Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 332 OF 2026 (LR-SEC 48) BETWEEN:
1. A GOPALAKRISHNA GOWDA S/O SESHAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF ANIYURU, NERIA VILLAGE, BELTHANGEDY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BELTHANGADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAHSILDAR FOR LAND REFORMS, BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214. 3. THE 2ND LAND TRIBUNAL, BELTHANGADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
TAHSILDAR FOR LAND REFORMS, BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214. CHANAMU GOWDA S/O RAMA GOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
BABU GOWDA S/O LATE CHANAMU GOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY LRs
K.B.KESHAVA @ KESHAVA GOWDA S/O LATE BABU GOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY LRs
4. SMT. SUMA.K W/O LATE K.B. KESHAVA @ KESHAVA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
5. ADARSHA.K.S S/O LATE K.B. KESHAVA @ KESHAVA GOWDA,
6. VARUNA.K.S S/O LATE K.B. KESHAVA @ KESHAVA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
7. BALAKRISHNA S/O LATE BABU GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R4 TO R7 ARE RESIDENTS OF PAMBELU HOUSE, KOYYURU VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214. 8. SMT. BHAVANI W/O SHASHIDHARA, AND D/O LATE BABU GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MADAPADI DERAJE HOUSE,
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
MADAPADY VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574239. 9. RAMAYYA GOWDA @ RAMA GOWDA S/O CHANAMU GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,
10. DHARNAPPA GOWDA S/O CHANAMU GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
R9 AND R10 ARE RESIDENTS OF PAMBELU HOUSE, KOYYURU VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214. 11. P. CHIDANANDA @ CHIDANANDA GOWDA S/O CHANAMU GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VARAKKABE HOUSE, ODILNALA (POST), BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214. 12. SMT. SESAMMA W/O LOKAPPA GOWDA @ LOKANATHA GOWDA, AND D/O CHANAMU GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ENAJE HOUSE, PERAJE VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574211. 13. SMT. KAMALA W/O PADMANABHA, AND D/O CHANAMU GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT DARBE HOUSE, HIREBANDADI VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574201.
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
14. SMT. VARIJA W/O SUBBANNA GOWDA, AND D/O CHANAMU GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADAPADI HOUSE, MADAPADY VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574239. DEEKAYYA GOWDA @ KORAGAPPA GOWDA S/O LATE MONTA GOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY LRs
15. SMT. VARIJA W/O LATE DEEKAYYA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
16. YASHODARA S/O LATE DEEKAYYA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R-15 AND R-16 ARE R/O RESIDENTS OF DENTHARU BOTTU HOUSE, KOYYURU VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214. 17. SMT. KESHAVATHI W/O BABU GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ODYALKE HOUSE, CHIBIDRE VILLAGE (POST), BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214. 18. SMT. PAVITHRA W/O SHEKARA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MITHADKA HOUSE, BETTAMPADY VILLAGE (POST), PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574201. - 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
19. SMT. SHOBHA W/O SANTHOSH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NAYARMAR HOUSE, KALENJA VILLAGE, KAYARTHADKA (POST), BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214. 20. JARAPPA GOWDA S/O LATE MONTA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
21. THIMMAPPA GOWDA S/O LATE MONTA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
22. KOOSAPPA @ KUSHALAPPA GOWDA S/O LATE MONTA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R-20 TO R-22 ARE RESIDING AT DENTHARU BOTTU HOUSE, KOYYURU VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. KESHAVA BHAT.A, ADVOCATE FOR R-10)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.40703/2012 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.40703/2012 AS PRAYED FOR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present intra Court appeal has filed impugning the judgment dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.40703/2012 (LR-SEC 48A) whereby the petitioner challenged the order dated 26.06.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Belthangady, whereby the occupancy rights in respect of the lands mentioned in Schedule 'A' and 'B' measuring an extent of 6 acres and 61 cents and 4 acres 11 cents respectively were given to respondent Nos.4 to 12, who are now being represented by their legal representatives in case number LRY/25/1979-80 and order dated 22.10.1981 passed by respondent No.3 in case No.LRY 29/1979-80 respectively.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court for the sake of convenience.
3. According to the petitioner, he purchased the aforesaid land in auction proceedings, which took place on
- 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
19.03.1973 for satisfaction of decree passed in Original Suit No.709/1930. The auction was confirmed by the Court on 31.05.1973. The sale certificate was prepared by the Munsiff Court at Belthagandy on 23.03.1974.
4. According to the petitioner, the predecessor in interest of the respondents were the owners of the land and they were not the tenants cultivating the land on or before 01.03.1974.
5. The petitioner also took the plea that the petitioner was not a party, nor any notice was issued to him by the Land Tribunal. The petitioner did not have an opportunity to present his case before the Land Tribunal.
6. According to the petitioner, as per the averments made in the writ Court, the petitioner came to know about the order dated 26.06.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal in Case No.LRY 25/1979-80 only in the year 2012, as the Assistant Commissioner had issued notice to him in RRT.SR.23/2012-2013. Before the said notice was issued
- 8 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
by the Assistant Commissioner, he had no knowledge about the order passed by the Land Tribunal on
26.06.1981.
7.
Learned counsel for the appellant has made the submission very vociferously, vehemently as well as repeatedly that as the respondents were not the tenants in occupation of the land in question before 01.03.1974, the Land Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application. Even if they were in possession of the land, they were not the tenants, but their possession was as of the owners of the land and therefore, the fundamental requirement as sine qua non to have the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal to grant an occupancy certificate as contemplated under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reform Act, 1961, was not present therefore, the order dated 26.06.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal was without jurisdiction and that too without having issued notice to the petitioner, who had purchased the land in public auction before 01.03.1974. He therefore, submits
- 9 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
that as the order passed was without jurisdiction even if he has given the consent, to confer the occupancy rights in favour of the respondents would not confer the jurisdiction on the Tribunal to grant such an occupancy right.
8. On the other hand,
learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the counsel for the petitioner not only tried to mislead the learned Single Judge but also this Court. He submits that the petitioner was a party before the Land Tribunal. He was served with notice. Initially he did not decide to contest the proceedings, but later on, he participated in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and gave consent in writing, for granting occupancy certificate in favour of the respondents. 9. His submission is that once the rights of the applicants, who had filed the application in Form 7 as provided under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reform
- 10 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
Act was not contested by the so called land owner, and in fact he gave the consent before the Land Tribunal to grant the occupancy rights in favour of the respondents, it would not be open to say that the land Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction. If the petitioner, would have contested the proceedings and took the stand that the respondents were not in possession of the land as tenants, but were owners, the Tribunal would have recorded its finding, but the petitioner in writing consented for granting the occupancy certificate in favour of the respondents. Now it is too late in the day, to say that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application, when the jurisdiction was not challenged. It is further submitted that if someone takes objection to the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction has to be challenged before the very Court/Tribunal, so that the Court/Tribunal can rule on its jurisdiction before proceeding further. 10. The learned Single Judge in view of the aforesaid position particularly, the fact that the petitioner was not
- 11 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
only party before the Tribunal, but he was issued notice and notice was served. Though initially he did not contest the proceedings, later on he appeared before the Tribunal and gave the consent for conferring the occupancy rights in favour of the respondents, who had filed the application under Form 7A before the Land Tribunal. The writ petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.05.2025 having found the claim of the petitioner to be completely false and against the record. 11.
It is well settled in law that if somebody wants to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court and at first instance, such an objection should be raised in the proceedings. The petitioner had approached this Court with unclean hands. He had made false averments in the writ petition that he was not a party before the Land Tribunal, no notice was issued to him and it is only in the year 2012 that he came to know about the orders passed in the year 1981. - 12 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
12. There is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner had made an application under Order XXI Rule 95 of CPC, for handing over possession of the land, which he purchased in the public auction conducted by the Court in satisfaction of the decree passed in O.S. No.709/1930. In pursuance to the order passed by the Land Tribunal, the mutation of the entries took place, and it is submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the mutation entries, made in pursuance to the orders passed by the land Tribunal way back in the year 1981. The contention that the petitioner came to know about the order of the Land Tribunal passed in 1981, only in the year 2012 is nothing but a blatant lie. The petitioner had in fact consented to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and never contested the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as he gave written consent for granting the occupancy rights in favour of the respondents. Now to say that he was not aware of the orders passed in 1981, cannot be believed. But such a
- 13 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
submission is utterly false, incorrect, unbelievable and contrary to the record. 13.
It is too late in the day to suggepst that despite him not contesting the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and in fact giving consent for conferring the occupancy rights in favour of the respondents, he can challenge the jurisdiction of the Tribunal after more than 3 decades. 14. We should have dismissed this writ appeal with heavy costs, but at the moment we are refraining from imposing the costs. However, we have not appreciated the manner in which a Counsel quite Senior in age has argued the matter before this Court with a lot of vehemence, and repeatedly interrupted the Court, while the Court was dictating the judgment. The learned counsel has repeatedly submitted that the Court is unable to appreciate his brilliant arguments. 15. We do not want to comment further on the conduct of the counsel at this moment. However, in future this
- 14 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB WA No. 332 of 2026
Court may not be so kind, if he tries to demean the Court. We therefore, dismiss this writ appeal as the impugned
order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality either on facts or on the law.
16. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interim applications if any, stand rejected. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE
NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7