Basappa S/O. Manappa Badiger Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Basappa S/O. Manappa Badiger Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 19.03.2013 passed by Respondent No.2 (Land Tribunal, Saundatti) in No.K.L.R:CIA:SDT:79:11 (Annexure-E) set aside; matter remitted to the jurisdictional Land Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law; Tribunal to consider and answer whether the applicants were entitled to grant of land under the provisions of the Certain Inams Abolition Act; both parties permitted to lead evidence, with any already-recorded evidence to be taken into account; nothing expressed on merits; all questions left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 19.03.2013 of the Land Tribunal, Saundatti could stand when the Tribunal had not considered the question whether the applicants were entitled to grant. +1 more

Court's answer

The Land Tribunal did not consider at all the question whether the applicants were entitled to grant; consequently the impugned order dated 19.03.2013 had to be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

Writ petition allowed; the matter is remitted to the jurisdictional Land Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

On remand, the Tribunal shall consider and answer whether the applicants were entitled to grant of land under the provisions of the Certain Inams Abolition Act.ratio¶51
Both parties are permitted to lead evidence; if any evidence is already recorded, the same shall also be taken into account before passing orders on merit.ratio¶54
Nothing is expressed on the merits of the matter and all questions are left open.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 106046 of 2014 (LR) — Basappa S/o Manappa Badiger (since deceased, by his LRs Nagappa, Ramappa and Muktabai) v. State of Karnataka, Land Tribunal Saundatti and others — The Land Tribunal, Saundatti, by order dated 19.03.2013 in No.K.L.R:CIA:SDT:79:11 (Annexure-E), rejected the grant application filed by the petitioners' father Basappa S/o Manappa in respect of land bearing Block No.50 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas at Kagadaal village, Soundatti taluk, Belgaum district. Held: the Tribunal did not consider at all the question whether the applicants were entitled to grant; the impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted to the jurisdictional Land Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. On remand the Tribunal is to consider and answer whether the applicants were entitled to grant of land under the provisions of the Certain Inams Abolition Act; both parties are permitted to lead evidence and any evidence already recorded shall be taken into account; nothing is expressed on the merits and all questions are left open. Petition allowed. (Respondents Nos.4 and 5 stood deleted v/o 10.06.2016.)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14483 WP No. 106046 of 2014

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 106046 OF 2014 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SHRI BASAPPA S/O. MANAPPA BADIGER, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.,

SHRI NAGAPPA

S/O. MALLAPPA @ RAMALINGA BADIGER,

AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITNAL, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

SHRI RAMAPPA

S/O. MALLAPPA @ RAMALINGA BADIGER,

AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITNAL, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

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

SMT. MUKTABAI W/O. LATE BASAPPA BADIGER, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KAGADAAL, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.

THE LAND TRIBUNAL, SOUNDATTI, R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14483 WP No. 106046 of 2014

HC-KAR

SHRI SHIVANAND S/O.LAKSHMAN BADIGER, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAGADAAL, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

SRI. NAGAPPA S/O. RAMALINGAPPA BADIGER, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAGADAAL, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

RAMAPPA S/O. RAMALINGAPPA BADIGERA, MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAGADAAL, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

RESPONDENTS NOS.4 AND 5 DELETED V/O/DATED 10.06.2016.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4 AND R5 ARE DELETED V/O/DATED 10.06.2016)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.03.2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.K.L.R:CIA:SDT:79:11 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TRIBUNAL TO GRANT OCCUPANCY RIGHTS OF THE LAND BEARING BLOCK NO.50 MEASURING 4 ACRES 20 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KAGADAAL VILLAGE OF SOUNDATTI TALUK OF DIST: BELGAUM, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS.

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14483 WP No. 106046 of 2014

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

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

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3.

This petition is filed assailing the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Saundatti. In terms of the order dated 19.03.2013 the application filed by petitioners father Basappa S/o Manappa is rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order is not a speaking order and the petition is dismissed on the premise that the counsel for the petitioner has not furnished any written submissions and petitioner no.1 has died and petitioner no.1(a) i.e., the wife of petitioner no.1 has obtained divorce and petitioners no. 3 and 4 claiming to be sons of Ramalinga Badigeri have not produced any records to show that they are sons of Ramalinga Badigeri.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14483 WP No. 106046 of 2014

HC-KAR

This Court is of the view that the question whether

the applicants are entitled to grant is not considered by the Land tribunal at all. Under these circumstances the impugned order has to be set aside.

Hence the following:

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The matter is remitted to the jurisdictional Land Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

(iii) It is made clear that the Tribunal shall consider and

answer the following question:

(a) Whether the applicants were entitled to grant of land under the provisions of Certain Inams

Abolition Act?

(iv) Both parties are permitted to lead evidence.

(v) If any evidence is already recorded, same shall also be taken into account before passing the orders on merit.

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

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14483 WP No. 106046 of 2014

HC-KAR

(vii) All questions are left open.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 2