[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Eshwarappa S/O Veerappa Thigadi vs Ramappa Goudar Since Deceased By His Lrs on 17 December, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
Writ Appeal No.100653 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
WRIT APPEAL NO.100653 OF 2023 (LR)
BETWEEN
1. ESHWARAPPA THIGADI
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. GURUSIDDAPPA THIGADI
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
3. VEERAPAKSHAPPA THIGADI
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
4. VEERABHADRAPPA VEERAPPA THIGADI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
ALL ARE CHILDREN OF VEERAPPA THIGADI,
ALL ARE R/O. KRISHAPUR, OLD HUBLI.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
(SRI. ESHWARAPPA S/O. VEERAPPA THIGADI, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.12.18
11:05:41 +0530
AND
1. RAMAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
1A. SMT. YELLAMMA
W/O. RAMAPPA GOUDAR
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS.
1B. RAVEEDRA S/O. RAMAPPA GOUDAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
-2-
Writ Appeal No.100653 of 2023
1C. SMT. SAROJA W/O. ASHOK KUKNOOR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
1D. SMT. AKKAMMA W/O. K. SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
1E. SRI. UMESH S/O. RAMAPPA GOUDAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
1F. SMT. DRAKSHAYANI W/O. MANOJ KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
1G. RAJKUMAR S/O. RAMAPPA GOUDAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
2. GORAPPA
AGE: 68 YEARS,
3. BASAPPA
AGE: 66 YEARS,
4. R. SIDDAPPA
AGE: 64 YEARS,
5. GADIGEAPPA
AGE: 62 YEARS,
6. YELLAVVA A
AGE. 60 YEARS,
7. RENUKAVVA
AGE: 58 YEARS,
8. NEELAVVA
AGE: 56 YEARS,
ALL ARE CHILDREN OF
SRI. CHANNAPPA RAMAPPA GOUDAR
AND RUDRAVVA
ALL ARE R/O. BAREBAND ONI, OLD HUBLI.
-3-
Writ Appeal No.100653 of 2023
9. VASANTHAVVA
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S
9A. ADARSH C.J.
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O BAREBAND ONI, OLD HUBLI.
10. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY,
MULTISTOREYED BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALORE-590001.
11. THE LAND TRIBUNAL HUBLI
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2019, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.29785/2003 (LR) AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 10.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, GEETHA K.B. J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-4-
Writ Appeal No.100653 of 2023
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
The appellant No.1-party-in-person has filed this
appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act,
1961 questioning the order passed by the learned single
judge in WP No.29785/2003 (LR) dated 20.02.2019 by
allowing the writ petition and remanding the matter to Land
Tribunal for fresh consideration.
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they
were before learned single judge for convenience and
clarity.
3. The petitioners have filed the writ petition
against appellants and other respondents praying for
quashing the impugned order vide Annexure-'C' dated
16.05.2003 passed by the respondent No.5.
4. The contention of petitioners is that they were
tenants of the land bearing Re.Sy.No.126/1+2+3A+4A
measuring 14.08 acres situated at Ayodhya village, Hubbali
taluk. The Land Tribunal has rejected their claim to grant
occupancy rights. Hence, they questioned the legality and
correctness of the Order dated 16.05.2003 under Annexure-
'C' before the learned Single Judge.
5. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ
petition only on the ground that the order dated 16.05.2003
is not signed by all the members, but signed only by the
Chairman and two other members and not by the other two
members. When the Tribunal consists of five members and
if it is not signed by the two members, then definitely it is
an un-executable order without quorum. Considering these
aspects and relying on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court, in the case Vijaya Bank Founders Branch,
Mangalore Vs. the Secretary to the Government of
Karnataka, Revenue Department and others1, rightly
the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and
remanded the matter for reconsideration in accordance with
law, without making any observation on merits of the case.
2008 (2) KCCR 856
6. The appellant No.1-party-in-person- Sri Eshwar
would vehemently submit that the Land Tribunal has got no
jurisdiction to entertain the petition because the petitioners
before learned single judge are not at all tenants under the
appellants at any point of time and it is clearly admitted by
them in their evidence before the Land Tribunal. Hence, the
matter could not have been remanded to the Land Tribunal
for reconsideration. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.
They have also filed their written arguments in support of
their contention.
7. The learned counsel for respondents would
submit that the order passed by the Land Tribunal is in
accordance with law because the order of Land Tribunal is
not signed by all the members of the Land Tribunal.
8. Learned AGA would support the order of the
learned single judge.
9. Having heard the arguments of both sides and
verifying the writ appeal papers, we are of the opinion that
we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by
learned single judge for the following reasons:-
The admitted facts of the case are that the Land
Tribunal has passed the order dated 16.05.2003 rejecting
the claim of petitioners that they are not tenants of the
property in question. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
have approached the learned Single Judge.
It is to be noted here that the order dated 16.05.2003
is not signed by all the members of the Land Tribunal, but
apparently, it is signed only by the Chairman of the Land
Tribunal and even though names of two other members is
shown, their signatures are not forthcoming on the certified
copy of the order.
10. Under these circumstances, the order passed by
the Land Tribunal is without any quorum and it requires re-
appreciation because, this order is Non-est. in the eye of
law, as it is not signed and concurred by all the members of
Land Tribunal. Considering these aspects, rightly, the
learned single judge has remanded the matter to the Land
Tribunal, which needs no interference as it is in accordance
with law.
11. For the above reasons we pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The Writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is dismissed by
confirming the order passed by learned single judge
in Writ Petition No.29785/2003(LR) dated
20.02.2019.
2. Pending applications if any, stands disposed
off.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
HMB
CT-CMU
