- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 24042 OF 2017 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT CHIKKI HENGSU W/O LATE MAHABALA BHANDARY SINCE DEAD BY LR'S SRI RAGHUNATHA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S 2. RUDRU D/O LATE RAGHUNATH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3. DHANYA D/O LATE RAGHUNATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 4. DHANUSHA D/O LATE RAGHUNATH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 5. RAVIRAJA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O SMT. CHIKKI HENGSU 6. SMT SUMATHI D/O SMT. CHIKKI HENGSU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT ULTHUR VILLAGE KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 PETITIONER NO.1 & 6 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. RAVIRAJA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O SMT. CHIKKIE HENGSU R/O ULTHUR VILLAGE KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201. 7. 7(a) 7(b) 7(c) SRI RAMANATHA S/O CHIKKI HENGSU SINCE DEAD BY LR'S KUSUMA W/O LATE RAMANATHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RAKSHITH S/O LATE RAMANATHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS AKSHATHA D/O LATE RAMANATHA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS PETITIONER NO.7(a) TO 7(c) ARE R/A CHIKKAMMA NILAYA, ULTHOOR ULTHOOR, KUNDURA, UDUPI KARNATAKA-576 231. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.S SACHIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT RAMANI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O LATE RAJU BHANDARY 2. SRI VIJAYA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE RAJU BHANDARY 3. SRI VASANTHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE RAJU BHANDARY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT KALSANKA ROAD MATADABETTUR, SHIVALLI VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 201. 4(a) 4(b) 4(c) 4(d) SRI VASU BHANDARY S/O BABY HENGSU SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S VISHU KUMAR S/O LATE SRI. VASU BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A SRI DEVI NILAYA KATTE ACHARYA ROAD KUNJIBETTU, UDUPI-576 201. VANI CHANDRASHEKAR W/O CHANDRASHEKAR D/O SRI VASU BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A ANUGRAHA, MALLESHWAR NAGAR GUNDAPPA SHED, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. ASHA GANESH W/O GANESH D/O SRI. VASU BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A NO.364, BALAJI NILAYA 4TH MAIN, II CROSS, NEAR MANASA HOSPITAL VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040. USHA SURESH W/O SURESH KUMAR D/O SRI. VASU BHANDARY - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 4(e) AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A PRIYA NILAYA BANAJE, UDUPI-576 201 VISHNU KUMAR S/O LATE SRI VASU BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A KUNJIBETTU, UDUPI-576 201 5. KALIYA MARDHANA KRISHNA DEVARU SRI ADMAR MUTT, CAR STREET UDUPI-576 101 6. SRI PRASAD SHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE V RAMANA SHETTY R/A 'SRIKRIPA' KADEKAR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 201. 7. THE SPECIAL OFFICER LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL UDUPI DISTRICT UDUPI-576 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1-3, SRI. RAVI KUMAR G.H, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A-E) SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE FOR R6, SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R7, R5 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.04.2017 IN APPEAL NO.196/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE AT ANNEX-A CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE APPEAL NO.196/2014 AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.12.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "KAT") in Appeal No.196/2014 at Annexure- 'A'. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that, one Baby Hengsu is the propositus and she had three sons namely Mahabala Bhandary, Raju Bhandary and Vasu Bhandary. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the children of Mahabala Bhandary, who died on 31.07.1979. Respondent No.1 is the wife and respondents 2 and 3 are the children of Raju Bhandary. Vasu Bhandary was respondent No.4 and on his death, his legal heirs are on record as respondents 4(a) to 4 (e). Baby Hengsu was cultivating the lands measuring 32 cents in Sy.No.85/8, 4 cents in Sy.No.84/6 and 1 acre 62 cents in Sy.No.84/3, all situated at Shivalli Village, Udupi District (for brevity, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 "subject lands") along with her children as a sub-tenant under one Muddanna Shetty, who was a chalageni tenant under the landlord namely Kaliya Mardhana Krishna Devaru, Admar Mutt - respondent No.5. However, due to illiteracy, instead of claiming occupancy right in respect of subject lands, she claimed occupancy right in respect of some other properties though she was in possession and cultivation of subject lands. 3. Later, respondent No.4- Vasu Bhandary made a claim in respect of subject lands, the same was rejected by the Land Tribunal and the said order has been confirmed by the KAT as well as by this Court. 4. Subsequently, the wife and children of Raju Bhandary i.e., respondents 1 to 3 claimed occupancy right in respect of subject lands under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 vide Form-7A dated 10.03.1999. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 5. At the same time, Vasu Bhandary, whose claim was rejected earlier by the Land Tribunal, again filed Form-7A claiming occupancy right in respect of subject lands. 6. The Land Tribunal held an enquiry into the rival claims of legal heirs of Raju Bhandary and Vasu Bhandary and passed an order dated 01.03.2006 granting occupancy right to legal heirs of Raju Bhandary i.e., respondents 1 to 3 in respect of lands measuring 1 acre 62 cents in Sy.No.84/3 and to respondent No.4 - Vasu Bhandary in respect of lands measuring 32 cents in Sy.No.85/8 and an extent of 4 cents in Sy.No.84/6. 7. However, the landlord-respondent No.5 - Mutt filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Land Tribunal in Appeal No.754/2008 before the KAT, which was later withdrawn by respondent No.5. However, respondent No.5 challenged the dismissal order in WP.35506/2010 on the ground that the Manager of Mutt without knowledge to the Mutt has withdrawn the appeal before the KAT, which was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 allowed by this Court on 20.06.2012 by setting aside the order of the KAT. However, on remand, since respondent No.5 has failed to prosecute the appeal, the same was dismissed for default. Subsequently, respondents 1 to 3 under a compromise with respondent No.5 sold the subject land in Sy.No.84/3 to respondent No.6 vide Sale Deed dated 29.09.2013. 8. The petitioners once again challenged the order of the Land Tribunal dated 01.03.2006 in Appeal No.196/2014 before the KAT. The KAT dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 01.03.2006 passed by the Land Tribunal vide order dated 10.04.2017. Challenge to the same is the lis before this Court. 9. Heard Sri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel for the petitioners - legal heirs of Mahabala Bhandary, Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 - legal heirs of Raju Bhandary, Sri Ravikumar G.H., learned counsel for respondents 4 (a to e) - legal heirs of Vasu - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 Bhandary, Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for respondent No.6, Sri Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned HCGP for respondent No.7. Respondent No.5 though served, remained unrepresented. 10. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Form No.7A filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 clearly reveals that they filed the same on behalf of the joint family as they stated that they were cultivating the land for the past more than 100 years i.e., from the period of their ancestors. Hence, though the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy right in their favour, it was not exclusive grant in their favour, but it was the joint family grant and the petitioners are equally entitled for share in the subject lands. 11. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners filed a civil suit in O.S.No.97/2006 for partition in respect of the subject lands, later they withdrew the same, since the question regarding tenancy on behalf of joint family has to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 be decided by the Tribunal and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NOOR MOHD. KHAN GHOUSE KHAN SOUDAGAR Vs. FAKIRAPPA BHARMAPPA MACHENABALLI - AIR 1978 SC 1217. Accordingly, he prays to set-aside the impugned order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the KAT. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that at no point of time, the petitioners had filed application in Form No.7A, and they are not the rival claimants. If no application is filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal cannot get into the question of share of the petitioners in the subject lands and the same has to be questioned before the Civil Court as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BALAWWA AND ANOTHER Vs. HASANABI AND OTHERS - (2000) 9 SCC 272. As such, the remedy available for them is to approach the Civil Court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 13. He also contended that the grant made in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 though challenged by the landlord respondent No.5-Mutt, the same was rejected and has attained finality by way of compromise between the parties before the KAT. Further, respondent No.4 also challenged the grant order made in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the Land Tribunal and this court, which was rejected and has attained finality. In such circumstance, the petitioners without filing any application cannot challenge the grant order only on the ground that they are the family members. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 15. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute, on the application being filed in Form-7A by respondents 1 to 3 and respondent No.4, the Land - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 Tribunal considering the rival claim, had granted occupancy right to respondents 1 to 3 in respect of lands measuring 1 acre 62 cents in Sy.No.84/3 and to respondent No.4 in respect of lands measuring 32 cents in Sy.No.85/8 and an extent of 4 cents in Sy.No.84/6. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have not filed any application before the Land Tribunal seeking occupancy right. Thus, the rival claim was only between respondents 1 to 3 and respondent No.4. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balawwa cited supra has held in paragraph 8 as under: "8. Looking at the provisions of Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the relief which is sought for in the present case, it is difficult to hold that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to grant the said relief so as to must the jurisdiction of the civil court. Under Section 48A, the Tribunal can only grant the relief of declaring the occupancy right in favour of an appellant provided the pre-conditions for the same are satisfied, namely, that the land was in the possession of the tenant concerned on the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 relevant date. That being the position and the Tribunal under the Land Reforms Act not having the jurisdiction to grant relief of partition, the civil court itself has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for partition." 17. In view of the above findings, it is clear that the Land Tribunal can only grant the relief of declaring the occupancy right in favour of the "applicant" provided the preconditions for grant are satisfied. The Land Tribunal after considering the rival claim between respondents 1 to 3 and respondent No.4 and after holding a detailed enquiry, had granted occupancy right as aforesaid. If the petitioners claim that the subject lands were being cultivated jointly as a joint family property, they would have filed Form No.7 along with respondents 1 to 4 or in the alternative, they would have approached the Civil Court to establish their right over the subject lands. 18. As a matter of fact, the petitioners filed OS.No.97/2006 for partition against respondent Nos.1 to - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 4. However, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said suit had been withdrawn by them. The vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of NOOR MOHD. cited supra, when a question arose in respect of joint family tenancy, the same should be decided by the Tribunal alone under Section 48A read with Section 133 of the KLR Act and not by the Civil Court by adducing evidence. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, the findings in the case of NOOR MOHD. is only in respect of granting occupancy right when interse rival claims for tenancy rights have been set up between the family members, and if a question arose whether any member of the family or joint family is the tenant and that question should be decided by the Tribunal alone under Section 48A read with Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act. However, in the case on hand, the petitioners were not the rival claimants before - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 the Land Tribunal. In such circumstance, the petitioners without filing any application cannot challenge the grant order made in favour of respondents 1 to 4 only on the ground that they are the family members. 19. On the other hand, the subject land granted in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 by the Land Tribunal was questioned by the landlord respondent No.5-Mutt before the KAT, which was rejected and the same was questioned before this Court in WP.No.35506/2010. This Court based on the compromise entered into between respondent No.5 and respondent No.1 to 3 before the KAT, disposed of the writ petition on 10.10.2012. Later, based on the compromise, the subject land granted in favour of respondents 1 to 3 was sold by respondent No.5 in favour of respondent No.6 vide Sale Deed dated 21.09.2013. 20. In the above view of the matter, the KAT has rightly dismissed the appeal by affirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal. I find no good grounds to interfere with the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50884 WP No. 24042 of 2017 impugned order passed by the KAT. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2