Karnataka High Court
Puttappa S/O Holeyappa Karanalli vs Holebasappa S/O Basalingappa Bagavi on 6 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341
WP No. 65168 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 65168 OF 2012 (LR-)
BETWEEN:
PUTTAPPA
S/O. HOLEYAPPA KARANALLI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1. GOURAVVA
S/O. PUTTAPPA KARANALLI,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HAMSABHAVI,
TQ: HAVERI,
2. SHIVAYOGEPPA
S/O. PUTTAPPA KARANALLI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HAMSABHAVI,
TQ: HAVERI,
Digitally
signed by V N
BADIGER 3. BASAVARAJ
Location: S/O. PUTTAPPA KARANALLI,
HIGH COURT
OF AGE: 50 YEARS,
KARNATAKA, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
DHARWAD R/O. HAMSABHAVI,
BENCH,
DHARWAD TQ: HAVERI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P. N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HOLEBASAPPA
S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HAMSABHAVI,
TQ: HIREKERUR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341
WP No. 65168 of 2012
DIST: HAVERI.
2. MALLESHAPPA
S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. HAMSABHAVI,
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
3. PALAXAPPA S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HAMSABHAVI,
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
4. SOMASHEKHAR
S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HAMSABHAVI,
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
5. CHANNABASAPPA
S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI,
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HAMSABHAVI,
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
6. GIRIJAMMA
S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI,
AGE: 49 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HAMSABHAVI,
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
7. MAHADEVAKKA
S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HAMSABHAVI,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341
WP No. 65168 of 2012
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
8. VIJAYA S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI,
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HAMSABHAVI,
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
9. SHAKUNTALA
S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HAMSABHAVI,
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
10. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALORE.
11. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R10 & R11;
SMT. PALLAVI PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6, R8 & R9;
R7 - SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT
NO.11 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI DATED 24.11.2004 IN
NO.BHU.SU(7A), HAMSABHAVI-4 AS PER ANNEXURE-D, IN THE
INTEREST OF THE CASE MAY BE GRANTED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341
WP No. 65168 of 2012
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a
writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order passed
by respondent No.11 Assistant Commissioner Haveri dated
24.11.2004 in No.BHU.SU.(7A) Hamsabhavi-4 produced as
per Annexure-D
2. Heard Sri P.N.Hosamane, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent Nos.10 and 11,
Smt.Pallavi Pachchapure, learned counsel for Sri F.V.Patil,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 and
respondent No.7 served but remained unrepresented.
Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the impugned order produced as per Annexure-D
dated 24.11.2004 is passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Haveri under Section 7(A) of the Karnataka
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341
WP No. 65168 of 2012
Land Reforms Act (for short, ‘KLR Act‘). The petitioner is
the Landlord in respect of Sy.No.322/1B measuring 4 acres
8 guntas, Sy.No.323/2B measuring 3 acres 26 guntas,
situated at Hamsabhavi Village. The father of respondent
Nos.1 to 9 was the tenant and an application under Section
14 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘MLR
Act‘) was filed by him. The said application was allowed
vide order dated 12.11.1971 and the land was permitted
to be resumed. Therefore it is clear that on the relevant
date, the land was already surrendered and it was not a
tenanted land. The Assistant Commissioner has not taken
into consideration this fact and proceeded to pass the
impugned order.
4. Learned counsel also submits that no notice of
the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner was
issued to the petitioners and there is denial of principles of
natural justice. Hence, the petitioners are before this
Court. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341
WP No. 65168 of 2012
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 opposing the petition submitted that,
the notice of the proceedings before the Assistant
Commissioner was issued to the petitioners, and the
mother of the petitioners had in fact appeared before the
Assistant Commissioner. The copy of the order sheet
produced by the petitioners themselves discloses that the
mother of the petitioners had signed the order sheet on
two dates of hearing. The order passed by the Land
Tribunal also discloses that she had appeared before the
Land Tribunal on many occasions and later remained
absent.
6. Learned counsel submits that even though,
there was an order for resumption of the land under
Section 14 of MLR Act, there was no actual surrender of
the land. The Record of Rights continued to show the
names of the tenants as the occupants and cultivators.
7. Learned counsel also submitted that impugned
order was passed on 24.11.2004. After lapse of more than
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341
WP No. 65168 of 2012
eight years, the writ petition came to be filed. Learned
counsel further submitted that, the order under Section 7A
of KLR Act is an appealable order under Section 118 of the
said Act. The appeal lies to the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal and the same was not availed by the petitioner.
For all these reasons, she prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
8. On perusal of the materials on record, it
discloses that admittedly the lands in question were
tenanted lands, having the predecessors in interest of
respondent Nos.1 to 9, as tenants. However, the
proceedings under Section 14 of the MLR Act, was initiated
in RLC.No.382/1980. The said application was allowed by
the by the learned Munsiff vide order dated 12.11.1971
and it was held that the applicant was entitled for
resumption of the land bearing Sy.No.323/2B measuring 3
acres 26 guntas situated at Haunsabhavi village. Even
though such an order was passed, whether there was
actual resumption of the land or not, is seriously under
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341
WP No. 65168 of 2012
dispute. Respondents contend that there was no surrender
of the land. There is no iota of evidence to support the
contention of the petitioners regarding actual surrender of
the land by the tenants. Admittedly, the Record of Rights
stands in the name of the tenants as cultivators. In the
absence of any materials, the contention of the petitioners
that one of the lands was surrendered by tenants as per
order of the learned Munsiff, cannot be accepted.
9. The other ground urged by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that no notice of the proceedings was
issued to the petitioners by the Assistant Commissioner.
But the order impugned discloses that the notice was
served on the petitioners, and petitioner No.1 had in fact
appeared before the Assistant Commissioner. The copy of
the order sheet maintained by the Assistant Commissioner,
produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner
discloses that, on two dates of hearing, petitioner No.1 had
signed the order sheet. Under such circumstances, the
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341
WP No. 65168 of 2012
contention of the petitioners that they were not notified by
the Assistant Commissioner cannot be accepted.
10. However, admittedly, the order was challenged
after a lapse of over 8 years. Even though the order is
dated 24.11.2004, the writ petition came to be filed on
13.07.2012. The writ petition came to be filed ignoring
Section 118 of KLR Act, which provides for preferring an
appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal against the
order passed under Section 7A of the KLR Act. I do not find
any justification for the petitioners to seek the reliefs in
the writ petition. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.G.UMA)
JUDGEMKM,EM
CT: ANB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5
[ad_1]
Source link