Allowed¶83

B Marigowda v. the Chairman

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025WP/15603/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:45126; WP No. 15603 of 2017 (LR); Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; decided 06.11.2025 by Rajesh Rai K., J.; Land Tribunal Maddur Taluk; LRF 535/1974-75; Form No.7 occupancy rights claim of 1974; certiorari; quashing of Tribunal order dated 04.05.2016; remand for fresh consideration; enquiry and spot inspection without notice; misplacement of application and records; Sy.No.32p1 - 37 guntas; Sy.No.30 - 1 acre; Sy.No.32 - 10 guntas; status quo of possession; Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India; Mandya district.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; writ of certiorari issued quashing the Land Tribunal's order dated 04.05.2016 in LRF:535/197475; matter remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with sufficient opportunity to both parties; parties to maintain status quo of possession until the proceedings conclude.

B Marigowda Vs the Chairman — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶83

Issue for consideration

Whether the Land Tribunal's order dated 04.05.2016 in LRF:535/1974-75 granting occupancy rights to respondent No.2 over Sy.No.32p1 (37 guntas) is sustainable, given the petitioners' grievance that the subsequent enquiry and spot inspection were conducted without notice to them, leaving them unable to file objections. +1 more

¶75

Court's answer

From the records, respondent No.2 had filed Form No.7 in 1974 for Sy.No.30 (1 acre) and Sy.No.32 (10 guntas), but the Tribunal had conducted no enquiry into that claim owing to misplacement of the application and records pertaining to Sy.Nos.30 and 32, a fact also reflected in the impugned order.

¶75

Ratio / Principle

In such circumstances the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of the Tribunal, by giving sufficient opportunity to both parties to put forth their contentions/claims in respect of the subject land.

¶77

Key takeaways

A writ of certiorari was issued and the Tribunal's order in LRF:535/197475 dated 04.05.2016 was quashed.ratio¶84
The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.ratio¶85
The Land Tribunal was directed to conclude the proceedings at the earliest, and until then both parties were to maintain status quo in respect of possession of their respective property.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge Bench of the Karnataka High Court (Rajesh Rai K., J.) allowed Writ Petition No. 15603 of 2017 (LR) and, by certiorari, quashed the order dated 04.05.2016 of the Land Tribunal, Maddur Taluk in LRF:535/1974-75 granting occupancy rights to respondent No.2 over Sy.No.32p1 (37 guntas). The record showed that respondent No.2's Form No.7 application of 1974 (Sy.No.30 - 1 acre; Sy.No.32 - 10 guntas) was never enquired into, the application and records having been misplaced; the petitioners contended that the subsequent enquiry and spot inspection proceeded without notice to them. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after affording both sides sufficient opportunity, with a direction to conclude the proceedings early and an interim direction to maintain status quo of possession. The dispute whether only 10 guntas exist in Sy.No.32 was left open for determination by the Tribunal.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45126 WP No. 15603 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 15603 OF 2017 (LR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

B MARIGOWDA,

¶11

S/O BORANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.182,

¶12

CHANDAGLU VILLAGE (NAGUVANAHALLI) KASABA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428.

¶13

VASANTHAMMA,

¶14

W/O LATE M KRISHENGOWDA,

¶15

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT PETE ROAD, MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428.

¶16

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

K NAGENDRA,

¶18

S/O LATE M KRISHENGOWDA,

¶19

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAHALAKSHMI THEATER, BANNUR ROAD, MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428.

¶20

SARASWATHAMMA,

¶21

D/O LATE JANAKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANDAGLU VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45126 WP No. 15603 of 2017

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

M S ARJUNA, S/O LATE M SRINIVASU, MALAVALLI ROAD, BANNUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 428

¶25

VIJALAKSHMI, D/O LATE JANAKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANDAGLU VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428

¶26

M VIJAY, S/O MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT SANKALPA GARDEN APARTMENT # 004,GOKULAM 2^ND STAGE, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, MYSORE

¶27

…PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SRI. LOHITASWA BANAKAR AND SRI. HARISH BANAKAR, ADVOCATES)

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE CHAIRMAN, LAND TRIBUNAL, MANDYA SUB DIVISION, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶31

SMT GOWRAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

¶32

2(a) SMT LAXMAMMA, D/O LATE 69 YEARS, D/O LATE GOWRAMMA, R/AT #35, I CROSS, LELAVATHY, EXTENSION, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428.

¶33

2(b) SRI. SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45126 WP No. 15603 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH & SMT. LATE GOWRAMMA, R/AT SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHASWAMY, KRUPA NILAYA, B.M ROAD, OPPOSITE TO LIC OFFICE, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428.

¶37

2(c) SRI. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH & SMT. LATE GOWRAMMA, R/AT # 72/1 PURA VILLAGE, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428.

¶38

2(d) SMT. N. MALATHI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH & SMT LATE GOWRAMMA, R/AT # 144, III CROSS, III MAIN ROAD, NEAR GANESH BHAVAN HOTEL, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, GAVIPURAM EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 019.

¶39

2(e) SMT. NALINI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH & SMT. LATE GOWRAMMA, R/AT # 48/1A, I MAIN ROAD, II CROSS, COTE KENGERI, V.T.C., BANGALORE SOUTH-560 060

¶40

2(f) SHANTAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

¶41

2(f) (i) T. CHIKKAVENAKTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, HUSBAND OF LATE SHANTAMMA,

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45126 WP No. 15603 of 2017

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

2(f)(ii) T.C PRABHAKARA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, S/O LATE SHANTAMMA & T. CHIKKAVENAKTEGOWDA.

¶45

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ARETIPPUR DHAKALE VILLAGE, KULAGERE POST, C.A KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶46

2(g) CHANDRASHEKAR, SINCE DIED BY HIS LR'S

¶47

2(g)(i) SRI. UMESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR, FIRST WIFE SON.

¶48

2(g)(ii) SMT. KHANTAMANI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, SECOND WIFE OF LATE CHANDRASHEKAR.

¶49

2(g)(iii) M.C BHARATH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR & SMT. KHANTAMANI, SECOND WIFE.

¶50

ALL ARE RESIDING AT SOMEGOWDARA BEEDI MADDUR TOWN & TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428.

¶51

…RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A) TO R2(E))

¶53

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH TO THE DTD 04.05.2016, PASSED BY THE R-1 IN LRF.535/197475, THEREBY ALLOWING THE FORM NO.7 ALLEGED HAVE FILED

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45126 WP No. 15603 of 2017

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

BY THE R-2 AND GRANTING THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-H AND ETC.

¶57

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶58

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶59

ORAL ORDER

¶60

The petitioners in this petition assailed the order passed by respondent No.1-the Land Tribunal, Maddur Taluk in LRF:535/1974-75 dated 04.05.2016, whereby the Tribunal granted the occupancy right to respondent No.2 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.32p1 to an extent of 37 guntas.

¶61

The grievance of the petitioners is that the land bearing Sy.No.32p1 in total measuring 42 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.30 measuring 1 Acre situated at Maddur, Kasaba Hobli, Maddur Taluk belongs to the petitioners, since they inherited the same by virtue of succession and they were in possession of the said property. However, respondent No.2 has filed Form No.7 in respect of the said

¶62

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45126 WP No. 15603 of 2017

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

land in the year 1974. The Land Tribunal allowed her application vide order dated 04.05.2016 in LRF 535/197475. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition.

¶65

Heard Sri.Lohitaswa Banakar, learned counsel and Sri.Harish Banakar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Neelakantappa K. Pujar, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(e).

¶66

The primary contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 claimed occupancy right only to an extent of 1 Acre in Sy.No.30 and 10 guntas in Sy.No.32 of Maddur village. The said claim of respondent No.2 was rejected by the Land Tribunal in the year 1976. Without challenging the said order, respondent No.2 once again filed a written argument before the Tribunal and claimed that she was in possession and cultivation of the said land. By relying on such written argument, without issuing any notice to the

¶67

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45126 WP No. 15603 of 2017

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

petitioners, the Tribunal conducted a spot inspection and passed the impugned order by granting 37 guntas of land in Sy.No.32p1 in favour of respondent No.2. According to the petitioners, as a matter of fact, only 10 guntas of land exist in Sy.No.32. As such, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶70

Per contra , the learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that, the Tribunal has not passed any order in respect of Sy.Nos.30 and 32 in the year 1976, since the application filed by respondent No.2 was misplaced before the Tribunal. As such, by verifying the said aspect, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the petitioners subsequently in the year 2016 vide impugned order dated 04.05.2016.

¶71

The learned HCGP supports the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶72

I have given my anxious consideration both on submissions made by the learned counsel for the

¶73

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45126 WP No. 15603 of 2017

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

respective parties and perusal of the documents placed before this Court, it could be gathered from the records that, respondent No.2 has filed Form No.7 in the year 1974 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.30 to an extent of 1 Acre and land bearing Sy.No.32 to an extent of 10 guntas of land. The Tribunal had not conducted any enquiry in respect of the claim of the respondent No.2 in view of misplacement of the application and records pertaining to Sy.Nos.30 and 32. The said aspect is also clearly forthcoming in the impugned order. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in respect of subsequent enquiry and spot inspection by the Tribunal, they were not notified and as such, they were unable to file their objections.

¶76

In such circumstances, I am of the considered

¶77

view that the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of the Tribunal, by giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties to put forth their contentions/claims in

¶78

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:45126 WP No. 15603 of 2017

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

respect of the subject land. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶82

ORDER

¶83

(i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶84