- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2200 WP No. 67073 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 67073 OF 2011 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. MR. SIDDAPPA B MUSHEWWAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. BASAVANTHAPPA S MUSHEWWAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL, SECURITY SUPERVISOR, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, DESUR-590012, DIST. BELGAUM 2. SMT. RUDRAVVA S. MUSHEWWAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL W/O LATE MR. SIDDAPPA AGE: 70 YEARS, 3. SMT. GANGAVVA S. MUSHEWWAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL D/O LATE MR. SIDDAPPA AGE: 52 YEARS, 4. SMT. NINGAVVA S. MUSHEWWAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL D/O LATE MR. SIDDAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS, 5. SMT. GOURAVVA S. MUSHEWWAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL D/O LATE MR. SIDDAPPA AGE: 38 YEARS, 6. SMT. MAHADEVI S. MUSHEWWAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL W/O LATE MR. SHANKAR S. MUSHEWWAGOL, AGE: 38 YEARS, 7. MR. SANTOSH S. MUSHEWWAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL S/O LATE MR. SHANKAR S. MUSHEWWAGOL, AGE: 17 YEARS, GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2200 WP No. 67073 of 2011 8. MR. ANAND S. MUSHEWWAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL S/O LATE SHANKAR S. MUSHEWWAGOL, AGE: 14 YEARS, SINCE 7 AND 8 ARE MINOR R/BY HIS MOTHER SMT. MAHADEVI S. MUSHEWWAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL W/O LATE MR. SHANKAR S. MUSHEWWAGOL 9. NINGAPPA B MUSHEVVAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT. ADIVEVVA N. MUSHEWWAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL D/O LATE MR. NINGAPPA MUSHEWWAGOL AGE: 30 YEARS, 10. MR. PANDURANG N. MUSHEWWAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL AGE: 25 YEARS, 11. MR. SATISH N. MUSHEWWAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL S/O LATE MR.NINGAPPA MUSHEWWAGOL, AGE ABOUT 20 YEARS, 12. SMT. BASAVVA B MUSHEVVAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL W/O LATE MR BASAVANTHAPPA MUSHEVVAGOL @ MUSHEPPAGOL ALL RESIDENTS OF IRANATTI-591308, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P V GUNJAL,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2200 WP No. 67073 of 2011 3. THE TAHASILDAR, GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM 4. MR. PANDURANG M. DHULAI S/O MR. MALLAPPA 5. MR. NINGAPPA B. NAGAPPAGOL S/O MR. BASAPPA 6. MR. BALAPPA N. NAGAPPAGOL S/O MR. NAGAPPA 7. MR. MALLIKARJUN G. DHULAI S/O MR. GHOOLAPPA 8. MR. BASANNA S. DHULAI S/O LATE MR. SATTEPPA DHULAI 9. MR. ANNAPPA S. DHULAI S/O LATE MR. SATTEPPA DHULAI 10. MR. ASHOK S. DHULAI S/O LATE MR, SATTEPPA DHULAI, 11. MR. PANDIT S. DHULAI S/O LATE MR. SATTEPPA DHULAI, RESPONDENTS 4 TO 11 ARE R/O IRANATTI-591308, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI. LASMAN T. MANTAGANI., ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R7 IS S/D; PETITION IS DISMISSED AGAINST R5, R6, R8, R10 & R11 V/O DATED 23.11.2016) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE-D THE ORDER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, GOKAK BEARING # LRA:GK:MADVAL-18 DATED:20/04/1994 AS BAD IN LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2200 WP No. 67073 of 2011 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing Annexure-D, the order of the Land Tribunal, Gokak, bearing # LRA:GK:Madval-18 dated 20th April 1994 as bad in law; b. Issue a writ of Certiorari or pass such other order or give such other direction so as to hold Annexure-H, the MR#83/2007-08 dated 4th Dec 2007 of Madval Village, Gokak Taluk, as not legal and consequentially the entries based thereon in the Record of Rights, Annexure-J pertaining to S#117/2B, Madval Village, Gokak Taluk for the year 2007-08 and thereafter, as not valid and binding and hence to delete them; c. Pass such other order as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The contention of Sri.P.V.Gunjal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the statement of one Ningappa, who is the uncle of petitioners No.1 to 8, and father of petitioners No.9 to 12, has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal inasmuch as the land in survey No.117/2B, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2200 WP No. 67073 of 2011 what was stated was half of that land has been in cultivation, therefore, the same would amount to 1 acre 10 guntas. However, the Tribunal has considered 1 acre 24 guntas to be under cultivation and granted half of that land amounting to 32 guntas, which on the face of record, he submits, is not correct and as such, this court ought to intercede and rectify the error committed by the Land Tribunal. 3. After the order being dictated in the open Court in the forenoon session, in the afternoon session, Sri. P. V. Gunjal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that he had some more arguments to advance and as such, the matter was once again taken up on 06.02.2025. 4. Sri. P. V. Gunjal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Siddappa, who was shown as applicant No.1, had admittedly expired in the year 1984 prior to the impugned order passed on 20.04.1994 and as such, he submits that the order - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2200 WP No. 67073 of 2011 has been passed against a dead person. His further submission was that, when the matter was reopened, no notice could have been served on Siddappa, since he had expired, his legal heirs not having been brought on record, the impugned order could not have been passed. 5. Sri.Lakshman Mantagani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the interpretation now sought to be given by the legal heirs of Siddappa and Ningappa cannot be accepted. The said Ningappa having given a statement on his own behalf and on behalf of Shankar, who is the son of Siddappa that it is only 1 acre 24 guntas out of 2 acres 20 guntas which was under cultivation and a statement having been made that only half of that land which was in possession of Ningappa and his family, 32 guntas have been rightly granted by the Tribunal. His further submission is that the said - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2200 WP No. 67073 of 2011 order having been passed on 20.04.1994, no action had been taken by the said Ningappa alleging to the contra, in fact, Ningappa had accepted the order passed by Land Tribunal in the year 1994. Having not challenged the same until his death on 16.07.2007, it is only the legal heirs who have set up the above false claim. 6. Heard Sri.P.V.Gunjal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri.Laxman T.Mantagani, learned counsel for respondents No.4. Perused papers. 7. Though a submission had been made on the earlier occasion that Ningappa could not have made a submission on behalf of Shankar, son of Siddappa since he had pre-deceased Siddappa and as on the date on which the statement is attributed to have been made by Ningappa, Shankar had expired. No document has been placed on record to indicate the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2200 WP No. 67073 of 2011 date of death of Shankar to indicate that he had pre- deceased Siddappa. 8. Be that as it may, as rightly contended by Sri.Lakshman Mantagani, the impugned order having passed way back on 20.04.1994 and the said order having been acted by Ningappa during his lifetime, furthermore, the same not having been challenged till his death on 16.07.2007, the above petition has been filed in the year 2011 challenging the order of 20.04.1994. This is on the ground that Ningappa could not have made a statement as done on behalf of himself and on behalf of Shankar and furthermore that the statement made by him has been misinterpreted by Tribunal, inasmuch as what was required to be considered was half of the area of 2 acres 20 guntas and not half of 1 acre 24 guntas. This contention not having been taken up during the lifetime of Ningappa, Ningappa having accepted 32 guntas granted by the Tribunal and not having - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2200 WP No. 67073 of 2011 sought for 1 acre 10 guntas as now claimed, I am of the considered opinion that legal heirs cannot travel beyond the order and now claim that the statement made by Ningappa was to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas. 9. In that view of the matter, I do not find any grounds in the above petition. The Land Tribunal has rightly considered the land under cultivation to be 1 acre 24 guntas, land in possession of Ningappa and family being half of that 32 guntas have been granted. 10. Having considered the additional submissions made by Shri P V Gunjal, I am of the considered opinion that these submissions also do not further the cause of the petitioners inasmuch as Siddappa was also an applicant along with Ningappa. Ningappa was representing the entire family before the Tribunal. Ningappa had not brought to the notice of the Tribunal about the expiry of Siddappa, nor was any application filed by the legal representatives to come - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2200 WP No. 67073 of 2011 on record. Siddappa was not the respondent, but was an applicant. Thus, it is for the applicant’s legal representatives to have filed necessary application to come on record and not for the Tribunal to bring the legal representatives on record. Ningappa having represented the family and having made submissions on behalf of Siddappa’s son Shankar, the question of the legal representatives not being brought on record would not arise. 11. The further contention that notice could not have been served on Siddappa and as such, proceedings could not have been proceeded with, is also an argument in futility inasmuch as, as observed above, Ningappa was representing the family and he had made his submission on behalf of the entire family. 12. That apart, in the present petition also, it is Siddappa’s legal representatives and Ningappa’s legal representatives who are together prosecuting the above petition, the matter was prosecuted before the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2200 WP No. 67073 of 2011 Tribunal by Ningappa on behalf of the entire family. There being no interest which is adverse between the Siddappa and Ningappa and the family having prosecuted the matter together, the above two submissions are required to be rejected and are so rejected. 13. No grounds being made out the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN/GAB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80