- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28407 CP.KLRA No. 1 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CP ON KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT NO. 1 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. 2. SHRI K. SURYANARAYANA AITHAL SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. SMT. UMA S. AITHAL W/O LATE K. SURYANARAYANAITHAL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. SRI. KISHNA AITHAL S/O LATE K. SURYANARAYANAITHAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT NO.2783/11 14TH 'A' MAIN ROAD ATTIGUPPE, HAMPI NAGAR BENGALURU -560040. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANURAG KINI K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. LAND TRIBUNAL (PANEMANGALORE FIRKABANTWAL) Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28407 CP.KLRA No. 1 of 2016 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND ADDITIONAL SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND REFORMS) BANTWAL DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. 3. 3(a). 3(b). SANJEEVA BHANDARY SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. SMT. AMBA BHANDARY W/O LATE SANJEEVA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. SHALINI BHANDARY D/O LATE SANJEEVA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BOTH R3(a) AND R3(b) ARE R/AT KONKANAPALKE HOUSE SIDDAKATTE POST BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 577 231. 4. SRI. SEENA BHANDARY S/O LATE KORAGAPPA BHANDARY MAJOR IN AGE OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT PUDETHOOR HOUSE SALETHOOR POST BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 223. 5. SRI. RAGHURAM BHANDARY S/O LATE KORAGAPPA BHANDARY MAJOR IN AGE OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT ANANTHADY HOUSE, ANANTHADY POST, BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 253 MANGALURU. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28407 CP.KLRA No. 1 of 2016 6. 6(a). 6(b). 6(c). BALAKRISHNA BHANDARY SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. SMT. SHARADA B. BHANDARY W/O BALAKRISHNA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. SRI. A. DINESH BHANDARY S/O BALAKRISHNA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. SRI. A. HARIPRASAD BHANDARY S/O BALAKRISHNA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURER R6(a) TO R6(c) ARE R/AT ALVARAPALU HOUSE SAJIPA MUNNUR VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 231. 7. 7(a). LEELAVATHI BHANDARY SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. SMT. SUHASINI D/O SANJEEVABHANDARY D/O LEELAVATHI BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT KUKKILA HOUSE ALLIPADE POST, BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 211. 8. 8(a). RATHI SHETTY SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. SMT. GEETHA RAI D/O RATHI SHETTY W/O MOHAN RAI "NANDA DEEPA", NERIMOGRU VILLAGE & POST - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28407 CP.KLRA No. 1 of 2016 PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574241. 8(b). 8(c). SMT. SHOBHA BHANDARY D/O RATHI SHETTY R/O AMBEDEBAILU SAJIPAMANNUR POST & VILLAGE BANTWALA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -574 231. SMT. VASUDHA D/O RATHI SHETTY R/O MUKWE PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 241. 9. SMT. SARASWATHI P. SHETTY D/O LATE KORAGAPPA BHANDARY MAJOR IN AGE OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT ADEKAL HOUSE HIREBANDADI POST PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -574 241. 10. K.M. ABDUL HAMEED S/O K.M. MOHAMMED HAJO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O K.M. MANZIL PERINGERI HOUSE, MALIGE ROAD UPPALL VILLAGE, KASARGODU TALUK KERALA STATE - 671 322. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J. ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R10; V/O DATED 19.02.2019 NOTICE TO R3(b) IS HELD SUFFICIENT. R3(a), R4, R5, R6(a) TO R6(d), R7(a), R8(a) TO R8(c), R9 SERVED) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28407 CP.KLRA No. 1 of 2016 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 17 OF KLRA AMENDING ACT READ WITH ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.1981 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BANTWAL, IN CASE NO.TNC.1843/1975, IN GRANTING 'OCCUPANCY RIGHT' IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 8 HEREIN INSOFAR AS ITEM NO.8 OF SAJIPA MUNNUR VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 05.08.1981 passed by respondent No.2 - Land Tribunal, Bantwal, D.K. District, granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 9 in respect of Item No.8, namely Punja land (non-agricultural land) bearing Sy. No.119/1 of Sajipa Munnur Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. Distsrict, vide Annexure-A. 2. Heard Sri. Anurag Kini K., learned counsel appearing for Sri. Dhananjay Kumar, learned cournel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. B.J. Eswarappa, learned Additional - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28407 CP.KLRA No. 1 of 2016 Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. G.Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.10. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are aggrieved by the grant of occupancy rights in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 9 in respect of land bearing Sy. No.119/1 measuring 1 acre 50 cents. The petitioners are not aggrieved insofar as the remaining eight items of property mentioned in the impugned order at Annexure-A are concerned. 4. It is further contended that the land in question is classified as "Punja" land, which is uncultivable in nature and, therefore, cannot be brought within the purview of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks interference with the impugned order. 5. Per contra, Sri. G. Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.10 submitted that, after the order passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-A, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28407 CP.KLRA No. 1 of 2016 petitioners slept over the matter and did not approach this Court within a reasonable time. It is further contended that under the registered Sale Deed dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure- R1), the petitioners themselves purchased the land from the original tenants after obtaining permission from the Tahsildar, Bantwal. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.10 further submitted that the petitioners have already questioned the aforesaid registered Sale Deed in O.S. No.125/2010 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bantwal. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners were fully aware of the sale transaction in favour of the respondents at least from the year 2010. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 7. Sri. B.J. Eswarappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State justified the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, it is noticed that, out of nine items of property in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28407 CP.KLRA No. 1 of 2016 respect of which occupancy rights were claimed in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 9, the grievance of the petitioners is confined only to land bearing Sy. No.119/1, measuring 1 acre 50 cents. 9. A perusal of Annexure-A would indicate that the Tribunal, after considering the material available on record and examining the RTC extracts pertaining to the relevant period, namely 01.03.1974, arrived at the conclusion that the respondents were tenants in possession of the land in question and accordingly, conferred occupancy rights in respect of all the properties claimed in Form No.7, including the land bearing Sy. No.119/1 of Sajipa munnur Village. 10. It is also forthcoming from the records that the very same order was challenged before this Court in C.P. No.113/2008. This Court relegated the parties to approach the competent authority. Thereafter, no further action was taken by the petitioners in the matter. However, the petitioners subsequently filed C.P. KLRA No.01/2016 challenging the very same order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bantwal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28407 CP.KLRA No. 1 of 2016 11. In the meanwhile, the grantees obtained permission from the Tahsildar, Bantwal, certifying that no proceedings were pending in respect of the subject land, as evidenced at Annexure-R2. Pursuant thereto, permission to alienate the property was granted and, thereafter, under Annexure-R3, the respondents purchased the land in question under a registered Sale Deed dated 22.12.2006. 12. In that view of the matter, as the third-party rights have been created as far back as in the year 2006, is more than two decades have elapsed from the date of the impugned order, I am of the considered view that no interference with the impugned order is called for at this juncture. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46