Kumaraswamy S/O Late Rama Bhat, Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Kumaraswamy S/O Late Rama Bhat, Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the Land Tribunal's order dated 19.03.1979 and the Form No.10 occupancy certificate dated 24.01.1981 issued in favour of respondent No.4 set aside; matter remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration with notice to the present petitioners, respondent No.4, and Bheema Bhat Joshi or his legal representatives; nothing expressed on merits; all contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.03.1979 of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights to respondent No.4 and the consequential Form No.10 occupancy certificate dated 24.01.1981 are liable to be set aside for want of notice to the petitioners' father, Rama Bhat Joshi.

Court's answer

Notice ought to have been issued to Rama Bhat Joshi, as the petitioners contend that their father was the tenant.

Ratio / Principle

Ram Bhat Joshi is no more; hence notice has to be issued to the present petitioners.

Key takeaways

Without entering into the merits, the order dated 19.03.1979 passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal and the occupancy certificate dated 24.01.1981 issued by respondent No.3 in Form No.10 in favour of respondent No.4 are set aside.ratio¶47
The matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration; the Tribunal shall issue notice to the present petitioners as well as respondent No.4 and thereafter pass appropriate orders.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the four sons of late Rama Bhat Joshi challenging the order dated 19.03.1979 passed by the Land Tribunal, Yelburga in Proceedings No.LRM:TNC:SR/492/76-77 granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.4 (Parvatha Gowda), and the consequential occupancy certificate dated 24.01.1981 issued by the Tahsildar in Form No.10. Per the petitioners' counsel, the record of rights continued to show their father's name up to 2013 despite the 1979 order and 1981 certificate, indicating they were unaware of the impugned orders. On a scrutiny of the original records secured from the Government Advocate, the Court found that notice in the Tribunal proceedings had been issued to Bheema Bhat Joshi and not to Rama Bhat Joshi, though Rama Bhat Joshi's name appeared in the property records for 1968-69, and that the notice was never personally served on Bheema Bhat Joshi, being merely affixed to his residence in his absence. Holding that notice ought to have been issued to Rama Bhat Joshi, who is now dead, and therefore to the present petitioners, the Court, without entering into the merits, allowed the writ petition, set aside both the 1979 order and the 1981 Form No.10 certificate, and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration, directing it to issue notice to the petitioners, respondent No.4, and Bheema Bhat Joshi or, if he is not alive, his legal representatives, and to decide afresh on the evidence placed by the parties after hearing all of them. Nothing was expressed on the merits and all contentions were kept open.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15293 WP No. 103012 of 2015

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 103012 OF 2015 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. KUMARASWAMY S/O LATE RAMA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

SRI. CHIDAMBARA VIJAYA RAMA BHAT JOSHI S/O LATE RAMA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

SRI. SHESHACHALA RAMA BHAT JOSHI S/O LATE RAMA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

SRI. YADNYVALKYA S/O LATE RAMA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

ALL ARE AT: NO.7, 1^ST CROSS, V.G. LAYOUT, V. NAGANAHALLI, R.T. NAGARA-POST, BENGALURU-560 032.

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15293 WP No. 103012 of 2015

HC-KAR

THE LAND TRIBUNAL YELBURGA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, YELBURGA TALUK, PIN-583 236, DIST: KOPPAL.

THE TAHSILDAR, YELBURGA TALUK, PIN-583 236, DIST: KOPPAL.

SRI. PARVATHA GOWDA S/O SANGANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O: SIRUR VILLAGE, TQ: YELBURGA, PIN-583 236, DIST: KOPPAL.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR AND SRI. N.B. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATES FOR R4; SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND THEREBY TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.1979 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN PROCEEDINGS NO.LRM:TNC:SR/492/76-77 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE DATED 24.01.1981 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT IN FORM NO.10 IN FAVOUR OF THE 4^TH RESPONDENT AS ANNEXURE-A AND ANNEXURE-B RESPECTIVELY IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15293 WP No. 103012 of 2015

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, assailing the order dated 19.03.1979 passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, and the occupancy certificate dated 24.01.1981 issued by respondent No.3 in Form No.10 in favour of respondent No.4.

The short case of the petitioners is that their father, Ram Bhat Joshi, was the owner of the petition properties, and the occupancy rights have been granted in favour of respondent No.4 without notice to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

record of rights pertaining to the petitioners’ property would reveal the name of the petitioners’ father, which was continued up to the year 2013, despite the order having been passed in favour of respondent No.4 in 1979, and Form No.10 having been issued in the year 1981. Thus, it is his contention that the petitioners were not aware of the impugned orders.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15293 WP No. 103012 of 2015

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Tribunal, after perusing the records and noticing the fact that the Form No.7 applicants were tenants in respect of the petition properties as reflected in the record of rights for the year 196061, has rightly granted occupancy right in favour of respondent No.4.

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the

Bar and perused the records.

This Court has also secured the original records from the learned Additional Government Advocate. From the original records, it is noticed that notice was issued to Bheema Bhat Joshi and not Rama Bhat Joshi, though name of Rama Bhat Joshi is found in the property records for the year 1968-69. It is also noticed from the record that the notice was not served on Bheema Bhat Joshi, as he was not residing in the house and the notice was affixed to his residence.

Since the petitioners contend that their father Rama Bhat Joshi was the tenant, the Court is of the view that notice ought to have been issued to Rama Bhat Joshi. Now it is stated

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15293 WP No. 103012 of 2015

HC-KAR

that Ram Bhat Joshi is no more. Hence, notice has to be issued to the present petitioners.

Under these circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is allowed .

The order dated 19.03.1979 passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, and the occupancy certificate dated 24.01.1981 issued by respondent No.3 in Form No.10 in favour of respondent No.4 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.

The Land Tribunal shall issue notice to the present petitioners as well as respondent No. 4, and thereafter, pass appropriate orders.

It is also made clear that since respondent No.4 claims that Bheema Bhat Joshi was a landlord, notice shall also be issued to Bheema Bhat Joshi and if he is not alive, to his legal representatives.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15293 WP No. 103012 of 2015

HC-KAR

After hearing all the parties, the Land Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders based on the evidence to be placed by the parties.

It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the matter.

All contentions kept open.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 12