- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1613 WP No. 81766 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 81766 OF 2013 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI. SURESH S/O. GANAPATRAO DALVI AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. CTS NO.1341, RAMLING KHIND GALLI, BELGAUM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH N.MISALE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PANDURANG S/O. KRISHNA PUJARI CALLING HIMSELF AS ADOPTED SON OF LATE VISHNU MAHADEV PUJARI, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs., 1(A). SMT. DROUPDA W/O. PANDURANG PUJARI AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O. CTS NO.1583, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. 1(B). SMT. SHANTA D/O. PANDURANG PUJARI AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. SHANTA ASHOK KANGRALKAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 224/185B, 4TH CROSS, FULBAG GALLI, BELAGAVI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. 1(C). SMT. GEETA D/O. PANDURANG PUJARI AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. GEETA GAJANAN BHATKANDE, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 1583, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.13 12:02:05 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1613 WP No. 81766 of 2013 1(D). SHRI. ARUN S/O. PANDURANG PUJARI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. 1583, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SRI. HANAMANTH S/O. GANESH DESHAPANDE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, R/O: DESHAPADNE GALLI, BELGAUM. 3. SRI. NARAYAN RAMACHADRA GRAMOPADYA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, R/O: KELKAR BHAG, BELGAUM. 4. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BELGAUM BELGAUM, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.RAVIKUMAR GOKAKKAR AND SMT. CHETANA S.BIRAJ, ADVOCATES FOR R1(A) TO R1(D), REP. BY GPA HOLDER R1(D); SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.12.2025, PETITION AGAINST R2 AND R3 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.09.1979 BEARING NO.KLR/BGM/SR-205 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT/LAND TRIBUNAL BELGAUM MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A; SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.02.1981 BEARING NO.KLR/BGM/SR-206 PASSED BY 4TH RESPONDENT/LAND TRIBUNAL BELGAUM MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1613 WP No. 81766 of 2013 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the orders dated 24.09.1979 and 02.02.1981 (Annexure-A) and (Annexure- B) passed by respondent No.4-Land Tribunal, Belagavi respectively, granting occupancy rights in respect of subject land. 2. Brief facts; The case of the petitioner is that the subject lands originally belonged to the landlords and were lawfully cultivated by late Sri. Vishnu Mahadev Pujari, who was a protected tenant. After coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reform Act, 1974 (‘Act’ for short), Form No.7 was filed seeking grant of occupancy rights. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Sri.Pandurang Pujari, who claimed to be the adopted son of late Sri.Vishnu Mahadev Pujari, though according to the petitioner there was no valid adoption and material facts were suppressed before the Land Tribunal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1613 WP No. 81766 of 2013 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the petitioner had earlier challenged the very same orders of the Land Tribunal by filing WP No.66274-75/2012(LR). The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21.02.2013, without reserving any liberty to file a fresh writ petition, it is therefore contended that the present writ petition is an abuse of process of Court. 4. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the impugned orders are of the year 1979-81. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in WP No.66274-75/2012(LR), challenging the very same order. 6. A perusal of the order dated 21.02.2013, passed in the earlier writ petition clearly discloses that this Court recorded a finding that there was an unexplained delay of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1613 WP No. 81766 of 2013 more than 33 years and at paragraph Nos.2 and 3 has held as under; “2. The impugned orders are passed in the year 1979 and 1981. There is delay of over 33 years. The petitioner is guilty of the unexplained delay of over 33 years. When these petitions were about to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, the petitioner's learned advocate seeks leave of the Court to withdraw these petitions with a liberty to file the fresh petitions explaining the delay. 3. These petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. There is no question of reserving the liberty to the petitioner. The petitioner can exercise such liberty if he has it in law. The office is directed to return the certified copies of the annexures after taking their xerox copies from the petitioner's side for the record purpose.” Emphasis supplied 7. This Court observed that when the petition is about to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1613 WP No. 81766 of 2013 the petition with liberty to file petition explaining the delay. This Court categorically declined to reserve such liberty and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. 8. In the absence of any liberty having been granted by this Court, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate the very same cause of action by filing the present writ petition. The attempt to explain the delay in the present writ petition, cannot revive a stale and concluded issue, particularly when earlier proceedings were terminated without liberty. Entertaining a writ petition after several decades, especially after an earlier challenge has failed, would unsettle settled rights and defeat the object of finality. 9. Though, this Court finds that the petitioner is liable to be saddled with costs, having regard to the repeated challenge to the very same orders of the Land Tribunal, this Court refrains from imposing costs, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1613 WP No. 81766 of 2013 considering the nature of dispute and the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA PJ/Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49