- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.105475 OF 2024 (KVOA) BETWEEN: 1 SMT. SUSHILA W/O. BABURAO MAGADUM, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KOGANOLI, TAL. NIPPANI AND DIST. BELAGAVI – 591229. 2 TRISHALA ASHOK MURCHITE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOGANOLI, TAL. NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591229. 3 SHRI MAHAVEER S/O. BABURAO MAGADUM, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOGANOLI, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591229. 4 SMT. ARUNA RAJENDRA SHIKARE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOGANOLI, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591229. 5 SMT. HARSHALA ANIL PATIL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOGANOLI, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591229. 6 SHRI MAHABAL S/O. RAMAGOUDA KAGGUDE, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOGANOLI, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591229. 7 SHRI JITENDRA S/O. BABURAO KAGGUDE, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOGANOLI, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591229. 8 SHRI JIVENDRA S/O. BABURAO KAGGUDE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOGANOLI, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591229. 9 BABURAO ADAGOUDA KAGGUDE, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOGANOLI, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591229. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560001. 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE MINORITY COMMISSION, 1ST FLOOR, K.M.D.C BHAVAN, NO 39-181, SUBEDHAR CHATRA ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU -560020 BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 BELAGAVI, D C COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKODI SUB DIVISION, CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591201. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, NIPPANI, MINI VIDAN SOUDHA, NIPPANI, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591237. 6. SMT. MOHABBATHABI ABDUL RASHID SHEIK, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 366, PATIL GALLI, KAGAL, TAL: KAGAL, DIST: KOLAPHUR, MAHARASHTRA-416216. 7. SHRI MAIUDDIN ABDUL RASHID SHEIK, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 366, PATIL GALLI, KAGAL, TAL: KAGAL, DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-416216. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1, R3 TO R5; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 - SERVED; SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADV. FOR R6 & R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12/02/2024 IN PÀgÁCD/¹Dgï-35/¦fDgï/2023-24 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-“M” AND ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 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 12.02.2024 passed by respondent No.2, the Karnataka State Minority Commission (for short “the Commission”), produced as per Annexure-M. 2. Heard Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5 and Smt.Sunanda P. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the predecessors in title of petitioners by name Peeru Babaji Magadum and Khaja Aragadad Khaggude have submitted two different Form Nos.7, claiming occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.757, totally measuring 8.29 acres of Kegavalli village of Chikkodi taluk. These two different - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 Form Nos.7 were enquired by the Land Tribunal and it passed the order dated 28.12.1981 produced as per Annexure-C, holding that the applicants were the tenants and accordingly granted occupancy right in favour of Peeru Babaji Magdum in Sy.No.757 of Kegavalli village, to an extent of 5.19 acres, and in favour of Babu Nadiger Khaggode in the very same survey number, to an extent of 3.10 acres. On the basis of the order as per Annexure- C, Form No.10 was issued as per Annexure-D. 4. It is pertinent to note that in Form Nos.7 produced as per Annexures-A and B, the names of landlords are shown as 1) Abdul Rehim Bala Shaikh, 2) Manumulal Bala Shaikh, 3) Abalal Bala Shaik, 4) Babilal Bala Shaikh, 5) Pajulal Umah Shaikh, 6) Heban Unman Shaikh, 7) Humen Yekub Shaikh, 8) Imam Yakub Shaikh, 9) Jijam Yakub Shaikh, 10) Babalal Yaukb Shaikh, 11) Mirasaheb Ahamad Shaikh, 12) Amir Dadu Shaikh, 13) Husen Dadu Shaikh, 14) Smt.Madira W/o Husen, 15) - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 Hazir, 16) Allauddin, 17) Shamuddin Humer, 18) Mumtaz, 19) Raziabi, 20) Shiez and 21) Jasmine. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, none of these owners referred to in Form No.7, or in Annexure-C which is the order of Land Tribunal, have challenged the order granting occupancy right in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the original records secured by learned High Court Government Pleader to show that, the owners referred to in Form No.7 and also in Annexure-C have applied for payment of premium/ compensation from the Government, and the original owner has accepted compensation of Rs.2,000/- on 07.09.1984 by way of Cheque. My attention was also drawn to the original records by learned counsel for the petitioners, which contains the affidavit sworn to by the original owner Abdul Rahiman Bala Shaik, who has stated on oath that Sy.No.757 measuring 8.39 acres of Kegavalli - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 village is vested in the Government, and he is entitled to receive compensation awarded by the Government. The original record also discloses that the proceedings were held by the Special Tahsildar considering the application made by the owner and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,000/-, which he has received by way of a cheque. The records also disclose that after death of Abdul Rahiman Bala Shaik, his wife and children after producing his death certificate claimed additional compensation. The said application was also considered by the Special Tahsildar, and the additional compensation of Rs.5,722/- was paid in favour of four persons i.e., Miyalal Abdul Rahiman Shaik, 2) Abdul Rashid, 3) Yusuf and 4) Smt.Zahurabi i.e., Rs.1,435/- each by way of Cheques. 6. The contesting respondent Nos.6 and 7 are now claiming their right under Abdul Rashid referred to above. Admittedly, the original owner under whom, the predecessors in title of the respondents are claiming occupancy right had never challenged the order of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 Land Tribunal in respect of Sy.No.757 of Kegavalli village. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that Annexure-C, the order passed by the Land Tribunal has reached finality. 7. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 that, W.P.No.5943/1982 was filed before this Court, the said petition was allowed, and order passed by the Land Tribunal as per Annexure-C was quashed, remanding the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. The said order was produced as per Annexure-F. As per this order, one Ganapathi Balavant Jeerage had filed the writ petition against the Land Tribunal as respondent No.1, the State of Karnataka as respondent No.2, Bahu Appa Magadum as respondent No.3 and Kallappa Appa Magadum as respondent No.4. Neither the petitioners nor their predecessors in interest, or respondent Nos.6 and 7, nor their predecessors in title are the parties in the said writ petition. Even though a cryptic order was passed as - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 per Annexure-F quashing the order of the Land Tribunal dated 28.12.1981. The order does not refer either to the survey numbers or to the status of the parties in detail. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the challenge in the said writ petition by Ganapathi Balavant Jeerage, was in respect of Sy.No.32, 33 and 677. Annexure-C, the order of the Land Tribunal dated 28.12.1981 refers to those Sy.Nos.32, 33, 677 of Kegavalli village. The names of Babu Asma Magadum and Appa Bahu Magadum are shown as claimants along with Peeru Babaji Magadum and Khaja Aragadad Khaggude who are the predecessors in interest of the petitioners, who were granted occupancy right only in respect of Sy.No.757 and not in respect of other items of the properties. Considering these documents on record, the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that W.P.No.5943/1982 was neither filed by the predecessors in title of the petitioners, nor by or against the predecessors in interest of contesting respondents, but - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 it was in respect of altogether different properties bearing Sy.Nos.32, 33 and 677 of Kegavalli village is to be accepted. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the contesting respondents that by order produced as per Annexure-F, this Court has quashed the entire order dated 28.12.1981 cannot be accepted as admittedly, neither the petitioners, nor the predecessors in title of contesting respondents, have approached the Land Tribunal claiming fresh enquiry. On this ground also, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the grant of occupancy right in favour of the predecessors in interest of petitioners was never challenged before this Court, will have to be accepted. 10. Moreover, as I have already noted, the original records secured from the Land Tribunal disclose that, the predecessors in interest of respondent Nos.6 and 7 have accepted the compensation, and additional compensation, by way of cheque, and when the matter was pending - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 before the Land Tribunal for consideration, predecessors in interest of the contesting respondents have sworn an affidavit categorically stating that the land is already vested in the Government, thereby categorically admitted the tenancy right of the claimants before the Land Tribunal. When such clinching materials are available before this Court, the contention of the contesting respondents that, the claimants were never tenants in respect of Sy.No.757 of Kegavalli village, the predecessors in interest of contesting respondents was in possession and cultivation of the same and the same, was continued with respondent Nos.6 and 7 cannot be accepted even for a moment. Hence, such contention is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 11. The petitioners are seeking to quash the order passed by respondent No.2 – the Commission dated 12.02.2024 produced as per Annexure-M. As per this order, the Commission referred to Sy.No.757 measuring 8.39 acres situated at Kegavalli village, which is the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 subject matter of the petition and on consideration of the materials that are placed before it, passed an order referring to the order dated 19.07.1984 passed in W.P.No.5943/1982 by this Court, to hold that the order granting occupancy rights in favour of the predecessors in interest of the petitioners is already quashed, and also passed an order assuming the jurisdiction of the Civil Court that the right of Peeru Babaji Magadum and Babu Nadigeru Kaggude in respect of land measuring 5.19 acres and 3.10 acres respectively in Sy.No.757 of Kegavalli village was not proved. Therefore it recommended to the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi to delete their names in Record of Rights and to enter the names of legal representatives of Abdul Rahiman Bala Shaik as the persons in possession and occupation of the properties. Based on Annexure-M, the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, issued the notice produced as per Annexure-P, to the petitioners to appear before him and to produce necessary documents, in support of their contention. Upon which, the petitioners approached this Court. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 12. When the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in favour of the claimants accepting that they are the tenants in occupation of the land and that they are entitled for conferring occupancy right, respondent No.2 cannot assume jurisdiction to undo the effect of such order by assuming the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 13. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7, referring to Section 10 of the Karnataka Minorities Commission Act, 1994 (“the Act, 1994” for short), contended that functions of the Commission as per the Act, 1994, includes consideration of the grievance of the minorities and to suggest appropriate solutions from time to time and look into the specific complaints regarding deprivation of rights and safeguard the minorities, and to take up such matter with the appropriate authorities. Referring to Section 10A of the Act, 1994, regarding powers of the Commission, she contended that, the Commission is armed with the powers of the Civil Court to try the suit. Therefore, it was authorized to make - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 recommendations. According to her, Annexure-M is only a recommendation and not an order. Even though, the functions of the Commission as defined under Section 10, and powers of the Commission under Section 10A of the Act, 1994, for which, the Commission will have powers of the Civil Court to try a suit, the same cannot be extended to undo the order passed by the Land Tribunal, holding the claimants as tenants and declaring that they are the occupants entitled for conferring occupancy right. It is too much on the part of respondent No.2, to hold enquiry with regard to quasi-judicial matter, which was decided by the Land Tribunal by passing the judicial order. If at all the owners were aggrieved by the order produced as per Annexure-C, granting occupancy right in favour of the claimants, they could have approached appropriate Court. Admittedly, neither the original owner nor the contesting respondents have approached any Court at any point of time nor they have approached any other authority seeking to quash the order granting occupancy right. But strangely, they approached respondent No.2, to get the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 order of the Land Tribunal quashed as a back door method which cannot be entertained. 14. Respondent No.2, in Annexure-M referred to the order passed in W.P.No.5943/1982 to interpret the order as it refers to the occupancy right granted in favour of the claimants, who are the predecessors in interest of the petitioners. Such an opinion was formed by the Commission, even when it is specifically brought to the notice of the Commission that, such order was only in respect of Sy.Nos.32, 32A and 33 of Keguvalli village. Under such circumstances, the Commission has exceeded its limits and committed an error in interpreting the order of this Court insofar as quashing the order of the Land Tribunal pertaining to the parties before it. 15. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5, supporting the contention of the petitioners contended that, respondent No.2 had no authority to pass Annexure-M, ignoring the order of the Land Tribunal and other proceedings, wherein the original - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 owner accepted the tenancy stating that the land in question is vested in the Government and received the compensation from the Tahsildar. 16. In view of the discussions held above, with regard to the scope of W.P.No.5943/1982, I am of the opinion that, the Commission has exceeded its limit in passing the order without suggesting appropriate remedies to the contesting respondents to approach the Land Tribunal or any other Forum, in accordance with law. 17. At the cost of repetition it is to be noticed that, the materials on record disclose that the original owner filed an affidavit categorically stating that the land in question is already vested in the Government, and he is entitled for compensation. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal held an enquiry, and conferred occupancy right in favour of the claimants, in respect of Sy.No.757 of Kegavalli village. Neither the owner nor the claimants have challenged the said order before any of the authorities, including this Court. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 18. On the other hand, the predecessors in title of the contesting respondents claimed and accepted the compensation and additional compensation amount by way of Cheques. Under such circumstances, the conduct of the contesting respondent Nos.6 and 7, again making the claim over the property, which is granted in favour of the claimants by the Land Tribunal by submitting an application before respondent No.2, is to be deprecated. 19. Even though, the commission was constituted to safeguard the interest of the members of the minority communities, by considering their grievance and by suggesting appropriate solutions to consider specific complaints regarding deprivation of rights, and to safeguard their interests by taking up the matter with appropriate authorities, the same cannot be extended to interfere in the order that is passed by the competent authority or quasi-judicial authority. At the most, respondent No.2 could have suggested to the contesting respondents to approach a competent Court having - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 jurisdiction to set aside the order produced as per Annexure-C. 20. Even if respondent No.2, claims that Annexure- C is already quashed by this Court in W.P.No.5943/1982, it could have directed the parties to the Land Tribunal once again. But without adopting any such recourse, respondent No.2 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, to enter the names of contesting respondents in the revenue records as they are the owners in possession of the property by deleting the names of the occupants. Respondent No.2 has not thought it fit, to hear the grievances of the petitioners before passing Annexure-M. Therefore, Annexure-M even though stated to be the recommendation made by respondent No.2, is liable to be quashed as it will have very serious consequences over the rights of the petitioners. Under the facts and circumstances and looking at the conduct of the respondents, including respondent No.2, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to impose exemplary costs. But - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5997 WP No. 105475 of 2024 I desist from imposing it as I think it fit to warn them not to indulge in such arm twisting tactics in future. 21. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that, the impugned order at Annexure-M is liable to be quashed by allowing the petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 12.02.2024 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure- M is hereby quashed. (iii) The original file produced for perusal of the Court be returned to the learned High Court Government Pleader. (iv) In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2025 stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9