Karnataka High Court
Seetaram S/O Ganapati Hegde vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
WP No. 68211 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 68211 OF 2010 (LR-)
BETWEEN:
1. SEETARAM GANAPATI HEGDE,
DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
A. SMT. SUMEETRA W/O. SEETARAM HEGDE,
A/A. 79 YEARS,
B. KIRISHNAVENI W/O. NAGAPATI HEGDE,
A/A. 54 YEARS,
C. MOHAN S/O. SEETARAM HEGDE,
A/A. 52 YEARS,
D. DIWAKAR S/O. SEETARAM HEGDE,
A/A. 49 YEARS,
E. KAVITA W/O. TIRMALESHLWAR HEGDE,
A/A. 40 YEARS,
F. KALPANA W/O. SHRIKANT HEGDE,
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK
A/A. 36 YEARS,
KASHIMSA
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
Location: High
court of
MALAGALADINNI Karnataka,
1A. TO 1F ARE ALL AGRICULTURIST,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
Date: 2025.02.04
15:45:17 +0530
R/O. DEVISAR, TAL: SIDDAPUR,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
2. PADHMANABH GANAPATI HEGDE,
DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
2A. LALITA W/O. PADMANABHA HEGDE,
A/A. 88 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. DEVISAR, TAL. SIDDAPUR-581340,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
2B. GANAPATI S/O. PADMANABHA HEGDE,
A/A. 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
WP No. 68211 of 2010
R/O. DEVISAR, TAL. SIDDAPUR-581340,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
2C. BHAVANI W/O. MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE,
A/A. 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. CHIPAGI, TAL. SIDDAPUR-581402,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
2D. SAVITRI W/O. GOPAL HEGDE,
SANKADAMANE (JADDIMANE)
A/A. 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KODSAR, TAL. SIDDAPUR-581340,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
2E. PARAMOD W/O. UMESH HEGDE KODRAGANI,
A/A. 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ITAGI, TAL. SIDDAPUR-581322,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
2F. RATNA W/O. SHRIKANT BHAT,
A/A. 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
NO.19/1, 3RD A CROSS,
J.C.NAGAR-560089,
BENGALURU.
BOTH MAJOR, S/O. GANAPATI HEGDE,
R/O.DEVISAR, TAL: SIDDAPUR,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENR OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
SIDDAPUR, BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. DATTATRAYA RAMAYYA HEGDE,
MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
WP No. 68211 of 2010
3A. VEDAVATI W/O. GANAPATI HEGDE,
AGE: 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. CHIPAGI, TAL: SIRSI-581402,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
3B. GANAPATI S/O. DATTATRYA HEGDE,
A/A: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR-581340,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
3C. SHRIMATI W/O. VISHWANATH BHAT,
A/A: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ITAGI, TAL: SIDDAPUR-581322,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
3D. PRABHAKAR S/O. DATTATRAY HEGDE,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR-581340,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
3E. GEETA W/O. GAJANAN BHAT,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LAMBAPUR, TQ: SIDDAPUR-581322,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
3F. SAVITRI S/O. GOPAL BHAT,
A/A: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. AGGERI, TQ: SIDDAPUR-581355,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
4. NARAYAN RAMACHANDRA HEGDE,
DECEASED BY HIS LRS'.
A. SMT. SARWESHWARI NARAYAN HEGDE,
MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
B. SRI. RAMCHANDRA NARAYAN HEGDE,
MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
WP No. 68211 of 2010
C. SRI. NARAYAN RAMACHANDRA HEGDE,
MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
D. SRI. SUBRAY NARAYAN HEGDE,
MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. KUMATA, TQ: KUMATA,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
E. SMT. GANGA GANAPATI HEGDE,
MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. AJJIBAL, TQ: SIRSI,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
F. SMT. SAROJA SUBRAY HEGDE,
MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. KALKUNI, TQ: SIRSI,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
G. SMT. VIMALA VIGNESHWAR HEGDE,
MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SANNALLI, TQ: SIRSI,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
H. SRI. RAMACHANDRA TIMMAIAH HEGDE,
MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
5. SRI. RAMACHANDRA TIMMAIAH HEGDE,
MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
6. SRI. VENKATRAMAN VISHWESHWAR HEGDE,
MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
R3(A-F), R4(B-G) R5, R6 ARE SERVED)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
WP No. 68211 of 2010
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
UNDER ANNEXURE BEARING NO.TNC-DSR-7142+4329
DATED:14/10/2010, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE
ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI, SUCH OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR
ORDER AS IN CIRCUMSTANCES THE HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 08.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs :
"Wherefore, the petitioners humbly pray, this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records and
proceedings, quash the order under Annexure
bearing No.TNC-DSR-7142+4329 dated 14-10-
2010 passed by the 2nd respondent by the issue of
Writ of Certiorari, such other Writ, direction or
Order as in the circumstances the Hon'ble Court
deems fit."
2. The petitioners claim to be the tenants of land
bearing Sy.No.75/5 measuring 04 guntas, 11 annas,
situated at Devisar village, Siddapur Taluka, Uttara
Kannada district. It is claimed that the petitioners'
mother Smt.Godavari W/o.Ganapati Hegde was
cultivating the aforesaid land under Sri Timmayya
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
Manjayya Hegde and Sri Vishveshwara Ramayya
Hegde.
3. After coming into force of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, the mother of the petitioners filed an
application in Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights
in respect of the aforesaid land. During the
pendency of the said application, the mother of the
petitioners expired. Thereafter, the petitioners were
brought on record as her legal representatives. They
having inherited the alleged tenancy rights in
respect of the above said land.
4. It is contended that respondent No.3-Sri Dattatraya
Ramayya Hegde, who did not have any manner of
right, claimed occupancy rights in respect of a
portion of the aforesaid land by claiming to be a
tenant under one Sri Narayan Ramachandra Hegde,
respondent No. 4 herein. It was contended that
respondent No.4 is not the owner of the land.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
Hence, the question of anyone claiming tenancy
rights under him would not arise.
5. The Land Tribunal, after holding an enquiry had
granted occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd
respondent in respect of the aforesaid land, which
was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition
No.6109/1982 which came to be allowed and the
order of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the
matter remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.
6. On remand, the Tribunal once again held an enquiry
and rejected the claim of the 3rd respondent by
order dated 11.12.1987, which was challenged by
the 3rd respondent before the appellate authority,
which came to be dismissed confirming the order of
the Land Tribunal.
7. The 3rd respondent filed LRRP No.818/1999 before
this Court, which came to be allowed, the order of
the Land Tribunal and the appellate authority were
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
set aside the order and matter remitted to the Land
Tribunal for fresh disposal.
8. In pursuance thereof, the Land Tribunal, vide its
order dated 10.12.1998 granted occupancy rights in
favour of the 3rd respondent, which came to be
challenged by the petitioners before this Court in
Writ Petition No.38657/1998, which writ petition
came to be allowed vide order dated 02.01.2007 and
the matter remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh
consideration.
9. The Land Tribunal, after holding an enquiry once
again granted occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd
respondent, vide order dated 14.10.2010, which is a
subject matter of this writ petition.
10. The submission of Sri R.G. Hegde, learned counsel
for petitioners is that the Land Tribunal has not
considered the aspect of whether respondent No.4
was the landowner in a proper perspective and the
Tribunal ought to have come to a conclusion that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
respondent No.4 is not the owner of the land and
consequently, ought to have come to a conclusion
that respondent No.3 could never have claimed any
tenancy rights under respondent No.4. The Land
Tribunal has erred in relying on the record of rights
where the name of respondent No.4 is mentioned to
come to a conclusion that respondent No.4 is the
owner of the land.
11. There being no independent document produced by
respondent No.4 and or his legal representatives
after being brought on record to establish the title
over the property. Mere reliance on a revenue
document, namely record of rights was improper.
12. His submission is that Sri Ramachandra Timmaiah
Hegde respondent No.5 and Sri Venkataramana
Vishveshwar Hegde respondent No. 6 being the
owners, could not have been disbelieved by the
Tribunal Form No.7 having been filed against them.
The Land Tribunal ought to have taken into
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
consideration the admission made by respondents
No.5 and 6 of the tenancy of the petitioners' mother
under them and consequently ought to have granted
occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners.
13. His submission is also that the observations made by
this Court in the order passed in Writ Petition
No.38657/1998(LR) have not been considered by
the Land Tribunal and therefore the order passed by
the Land Tribunal is required to be set aside.
14. Notice having been ordered on the respondents, the
State is represented. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 though
served, have chosen to be unrepresented.
15. Sri Madan Mohan Khannur, learned AGA appearing
for the State would submits that the land in
Sy.No.75/5 in all measuring 8 acres, 8 annas the
claim of the petitioners' mother was also not for the
entire land. But it was only for a portion of the land.
Similar claim was made by respondent No.3.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
However, Form No.7 was filed by the petitioners'
mother for the entire land.
16. The petitioners' mother was only cultivating 3 acres
13 guntas of land and the balance was being
cultivated by respondent No.3.
17. One Narayana Ramachandra Hegde was the owner
of 5/9th share in the property, who had granted
tenancy rights to the father of respondent No.3 Sri
Ramayya Krishnappa Hegde and after his death his
son Sri Dattatreya Ramayya Hegde, respondent
No.3 herein became the tenant and claimed
occupancy rights to the extent of 4 acres, 11 guntas.
18. Insofar as 4 acres 11 guntas in Sy.No.75/5 is
concerned, the petitioners' mother has no right since
the said land was owned by Sri Narayan
Ramachandra Hegde and not by respondents No.5
and 6. The claim of the petitioners could only be to
an extent of 3 acres 30 guntas. The petitioners
thereafter sought for deletion of respondents No.4A
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
and 4C from the array of parties and in pursuance
thereof respondents No.4A and 4C were deleted
from the array of parties. In that background,
learned AGA submits that the writ petition is
required to be dismissed.
19. Heard Sri R.G.Hegde, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Madan Mohan Khannur, learned
counsel A.G.A. for respondents No.1 and 2 and
perused the papers.
20. What would have to be considered, firstly is, the
order dated 2nd January, 2007 passed in Writ
Petition No. 38657/1998(LR). This Court at
paragraph No.4 of the said Judgment has observed
as under :
"4. It appears to be a case of disputed
identity and disputed ownership. The Tribunal
should have properly investigated and found out
as to who is the land owner and whether the
granted land is a part of Sy.No.75/5. The spot
inspection report discloses that the 3rd respondent
was cultivating the disputed land but the evidence
of the 3rd respondent discloses that Sy.No.75/5
has been kept fallow on account of legal dispute
since the year 1970 and nobody is cultivating the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
land. The said statement would disclose that the
3rd respondent never cultivated the land from the
year 1970. The evidence of 3rd respondent makes
it clear that he was not cultivating the land in
question as on 01.03.1974. There is also dispute
with regard to the identity of owner in respect of
Sy.No.75/5. All these crucial aspects have not
been properly addressed and answered by the
Tribunal in the impugned order. Therefore, the
same is set aside and the matter is remitted to
the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with
law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed."
21. Thus, this Court had categorically observed that
there is a dispute as regards the identity and
ownership of the property. The Tribunal has not
properly investigated and found out who is the
landowner and whether the land claimed by the
petitioners is part of Sy.No.75/5 or not. By referring
to the spot inspection report, this Court held that the
same indicates that the 3rd respondent to be
cultivating the disputed land, but further took into
consideration the submission of the 3rd respondent
that the aforesaid land had been kept fallow on
account of a legal dispute since 1970 and thus came
to a conclusion that the 3rd respondent never
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
cultivated the land from the year 1970 and as such
was not cultivating the land on the appointed date
i.e, 01.03.1974 and observed that the Tribunal had
not taken these factors into account and in that
background what is required to be ascertained by this
Court is as to whether the Tribunal on remittal has
complied with the orders passed by this Court and
the impugned order of the Land Tribunal satisfies the
directions issued by this Court.
22. I have perused the impugned order dated
14.10.2010. A perusal thereof, it would indicate that
all the aspects which had been directed to be
considered by this Court while remanding the matter
have been considered and the Tribunal has come to a
conclusion that occupancy rights are required to be
granted in favour of the 3rd respondent, while doing
so, the right of the 4th respondent and the right of
the 3rd respondent have also been considered. The
Tribunal has also taken into consideration the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
submission made earlier by the mother of the
petitioners that she was only cultivating a portion of
the land and not the entire land in Sy.No.75/5, the
said portion being to an extent of 3 acres, 13 guntas.
23. It is therefore clear that when the contention of the
mother of petitioner was that she was cultivating
only 3 acres, 13 guntas, she would not have any
right over the balance land in Sy.No.75/5, measuring
4 acres, 11 guntas and the claim of the mother of
petitioners and consequently the petitioners can only
be to an extent of 3 acres, 30 guntas.
24. Though the claim made by the petitioners is that
respondent No.4 has no right over the property. The
legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4
have been deleted from the array of parties. It is
under respondent Nos.4 and 5 that respondent No.3
claims the interest. The deletion of respondent No.4
and his legal heirs is only to the detriment of the
petitioners.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2024
25. The Tribunal, in my considered opinion, having
appreciated all the relevant aspects and having
granted the occupancy right in respect of the balance
land measuring 4 acre 11 guntas to respondent No.3,
cannot therefore be faulted with. No grounds being
made out, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
CKK
