Karnataka High Court
Aaroodha S/O Late Siddaram Gaddi vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4823-DB
WA No. 100024 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100024 OF 2020 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. AAROODHA S/O LATE SIDDARAM GADDI
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
1.A YAMUNAVVA W/O. SIDDHARUDHA GADDI
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
1.B UDDAVVA D/O. SIDDHARUDHA GADDI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
1.C TAMMANNA S/O. SIDDHARUDHA GADDI
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O: ALAKHANUR, TQ: RAYABAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591220.
...APPELLANTS
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
MALAGALADINNI
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
AND:
MALAGALADINNI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-01, BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, RAYABAG
DIST: BELAGAVI, BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. SADASHIVA S/O GHULAPPA GADDI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ALAKHANUR, TQ: RAYABAG,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4823-DB
WA No. 100024 of 2020
DIST: BELAGAVI-591220.
4. SHRI SIDDAPPA S/O GHULAPPA GADDI
SINCE DEAD R/BY HER LRS
4.A SIDDAVVA W/O. SIDDAPPA GADDI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
4.B MAHESH S/O. SIDDAPPA GADDI
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
4.C KASHAVVA W/O. SIDDAPPA GADDI
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
4.D PARASHURAM S/O. SIDDAPPA GADDI
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
4.E VIDYASHRI W/O. SIDDAPPA GADDI
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
ALL ARE R/O: ALAKHANUR, TQ: RAYABAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591220.
5. KASHAVVA D/O BHIMAPPA GADDI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
6. SHRI ACHYOT S/O IRAPPA HORATTI
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7. SMT. SEETAVVA W/O ALLAPPA HASARE
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
8. SMT. UDDAVVA W/O BHIMAPPA HORATTI
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
9. SHRI SIDDAPPA S/O BABU GADDI
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
10. KAREPPA S/O BABU GADDI
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4823-DB
WA No. 100024 of 2020
11. MARUTI S/O BABU GADDI
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
12. SHIVASHANKAR S/O SIDRAM GADDI
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
13. SARASAVVA D/O SIDRAM GADDI
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD/AGRICULTURE,
RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 13 ARE
R/O: ALAKHANUR, TQ: RAYABAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591220.
14. SHALAVVA W/O SADASHIV HUDEDAR
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD/AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NANDAGAON, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591304.
15. MURARARAO S/O KRISHNARAO DESAI
AGE: NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, OCC: NIL,
R/O: ALAKHANUR, TQ: RAYABAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591220.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. SAMGAESH S. GULAPPANAVAR, ADV. FOR R3, R7-R11,
R4(A-E); SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. H.H. BALANAIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R12;
R4-DECEASED; NOTICE TO R6, R13, R14 & R15 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED 22.11.2019 IN W.P.NO.104146/2019
(LR) AS IT IS ILLEGAL, & ETC.,
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4823-DB
WA No. 100024 of 2020
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
1. The petitioner/appellant is in intra-Court appeal
under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, aggrieved
by order dated 22.11.2019 passed in WP No.104146/2019 by
the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition only on
the ground of delay and laches of 44 years.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants,
learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel
for private respondents. Perused the entire writ appeal papers.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit
that the petitioner/appellant is a protected tenant and under
the impugned order of the Land Tribunal dated 17.11.1975, the
occupancy rights were granted in favour of respondents No.3 to
15, uncle of the appellant and their family members. It is
submitted that by playing fraud on the appellant/petitioner and
his branches of LRs, the occupancy rights have been obtained.
Further, learned counsel would submit that the fact of granting
occupancy rights in favour of respondents No.3 to 15 came to
the knowledge of the appellant only when the respondents
disclosed the said fact in the suit filed by the petitioner in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4823-DB
year 2006. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the
appellant immediately on coming to his knowledge about the
fact of granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents, has
taken steps to challenge the same before this Court in the
aforesaid writ petition. Thus, learned counsel would pray for
hearing the writ petition on merit.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that there is inordinate delay of 44 years in filing the writ
petition. Further, learned counsel Sri. Rajashekhar Burji for
respondent No.5 would submit that the petitioner/appellant had
the knowledge of order passed by the Land Tribunal, but he
was sleeping over his right. Thus, pray for dismissal of appeal.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, the only point that
falls for consideration in this intra-Court appeal is, whether the
learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition.
6. Answer to the above point would be in the
"affirmative" for the following reasons:
The order of the Land Tribunal, which was challenged
before the learned Single Judge, is dated 17.11.1975, whereas
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4823-DB
the writ petition was filed in the year 2019. Nearly more than
44 years from the date of order of the Land Tribunal. The only
ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant for
approaching this Court belatedly is that, the fact of grant of
occupancy right came to the knowledge of the
petitioner/appellant only when the respondents filed their
written statement in the suit filed by the petitioner in the year
2006. If that is accepted, even then there is delay of more
than 10 years in approaching this Court. The suit is said to
have been filed in the year 2006, whereas the present writ
petition was filed in the year 2019. Therefore, we are not
inclined to accept the explanation of the appellant for delay in
approaching this Court. We do not find any error or illegality in
the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. No
ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned
Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeal stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
JTR, CT:VP
