7 under different sale deeds cannot be entertained in this writ petition as they step into the shoes of original owner and subsequently their legal representatives. They cannot claim better title over any portion of the land on the basis of subsequent sale deeds. Therefore I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 68921 of 2012 (ii) The impugned order dated 01.08.2012 passed by respondent No.1 – Land Tribunal, Hubli produced as per Annexure- M is hereby set aside. Consequently, it is declared that the petitioners being the legal representatives of the deceased tenant Sidlingappa Adiveppa Sullad are entitled for confirmation of occupancy right in respect of the land bearing Block/R.S.No.13 of Bammapur village, Hubli Taluk. (iii) However, it is made clear that the appropriate authority is entitled to initiate proceedings in accordance with law, if it finds that, the petitioners are holders of the land in excess of the ceiling limit. (iv) Registry is directed to return the original file pertaining to the Land Tribunal, Hubli to the learned Additional Government Advocate. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21