- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45618 WP No. 57305 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 57305 OF 2015 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MALLIKA SITARAM SHETTY W/O LATE SEETHARAMA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT KUTHPADY BAILUMANE KUTHPADY VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. SRI SHREEPRASAD SITARAM SHETTY S/O LATE SEETHARAMA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT KUTHPADY BAILUMANE KUTHPADY VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. SMT.SHREELATA SHETTY D/O LATE SEETHARAMA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT KUTHPADY BAILUMANE KUTHPADY VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI ROSHAN SHETTY, S/O KARUNAKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT "VAISHNAVI", KADEKAR VILLAGE AND POST, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45618 WP No. 57305 of 2015 UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT MULTI-STORIED BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. a) SRI MONUPOOJARY S/O BYYA POOJARY SINCE CECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES RAMANI POOJARTHY W/O KUKRO POOJARY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, b) SUDHAKAR S/O KUKRO POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, c) DIVAKAR S/O KUKRO POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, d) JAYANTHI D/O KUKRO POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45618 WP No. 57305 of 2015 e) SUMANA D/O KUKRO POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, f) HARISH S/O KUKRO POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT 9-53, "RAMANI NIVAS", SAMAYYA ROAD, KADEKAR VILLAGE & POST UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI. JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (B, D & E) SRI. T. MOHANDAS RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3(C) & R(F) R3(B) TO R3(F) ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R3(A)) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R-2 TRIBUNAL WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNX-A DTD. 12.1.1978 MADE BY THE R-2 TRIBUNAL IN SO FOR AS IT RELATES TO GRANTING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.92/4A MEASURING 94 CENTS TO THE R-3 HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45618 WP No. 57305 of 2015 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 12.01.1978 passed in No.LRY/72/76/TR/2971/78-79 by respondent No.2 - Tribunal at Annexure-'A', insofar as it relates to granting occupancy right in respect of land bearing Sy.No.92/4A measuring 94 cents to respondent No.3. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the land bearing Sy.No.92/4A situated at Kadekar village, Udupi Taluk totally measuring 94 cents is an agricultural land and one Sri Dejappa Shetty i.e., the petitioners' grandfather was a tenant in occupation of 30 cents of land in Sy.No.92/4A along with other lands under the landlord Krishna Karanth. After the death of Dejappa Shetty, his son Putta Shetty continued his tenancy on behalf of the family members and thereafter, the said Putta Shetty filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy right in respect of 30 cents of land in Sy.No.92/4A along with 10 other items of land. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in respect of 0.26 cents of land in Sy.No.92/4A2 vide order dated 25.08.1976 and thereafter, Form No.10 issued. Subsequently, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45618 WP No. 57305 of 2015 there was a family partition in the family of Putta Shetty including the aforesaid land in Sy.No.92/4A. 3. Later, respondent No.3 filed Form No.7 claiming 62 cents of land in the same survey number i.e., Sy.No.92/4A. The Land Tribunal, after holding enquiry, granted occupancy right to an extent of 94 cents though respondent No.3 claimed only an extent of 62 cents of land in Sy.No.92/4A. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially in the year 1976, the Land Tribunal after detailed enquiry, granted 0.26 cents of land in Sy.No.92/4A2 vide order dated 25.08.1976 and thereafter, issued Form No.10 in respect of said 0.26 cents of land and the petitioners were in possession and cultivation of said land uninterruptedly and the said land was subjected to partition in O.S.No.483/1989 between the family members of the petitioners. Subsequently, respondent No.3 filed Form No.7 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45618 WP No. 57305 of 2015 seeking occupancy right in respect of 62 cents of land in Sy.No.92/4A. However, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of 94 cents vide impugned order dated 12.01.1978. Thus, it is clear that the Land Tribunal granted excess land to respondent No.3. As such, he prays to quash the impugned order. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent contends that there is no record forthcoming as to whether the land bearing Sy.No.92/4A has an extent of only 94 cents or more. Further, he has also contended that there is delay of 3½ decade in filing the petition since the impugned order was passed in the year 1978. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions advanced by both the parties and perused the materials on record. 8. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute that respondent No.3 filed Form No.7 seeking grant of occupancy right in respect of 62 cents of land in Sy.No.92/4A. However, the Land Tribunal vide impugned order dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45618 WP No. 57305 of 2015 12.01.1978, granted 94 cents to respondent No.3. Further, it could be seen that the petitioner was granted 0.26 cents of land in the very same Sy.No.92/4A in the year 1976. Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal ought to have granted 62 cents of land instead of 94 cents in favour of respondent No.3 in view of earlier grant made in favour of the petitioners and as it is contended by the petitioners that land in Sy.No.92/4A totally measures 94 cents. No doubt, there is delay in preferring this writ petition. However, apparently the Tribunal has erred in granting excess land in favour of respondent No.3 though he had claimed only 62 cents. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 12.07.1978 is quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Land Tribunal, Udupi, with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh, after - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45618 WP No. 57305 of 2015 issuing notice to both the parties i.e., petitioners and respondent No.3 and after holding detailed enquiry, pass necessary orders. (iv) Till the matter is considered by the Tribunal, both the parties shall maintain status-quo with regard to possession. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV,PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10