- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 68211 OF 2010 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. SEETARAM GANAPATI HEGDE, DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. A. SMT. SUMEETRA W/O. SEETARAM HEGDE, A/A. 79 YEARS, B. KIRISHNAVENI W/O. NAGAPATI HEGDE, A/A. 54 YEARS, C. MOHAN S/O. SEETARAM HEGDE, A/A. 52 YEARS, D. DIWAKAR S/O. SEETARAM HEGDE, A/A. 49 YEARS, E. KAVITA W/O. TIRMALESHLWAR HEGDE, A/A. 40 YEARS, F. KALPANA W/O. SHRIKANT HEGDE, A/A. 36 YEARS, 1A. TO 1F ARE ALL AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DEVISAR, TAL: SIDDAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 2. PADHMANABH GANAPATI HEGDE, DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 2A. LALITA W/O. PADMANABHA HEGDE, A/A. 88 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/O. DEVISAR, TAL. SIDDAPUR-581340, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 2B. GANAPATI S/O. PADMANABHA HEGDE, A/A. 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad Date: 2025.02.04 15:45:17 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 R/O. DEVISAR, TAL. SIDDAPUR-581340, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 2C. BHAVANI W/O. MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE, A/A. 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. CHIPAGI, TAL. SIDDAPUR-581402, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 2D. SAVITRI W/O. GOPAL HEGDE, SANKADAMANE (JADDIMANE) A/A. 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KODSAR, TAL. SIDDAPUR-581340, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 2E. PARAMOD W/O. UMESH HEGDE KODRAGANI, A/A. 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. ITAGI, TAL. SIDDAPUR-581322, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 2F. RATNA W/O. SHRIKANT BHAT, A/A. 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, NO.19/1, 3RD A CROSS, J.C.NAGAR-560089, BENGALURU. BOTH MAJOR, S/O. GANAPATI HEGDE, R/O.DEVISAR, TAL: SIDDAPUR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI R.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENR OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, SIDDAPUR, BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. DATTATRAYA RAMAYYA HEGDE, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 3A. VEDAVATI W/O. GANAPATI HEGDE, AGE: 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHIPAGI, TAL: SIRSI-581402, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 3B. GANAPATI S/O. DATTATRYA HEGDE, A/A: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR-581340, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 3C. SHRIMATI W/O. VISHWANATH BHAT, A/A: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITAGI, TAL: SIDDAPUR-581322, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 3D. PRABHAKAR S/O. DATTATRAY HEGDE, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR-581340, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 3E. GEETA W/O. GAJANAN BHAT, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. LAMBAPUR, TQ: SIDDAPUR-581322, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 3F. SAVITRI S/O. GOPAL BHAT, A/A: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AGGERI, TQ: SIDDAPUR-581355, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 4. NARAYAN RAMACHANDRA HEGDE, DECEASED BY HIS LRS’. A. SMT. SARWESHWARI NARAYAN HEGDE, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. B. SRI. RAMCHANDRA NARAYAN HEGDE, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 C. SRI. NARAYAN RAMACHANDRA HEGDE, MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. D. SRI. SUBRAY NARAYAN HEGDE, MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KUMATA, TQ: KUMATA, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. E. SMT. GANGA GANAPATI HEGDE, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. AJJIBAL, TQ: SIRSI, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. F. SMT. SAROJA SUBRAY HEGDE, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KALKUNI, TQ: SIRSI, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. G. SMT. VIMALA VIGNESHWAR HEGDE, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SANNALLI, TQ: SIRSI, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. H. SRI. RAMACHANDRA TIMMAIAH HEGDE, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 5. SRI. RAMACHANDRA TIMMAIAH HEGDE, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 6. SRI. VENKATRAMAN VISHWESHWAR HEGDE, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3(A-F), R4(B-G) R5, R6 ARE SERVED) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE BEARING NO.TNC-DSR-7142+4329 DATED:14/10/2010, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI, SUCH OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER AS IN CIRCUMSTANCES THE HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs : “Wherefore, the petitioners humbly pray, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the records and proceedings, quash the order under Annexure bearing No.TNC-DSR-7142+4329 dated 14-10- 2010 passed by the 2nd respondent by the issue of Writ of Certiorari, such other Writ, direction or Order as in the circumstances the Hon’ble Court deems fit.” 2. The petitioners claim to be the tenants of land bearing Sy.No.75/5 measuring 04 guntas, 11 annas, situated at Devisar village, Siddapur Taluka, Uttara Kannada district. It is claimed that the petitioners’ mother Smt.Godavari W/o.Ganapati Hegde was cultivating the aforesaid land under Sri Timmayya - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 Manjayya Hegde and Sri Vishveshwara Ramayya Hegde. 3. After coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the mother of the petitioners filed an application in Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land. During the pendency of the said application, the mother of the petitioners expired. Thereafter, the petitioners were brought on record as her legal representatives. They having inherited the alleged tenancy rights in respect of the above said land. 4. It is contended that respondent No.3-Sri Dattatraya Ramayya Hegde, who did not have any manner of right, claimed occupancy rights in respect of a portion of the aforesaid land by claiming to be a tenant under one Sri Narayan Ramachandra Hegde, respondent No. 4 herein. It was contended that respondent No.4 is not the owner of the land. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 Hence, the question of anyone claiming tenancy rights under him would not arise. 5. The Land Tribunal, after holding an enquiry had granted occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of the aforesaid land, which was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.6109/1982 which came to be allowed and the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. 6. On remand, the Tribunal once again held an enquiry and rejected the claim of the 3rd respondent by order dated 11.12.1987, which was challenged by the 3rd respondent before the appellate authority, which came to be dismissed confirming the order of the Land Tribunal. 7. The 3rd respondent filed LRRP No.818/1999 before this Court, which came to be allowed, the order of the Land Tribunal and the appellate authority were - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 set aside the order and matter remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. 8. In pursuance thereof, the Land Tribunal, vide its order dated 10.12.1998 granted occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent, which came to be challenged by the petitioners before this Court in Writ Petition No.38657/1998, which writ petition came to be allowed vide order dated 02.01.2007 and the matter remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. 9. The Land Tribunal, after holding an enquiry once again granted occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent, vide order dated 14.10.2010, which is a subject matter of this writ petition. 10. The submission of Sri R.G. Hegde, learned counsel for petitioners is that the Land Tribunal has not considered the aspect of whether respondent No.4 was the landowner in a proper perspective and the Tribunal ought to have come to a conclusion that - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 respondent No.4 is not the owner of the land and consequently, ought to have come to a conclusion that respondent No.3 could never have claimed any tenancy rights under respondent No.4. The Land Tribunal has erred in relying on the record of rights where the name of respondent No.4 is mentioned to come to a conclusion that respondent No.4 is the owner of the land. 11. There being no independent document produced by respondent No.4 and or his legal representatives after being brought on record to establish the title over the property. Mere reliance on a revenue document, namely record of rights was improper. 12. His submission is that Sri Ramachandra Timmaiah Hegde respondent No.5 and Sri Venkataramana Vishveshwar Hegde respondent No. 6 being the owners, could not have been disbelieved by the Tribunal Form No.7 having been filed against them. The Land Tribunal ought to have taken into - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 consideration the admission made by respondents No.5 and 6 of the tenancy of the petitioners’ mother under them and consequently ought to have granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners. 13. His submission is also that the observations made by this Court in the order passed in Writ Petition No.38657/1998(LR) have not been considered by the Land Tribunal and therefore the order passed by the Land Tribunal is required to be set aside. 14. Notice having been ordered on the respondents, the State is represented. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 though served, have chosen to be unrepresented. 15. Sri Madan Mohan Khannur, learned AGA appearing for the State would submits that the land in Sy.No.75/5 in all measuring 8 acres, 8 annas the claim of the petitioners’ mother was also not for the entire land. But it was only for a portion of the land. Similar claim was made by respondent No.3. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 However, Form No.7 was filed by the petitioners’ mother for the entire land. 16. The petitioners’ mother was only cultivating 3 acres 13 guntas of land and the balance was being cultivated by respondent No.3. 17. One Narayana Ramachandra Hegde was the owner of 5/9th share in the property, who had granted tenancy rights to the father of respondent No.3 Sri Ramayya Krishnappa Hegde and after his death his son Sri Dattatreya Ramayya Hegde, respondent No.3 herein became the tenant and claimed occupancy rights to the extent of 4 acres, 11 guntas. 18. Insofar as 4 acres 11 guntas in Sy.No.75/5 is concerned, the petitioners’ mother has no right since the said land was owned by Sri Narayan Ramachandra Hegde and not by respondents No.5 and 6. The claim of the petitioners could only be to an extent of 3 acres 30 guntas. The petitioners thereafter sought for deletion of respondents No.4A - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 and 4C from the array of parties and in pursuance thereof respondents No.4A and 4C were deleted from the array of parties. In that background, learned AGA submits that the writ petition is required to be dismissed. 19. Heard Sri R.G.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Madan Mohan Khannur, learned counsel A.G.A. for respondents No.1 and 2 and perused the papers. 20. What would have to be considered, firstly is, the order dated 2nd January, 2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 38657/1998(LR). This Court at paragraph No.4 of the said Judgment has observed as under : “4. It appears to be a case of disputed identity and disputed ownership. The Tribunal should have properly investigated and found out as to who is the land owner and whether the granted land is a part of Sy.No.75/5. The spot inspection report discloses that the 3rd respondent was cultivating the disputed land but the evidence of the 3rd respondent discloses that Sy.No.75/5 has been kept fallow on account of legal dispute since the year 1970 and nobody is cultivating the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 land. The said statement would disclose that the 3rd respondent never cultivated the land from the year 1970. The evidence of 3rd respondent makes it clear that he was not cultivating the land in question as on 01.03.1974. There is also dispute with regard to the identity of owner in respect of Sy.No.75/5. All these crucial aspects have not been properly addressed and answered by the Tribunal in the impugned order. Therefore, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.” 21. Thus, this Court had categorically observed that there is a dispute as regards the identity and ownership of the property. The Tribunal has not properly investigated and found out who is the landowner and whether the land claimed by the petitioners is part of Sy.No.75/5 or not. By referring to the spot inspection report, this Court held that the same indicates that the 3rd respondent to be cultivating the disputed land, but further took into consideration the submission of the 3rd respondent that the aforesaid land had been kept fallow on account of a legal dispute since 1970 and thus came to a conclusion that the 3rd respondent never - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 cultivated the land from the year 1970 and as such was not cultivating the land on the appointed date i.e, 01.03.1974 and observed that the Tribunal had not taken these factors into account and in that background what is required to be ascertained by this Court is as to whether the Tribunal on remittal has complied with the orders passed by this Court and the impugned order of the Land Tribunal satisfies the directions issued by this Court. 22. I have perused the impugned order dated 14.10.2010. A perusal thereof, it would indicate that all the aspects which had been directed to be considered by this Court while remanding the matter have been considered and the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that occupancy rights are required to be granted in favour of the 3rd respondent, while doing so, the right of the 4th respondent and the right of the 3rd respondent have also been considered. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 submission made earlier by the mother of the petitioners that she was only cultivating a portion of the land and not the entire land in Sy.No.75/5, the said portion being to an extent of 3 acres, 13 guntas. 23. It is therefore clear that when the contention of the mother of petitioner was that she was cultivating only 3 acres, 13 guntas, she would not have any right over the balance land in Sy.No.75/5, measuring 4 acres, 11 guntas and the claim of the mother of petitioners and consequently the petitioners can only be to an extent of 3 acres, 30 guntas. 24. Though the claim made by the petitioners is that respondent No.4 has no right over the property. The legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4 have been deleted from the array of parties. It is under respondent Nos.4 and 5 that respondent No.3 claims the interest. The deletion of respondent No.4 and his legal heirs is only to the detriment of the petitioners. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024 WP No. 68211 of 2010 25. The Tribunal, in my considered opinion, having appreciated all the relevant aspects and having granted the occupancy right in respect of the balance land measuring 4 acre 11 guntas to respondent No.3, cannot therefore be faulted with. No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1