- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17483 WP No. 60717 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 60717 OF 2012 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. VIMALA RAMACHANDRA MOKASHI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: PATH GALLI, SAMBRA, TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. DRAKSHAYANI R. GHATGE, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: NARWAD VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SUREKHA P. KURDE, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: KAKATI VILLAGE, TQ/DIST: BELGAUM, BELAGAVI. 4. SAVITRI U. REDALE, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: GADINGLAJ, TQ: GADINGLEJ, DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASTRA. OUT OF STATE. 5. SHANKAR S/O RAMACHANDRA MOKASHI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: PATH GALLI, SAMBRA, TQ/DIST: BELGAUM, BELAGAVI. 6. APPASAHEB B. MOKASHI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.12 11:10:57 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17483 WP No. 60717 of 2012 R/O: ARJUNWADA, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM, BELAGAVI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAND TRIBUNAL, HUKKERI BY ITS SECRETARY, TAHASILDAR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE, BENGALURU CITY. 3. HARIBA S/O JYOTI SURYAVANSHI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 3a. MRS. SUDHA HARIBA SURYAVANSHI, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. YEDUR, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3b. MRS. SUJATA SAMPAT HEDDURE, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. YEDUR, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3c. SHRI SACHIN HARIBA SURYAVANSHI, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. YEDUR, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3d. MRS. SARITA MADHUKAR YADAV, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. YEDUR, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17483 WP No. 60717 of 2012 3e. SHRI SANTOSH HARIBA SURYAVANSHI, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. YEDUR, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. DATTA S/O. JYOTI SURYAVANSHI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: YEDUR, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. 5. SURESH S/O JYOTI SURYAVANSHI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 5a. MRS. SUNANDA SURESH SURYAVANSHI, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. YEDUR, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5b. SHRI SURAJ SURESH SURYAVANSHI, AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. YEDUR, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. CHAMPA W/O. MAHADEV MOKASHI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ARJUNWADA, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. 7. SHAKUNTALA W/O. LAXMAN MOKASHI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: PLOT NO.35, RING ROAD, RANI MEDICAL SHOP, PHULEWADI, KOLHAPUR (MAHARASHTRA STATE) OUT OF STATE. 8. SURESH S/O GANESH JOSHI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: DOOR NO.333, BIRUWA KILLA, RAICHUR. 9. SHRIKANT S/O GANESH JOSHI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: DOOR NO. 333, BIRUWA KILLA, RAICHUR. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17483 WP No. 60717 of 2012 10. APPASAHEB S/O GANGADHAR INAMDAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: ARJUNWADA, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. 11. MOHAN S/O GANGADHAR INAMDAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: ARJUNWADA, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. 12. BHIMA LAXMAN MUKASHI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: ARJUNWADA, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. 13. DHODELAPPA LAXMAN MUKASHI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: ARJUNWADA, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3(c, e), R4 AND R5(a AND b); R4-GPA HOLDER OF R3(c AND e), R5(a AND b); NOTICE TO R3(a), R3(b), R3(d), R6, R7, R10 TO R13 IS SERVED; NOTICE TO R8 AND R9 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY SUCH WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 22/02/2007 BEARING NO.DIA/SR/1785+1691+1700+3070 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1/LAND TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1/LAND TRIBUNAL TO GRANT OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS IN QUESTION AND ETC. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17483 WP No. 60717 of 2012 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 22.02.2007 passed by the 1st respondent - Land Tribunal. In terms of the impugned order, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right to the members of the family of Form No.7 applicants in different proportions. The branch of one Bheema S/o Appaiah is before this Court assailing the order to the extent of denial of 1/3 share in Sy.No.62 measuring 5 acres 2 guntas. The grant of occupancy in respect of remaining properties is not in dispute. 3. It is not in dispute that one Appaiah was the tenant. He had three sons Lakshman, Bheema and Ramachandra. Form No. 7 is filed by Lakshman on behalf of Bheema as well as Ramachandra and also on behalf of his own family. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17483 WP No. 60717 of 2012 4. Before the Land Tribunal, parties led evidence as to who is entitled to how much of extent. The Tribunal in its order has noted that branch of Bheema is entitled to 1/3 share in Sy.No.62 measuring 5 acres 2 guntas however, in the operative portion of the order, occupancy right is granted to the extent of entire property in Sy.No.62 in favour of the contesting respondents. 5. Aggrieved by this order, petitioners are before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Tribunal after having held that the branch of Bheemappa is entitled to 1/3rd share, could not have granted the entire property to the contesting respondents and to that extent the impugned order has to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has raised objection relating to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the premise that the petitioners' ancestors have not questioned the order in the first instance and same was questioned by Dundappa in Writ Petition No.17902/2007 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17483 WP No. 60717 of 2012 when the said Writ Petition was withdrawn and father of the present petitioners did not object. 8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 9. It is seen that in the earlier Writ Petition, father of the petitioners though was served with the notice, was not represented by any counsel. There is nothing on record to show that he has expressly accepted the order of the Land Tribunal dated 22.02.2007. The situation where the petitioner’s father remained exparte before this Court in the earlier round of petition, cannot be conclusively be construed as having accepted the order of the Tribunal. It is also possible to hold that the petitioner’s father supported the case of the petitioners in the said petition who assailed the order of the land Tribunal. 10. Under these circumstances, it cannot be conclusively held that the father of the petitioners accepted the order dated 22.02.2007 as he has not opposed the prayer to withdraw the earlier petition which was filed challenging the order dated 22.02.2007 passed by the Tribunal. Apparently, withdrawal was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17483 WP No. 60717 of 2012 not with due notice to the petitioners’ father. Under these circumstances, the present petition is filed challenging the order of the land Tribunal. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also urged that the petitioners' father was suffering from liver cirrhosis, as such, he could not file the Writ Petition earlier and he supported the writ petitioners in the earlier writ petition. 12. The present petition is filed after the death of the father of the petitioners. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is maintainable. 13. It is also necessary to note that the Tribunal itself has held that the petitioners' father's branch is entitled to 1/3rd share in Sy.No.62. This finding is not assailed by the contesting respondents. 14. The Tribunal having held that petitioners’ father’s branch is entitled to 1/3rd share could not have passed the order granting entire Sy.No.62 in favour of the contesting respondents. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition has to be allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17483 WP No. 60717 of 2012 15. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 22.02.07 to the extent of granting occupancy right in Survey No.62 in favour of contesting respondents is set aside. (iii) The petitioners are entitled to 1/3rd share in Sy.No.62 measuring 5 acres 2 guntas of Arjunwada village, Hukkeri Taluk. (iv) The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to confer occupancy rights to the extent of 1/3rd share in Survey No.62 measuring 5 acres 2 guntas of Arjunwada village, Hukkeri Taluk. (v) The remaining extent in Survey No.62 shall go to the heirs (testamentary/or otherwise) of Lakshman. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 9