- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46621 WP No. 29619 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 29619 OF 2013 (LR-SEC) BETWEEN: DEVAGALA VISHNUMURTHY RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE DEVAGALA VENKATAKRISHNAIAH, R/AT MATTU VILLAGE POST: KATAPADI UDUPI TALUK, DISTRICT-574110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S K ACHARYA .,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKAA REP BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI-576101 REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. PIJJU POOJARY AGED 62 YEARS S/O LATE DURGI POOJARTHI SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46621 WP No. 29619 of 2013 3(a) 3(b) 3(c) 3(d) SUJATHA D/O LATE PIJJU POOJARY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SUMITHRA D/O LATE PIJJU POOJARY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS SURESHA S/O LATE PIJJU POOJARY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS SUREKHA D/O LATE PIJJU POOJARY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT MATTU VILLAGE POST: KATAPADI-574118 UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 4. GIRIJA POOJARTHI AGED 58 YEARS D/O LATE DURGI POOJARTHI 5. JANAKI AGED 54 YEARS D/O LATE DURGI POOJARTHI 6. LEELA AGED 50 YEARS D/O LATE DURGI POOJARTHI RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 R/AT MATTU VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46621 WP No. 29619 of 2013 POST: KATAPADI, UDUPI TALUK, DISTRICT-574110. RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 ARE REP BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 3RD RESPONDENT- PIJJU POOJARY 7. VISHNUMURTHY TEMPLE MATTU VILLAGE REP THE DEITY VISHNUMURTY DEVARU, KATAPADI UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-574110 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K.PUJAR., HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI. T.HAREESH BHANDARY., ADVOCATE FOR R3 (A-D) V/O DT. 22/1/24 R4-R6 ARE SERVED R7 SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.27.12.2011 PASSED IN CASE NO.LRY- 98-53-222-223 TRI-3255-4282/81-82 ON THE FILE OF THE R2 LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI, IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE LAND IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46621 WP No. 29619 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.12.2011 passed in case bearing No.LRY-98-53-222-223-TRI-3255- 4282/81-82, by the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, Udupi, whereby, the 2nd respondent has granted occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent (since deceased represented by respondents No.4 to 6) in land bearing Sy.No.39/9, measuring 1 Acre and 31 Cents and Sy.No.39/12, measuring 23 Cents (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject lands') by rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his father- late. Devagala Venkatakrishnaiah had filed the Application in Form No.7 on 06.11.1979, claiming occupancy rights in respect of the subject lands. However, the 3rd respondent and his mother also filed Application in Form No.7 claiming - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46621 WP No. 29619 of 2013 occupancy rights for the same lands. On an earlier occasion, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent on 01.10.1981 and the same was called in question by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.15405/1993 and this Court by order dated 19.03.2002 quashed the order passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the 2nd respondent-Tribunal for fresh consideration by holding an enquiry. After the remand order, though the petitioner had submitted all the necessary documents to prove the tenancy rights on the subject lands, the Tribunal has failed to consider the same and passed the impugned order by rejecting the claim of the petitioner and granting the same lands in favour of the 3rd respondent and others. He would further submit that the 7th respondent, who is the owner of the subject lands under whom the tenancy rights claimed by the petitioner, had filed a suit in S.C.No.378/1962 before the Court of the District Munsiff, Udupi, for the relief of eviction, which reveals that the petitioner was a chalageni tenant under - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46621 WP No. 29619 of 2013 the 7th respondent. Further, the petitioner has placed chalageni chits in the said suit. The said documents are though produced before the Tribunal, those documents were not considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow the writ petition. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submits that, the Tribunal after considering the material documents and evidence placed on record, has passed the impugned order while granting the occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent. It is also contended that before passing an order, the Tribunal also conducted a spot inspection which clearly depicts that the 3rd respondent and others are in possession of the subject lands and they are paying tenancy tax. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference of this Court and prays to dismiss the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46621 WP No. 29619 of 2013 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsels for both the parties and I have perused the entire records including the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent-Tribunal. 5. As could be seen from the records, the petitioner is claiming tenancy under the 7th respondent in respect of the subject lands. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent is also claiming the rights in respect of the same land. Though the Tribunal while passing the impugned order has conducted a spot inspection and perused the tax paid receipts, failed to consider the chalageni chits produced by petitioner. The vehement contention learned counsel for the petitioner is that, if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner, he will produce all the relevant documents to prove his tenancy. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal by extending opportunity to both the parties to put forth their respective claims along with necessary documents. The petitioner as well as the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46621 WP No. 29619 of 2013 respondents are also granted liberty to adduce evidence to that effect. 7. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (1) The writ petition is allowed. (2) The impugned order dated 27.12.2011 in case No.LRY-98-53-222-223-TRI-3255-4282/81-82 at Annexure-A, is hereby quashed. (3) The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. (4) Till the disposal of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the parties shall maintain status- quo in respect of the subject lands. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE DL CT: JL