- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 8660 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHEKARA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O. LATE PADDU 2. SRI. ESHWARA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE PADDU 3. SRI. DIVAKARA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE PADDU 4. SMT. YAMUNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O. LATE ASHOKA, 5. SOUJANYA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, D/O. LATE ASHOKA, 6. ANITHA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, D/O. LATE ASHOKA, 7. ARUN AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O. LATE ASHOKA, ALL ARE RESIDING AT, AVARSELINGANAMANE, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 AVARSE POST AND VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI- 576223. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SHWETHA NAYAK N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, UDUPI TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN / TAHSILDAR, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576101 3. SRI VISHWANANTH SHETTY, S/O. LATE. A KAMALAKSHI SHEDTHI, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT. VISHALA HOSPITAL, KODIYAL BAIL, MANGALORE- 575003. 4. SMT. VANITHA R. SHETTY, W/O. RATHNAKARARAMANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT. HILIYANAVILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI- 576223. 5. MR. NARAYANA POOJARI, S/O. KARIYAMMA POOJARTHI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, ACHLADY VILLAGE, R/AT. MADHUVANA, UDUPI TALUK- 576225. 6. SMT. GIRIJA POOJARTHI, D/O. KARIYAMMA POOJARTHI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 7. SMT. JALAJA POOJARTHI, D/O. KARIYAMMA POOJARTHI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT, LINGANAMANE, MOODBETTU, AVARSHE VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK- 574105. 8. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R1,2,8) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 21.08.2013 PASSED IN O.S. NO.347/2012 BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT HELD AT KUNDAPURA ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the legal heirs of one Kariyamma questioning the compromise decree recorded in O.S.No.347/2012 vide order on 21.08.2013. 2. The present petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs of one Kariyamma, contend that respondent No.3, in collusion with certain family members of the petitioners, namely Narayan Poojari, Girja Poojarthi, and Jalaja Poojarathi who also assert themselves to be the legal heirs of Kariyamma has secured a compromise decree in O.S. No.347/2012. Aggrieved by the said compromise decree, the petitioners have instituted the present writ petition calling in question its legality and validity. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 4. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the material placed on record. Before - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 adverting to the question as to whether the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.347/2012 warrants interference at this stage particularly when the compromise was recorded as far back as in the year 2013 ,this Court deems it appropriate to first examine the order rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.28689/1991. In that view of the matter, this Court considers it apposite to extract paragraphs 4 to 11, including the concluding portion of paragraph 11, which read as follows: “4. When the said writ petition was pending before this Court, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was constituted. This Court transferred the matter to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Udupi, where it was numbered LRA.439/88. Subsequently, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was abolished and C.F.No.1844/91 came to be filed Challenging the orders in question. 5. This Court by a separate order has converted the C.P. into writ petition. 6. Respondent no.3 -Belku Hengsu has filed Form No.7 (Annexure-B) claiming the tenancy rights in respect of half of the property in 1 acre 42 guntas in Survey No. 89/1 of Hiriyana village in Udupi Taluk. 7. Smt. Kariyamma Pujathi, sister of Responndent no.3 -Belku Hengsu, also filed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 Form No.7 claiming the occupancy rights of the property in 1 acre 42 guntas in Survey No. 89/1 situated in Hiriyana village in Udupi Taluk. 8. On the basis of the two Forms No. 7. the Land Tribunal, Udupi, has passed the impugned orders. 9. The Land Tribunal, Udupi, has granted 1 acre 30 cents to Respondent no.3 and 1 acre 20 cents to her sister Smt. Kariyamma Pujathi, though each claimed occupancy rights in respect of half the extent. 10. In the circumstances, in which Form No.7 was filed by each of the claimants separately, it was obligatory on the part of the Land Tribunal, to club both the two applications and pass a common order. That has not been done in this case. 11. Great injustice has been caused to the petitioners. Respondents 1 and 2 each claimed half the extent of 1 acre 42 cents, what the Land Tribunal, has done is that it has granted 1 acre 30 cents + 1 acre 20 cents = 2 acres 50 cents in all. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 4-12-1980 as per Annexure ‘C’ and ‘D’ marked in W.P.No.13461/83 are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal. Udupi, to dispose of the matter in accordance with law, after issue of notice to all the parties and holding enquiry, if necessary. The writ petition is allowed and the matter remanded as stated herein. No costs. Rule made absolute.” [Emphasis Supplied] - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 5. On a meticulous and closer examination of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid writ petition, which is extracted supra, it emerges that the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest, namely Kariyamma, along with one Belku, had independently filed applications in Form No.7 under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 seeking grant of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal, upon consideration, proceeded to confer occupancy rights in favour of both the applicants. However, respondent No.3, who is the landlord, assailed the said order primarily on the ground that the tenancy pertained only to a portion of the land and not the entire extent. It was specifically contended that both the applicants had collectively sought occupancy rights only in respect of half portion of the land situated on the western side, whereas the Land Tribunal, without proper advertence to the extent claimed in the applications, erroneously granted occupancy rights over the entire extent of the land. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 6. It is in the aforesaid factual backdrop that the Co-ordinate Bench, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, re-examined the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench, on appreciation of the material on record, was of the view that respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein, namely Belku and Kariyamma, had together laid claim only to half portion of the land and, therefore, the entire land could not have been treated as tenanted land. 7. On a careful reading of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.28689/1991, it clearly emerges that both the applicants, namely Belku Hengsu and Kariyamma Pujathi, had independently filed Form No.7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, each restricting their claim to half extent of land measuring 1 acre 42 guntas in Sy. No.89/1. The Co-ordinate Bench found that the Land Tribunal had committed a patent illegality in not clubbing the said applications and in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 granting occupancy rights far in excess of the extent claimed, thereby conferring rights over an extent larger than what was either claimed or available, which resulted in grave injustice. It is in that background that the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration, specifically to determine the actual extent of tenancy. Significantly, the said order of remand, which has attained finality, has not been called in question either by the present petitioners or by any of their family members before the Division Bench, and therefore, the findings and observations recorded therein, particularly to the effect that the claims were confined only to half extent, bind the parties. In that view of the matter, the present attempt on the part of the petitioners to now contend that the entire extent of land was subjected to tenancy runs contrary to the earlier proceedings and cannot be examined in isolation without first establishing such claim before the competent Land Tribunal in terms of the remand order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 8. Consequently, the order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights over the entire extent was found to be unsustainable, and the matter came to be remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law by order dated 24.06.1997. 9. In the present writ petition, however, the petitioners have not placed on record any material to demonstrate the subsequent course of proceedings before the Land Tribunal pursuant to the remand ordered by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.28689/1991. There is a conspicuous absence of pleadings and documents indicating whether the proceedings initiated under Form No.7 have culminated in a final adjudication or are still pending consideration. In the absence of such foundational facts, this Court is unable to ascertain the present status of the tenancy claim set up through Kariyamma. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 10. Be that as it may, it is borne out from the records that in O.S. No.347/2012, certain members of the petitioners’ family, namely defendant Nos.2 to 4, who are none other than the son and daughters of Kariyamma, have entered into a compromise with respondent No.3. Under the said compromise, they have, inter alia, acknowledged the possession of respondent No.3 over the eastern portion of the subject land, and a compromise decree came to be drawn accordingly in the year 2013. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court is of the considered view that the core issue relating to tenancy and entitlement to occupancy rights squarely falls within the domain of the Land Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. It is trite that the question as to whether Kariyamma was a tenant, and if so, the extent of land in respect of which occupancy rights could be granted, are matters requiring adjudication on evidence before the competent Tribunal. If the proceedings - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 pursuant to Form No.7 are still pending, it is incumbent upon the present petitioners to substantiate and establish their claim of tenancy through Kariyamma before the Land Tribunal. 12. Insofar as the compromise decree dated 2013 passed in O.S. No.347/2012 is concerned, this Court is of the view that the said decree, though binding inter se between the parties to the suit, cannot override or conclude the statutory adjudication of tenancy rights under the special enactment. At the same time, the validity or otherwise of such a compromise decree, particularly when it is sought to be assailed after an inordinate lapse of nearly 13 years, would necessarily involve examination of disputed questions of fact, including allegations of collusion, which cannot be conveniently adjudicated in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is also significant to note that the majority of the members of the petitioners’ family, who were parties to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 O.S. No.347/2012, have unequivocally acknowledged that the remaining half portion of the subject land was not the subject matter of tenancy and have, in clear terms, admitted the possession of the landlord over the said portion. The present petitioners alone seek to dispute this position and contend that the entire extent of the land was, in fact, tenanted. 13. In the light of the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench remitting the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration, this Court is of the considered view that it is for the petitioners to now substantiate, by placing cogent evidence, that the entire extent of the land was subjected to tenancy under their predecessor Kariyamma and that the same stood vested in the Government in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. 14. Unless and until the petitioners are able to establish before the competent Land Tribunal that the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 entire extent of the land was tenanted and consequently vested with the State, the question of examining the compromise decree at this juncture would not arise. This is more so in the light of the categorical observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench while remitting the matter, wherein it has been specifically indicated that the core issue requiring adjudication is as to whether only half portion of the land was subjected to tenancy or the entire extent was tenanted so as to attract vesting under the provisions of the Act. 15. Therefore, the adjudication of tenancy rights and the extent thereof being foundational to the claim set up by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to undertake an examination of the compromise decree in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, at this stage. The rights of the parties shall necessarily abide by the outcome of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 16. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to entertain the present petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of delay and laches as well as on the ground that the issues raised herein pertain to complex disputed questions of fact. The compromise decree having been passed in the year 2013 and the present petition having been filed only in the year 2026, there is an unexplained and inordinate delay, which by itself disentitles the petitioners to any discretionary relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. However, it is made clear that any observations made by this Court shall not prejudice the rights of the petitioners in prosecuting their claim before the Land Tribunal. If the proceedings pursuant to Form No.7 are still pending, the same shall be adjudicated independently on their own merits, and the compromise decree relied upon by the parties shall be subject to the outcome of such adjudication. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15442 WP No. 8660 of 2026 18. Accordingly, while declining to interfere with the compromise decree in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court reserves liberty to the petitioners to pursue and substantiate their claim of tenancy and occupancy rights through Kariyamma before the competent Land Tribunal, if such proceedings are still pending. It is further clarified that the rights, if any, flowing from the compromise decree shall abide by and remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. The Writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21