[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
A Gopalakrishna Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
WA No. 332 of 2026
HC-KAR
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:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VASANTHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KUMARY B
K COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REFORMS,
Location: VIDHANA SOUDHA,
HIGH BANGALORE 560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
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,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
WA No. 332 of 2026
HC-KAR
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-
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
WA No. 332 of 2026
HC-KAR
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-
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
WA No. 332 of 2026
HC-KAR
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-
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
WA No. 332 of 2026
HC-KAR
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-
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
WA No. 332 of 2026
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
HC-KAR
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 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
HC-KAR
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 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
HC-KAR
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 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
HC-KAR
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 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
HC-KAR
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 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7569-DB
HC-KAR
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
