Allowed¶57

Sri. Ganesh Somanath Somani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2025WP/39290/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Land Tribunal Kundapura Udupi; TRI.5019/5020/81-82 quashed; certiorari; Form No.7 occupancy rights; Bachi Hengsu; Sy.No.167/1, 167/1A, 167/1B, Sy.No.46/3 Kattebelthur village; review and recall of writ order dated 05.10.2010 in W.P.Nos.27914 & 31669/2010 via W.P.No.28379/2011 order dated 13.04.2012; application after cut-off date not maintainable; Seethadevi vs. Narayana Kamath 1987 (2) Kar.L.J 89 relied upon; Tribunal overreached/misread High Court order; NC: 2025:KHC:45667.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; writ of certiorari issued quashing the proceedings in TRI.5019/5020/81-82 pending on the file of respondent No.2 (Chairman, Land Tribunal, Kundapura). ¶57

Sri. Ganesh Somanath Somani Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; writ of certiorari issued quashing the proceedings in TRI.5019/5020/81-82 pending on the file of respondent No.2 (Chairman, Land Tribunal, Kundapura).

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the Land Tribunal (respondent No.2) could lawfully continue the proceedings in TRI.5019/5020/81-82 in respect of respondent No.3's claim after this Court, by order dated 13.04.2012 in W.P.No.28379/2011, reviewed and recalled its earlier order dated 05.10.2010 in W.P.Nos.27914 & 31669/2010 whereby liberty had been granted to respondent No.3 to have her application considered.

¶48

Court's answer

This Court in W.P.No.28379/2011 had reviewed and recalled the order dated 05.10.2010 in W.P.Nos.29714 [sic, as printed] & 31669/2010; consequently the liberty granted to respondent No.3 stood recalled and the earlier order of the Land Tribunal dated 20.06.2010 stood confirmed.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

In that circumstance the Land Tribunal ought not to have proceeded with the case of respondent No.3 in proceedings in TRI.5019/5020/81-82.

¶50

Key takeaways

The Tribunal misread the order passed by this Court in continuing the proceedings, and the proceedings were liable to be quashed.ratio¶54
A writ of certiorari was issued quashing the proceedings in TRI.5019/5020/81-82 pending on the file of respondent No.2.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 — Land Tribunal (Kundapura), proceedings TRI.5019/5020/81-82 quashed. The petitioner, purchaser of Sy.No.167/1 (1 acre) of Kattebelthur village by sale deed dated 22.01.2010, challenged the Tribunal's continuation of respondent No.3's proceedings. Respondent No.3's application dated 30.06.2010 seeking inclusion/correction in the Tribunal's order had been rejected, but writ petitions W.P.Nos.27914 & 31669/2010 were allowed on 05.10.2010 directing the Tribunal to consider her application. In W.P.No.28379/2011, by order dated 13.04.2012 and relying on Seethadevi vs. Narayana Kamath and Others, 1987 (2) Kar.L.J 89 (no scope to consider applications filed after the cut-off date), this Court reviewed and recalled the order dated 05.10.2010; the liberty granted to respondent No.3 stood recalled and the Tribunal's earlier order dated 20.06.2010 stood confirmed. Held: the Tribunal ought not to have proceeded with respondent No.3's case; by continuing the proceedings it misread this Court's order and overreached it. Proceedings quashed; writ petition allowed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45667 WP No. 39290 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 39290 OF 2016 (LR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. GANESH SOMANATH SOMANI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. SOMANATH SOMANI, GANESH KRUPA, NEAR HEBBAGILA MANE MANGANESE ROAD, POST: GANGOLLI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK-567 201.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

THE CHAIRMAN LAND TRIBUNAL,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45667 WP No. 39290 of 2016

HC-KAR

KUNDAPURA-576 201,

UDUPI DISTRICT.

SMT. LAKSHMI MOGERTHI(SINCE DECEASED) W/O. LATE SRI. SOMA MOGERA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, KATTE BELTHUR VILLAGE,

¶22

KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶23

3(a) MR. SHEENA NAIKA

¶24

S/O LATE SOMA MUGERA KATTBELTHURU VILLAGE

¶25

HEMMADY

¶26

KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R2,

¶29

R3(a) - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO.CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN TRI 5019/5020/81-82 ON THE FILE OF THE R-2. QUASH THE PROCEEDIGNS IN TRI 5019/5020/81-82 ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-F.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:45667 WP No. 39290 of 2016

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the proceedings in TRI.5019/5020/81-82 on the file of respondent No.2.

¶38

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is

¶39

the purchaser of land bearing Sy.No.167/1 measuring 1 acre situated at Kattebelthur village, Kundapura Taluk, vide Sale Deed dated 22.01.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that one Bachi Hengsu had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy right over the land bearing Sy.No.46/3 situated at Kattebelthur village and the Tribunal granted occupancy right on 04.07.1981. Later, respondent No.3 i.e. daughter-in-law of said Bachi Hengsu had filed an application before the Land Tribunal dated 30.06.2010 for inclusion of Sy.No.167/1A measuring 1 acre 38 cents and Sy.No.167/1B measuring 1 acre 10 cents of Kattebelthur village and sought for correction in the order of the Land Tribunal to include 1 acre 87 cents in Sy.No.167/1. The said application came to be rejected. Against the same, respondent No.3 preferred writ petitions before this

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45667 WP No. 39290 of 2016

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Court in W.P.Nos.27914 & 31669/2010. The said writ petitions were allowed vide order dated 05.10.2010 by directing respondent No.2 to consider the application of respondent No.3. The petitioner having come to know about the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.27914 & 31669/2010, for consideration of the application filed by respondent No.3, filed writ petition in W.P.No.28379/2011 to set-aside the order passed in the said W.P.Nos.27914 & 31669/2010 vide dated 05.10.2010.

¶43

In the said W.P.No.28379/2011, this Court vide order dated 13.04.2012, by relying the dictum laid down in the case of Seethadevi vs. Narayana Kamath and Others reported in 1987 (2) Kar.L.J 89 has held that there is no scope for considering the validity of the application filed after cut off date. As such, the order passed earlier has to be recalled and application for such relief cannot be maintainable and accordingly, reviewed and recalled the order passed in W.P.Nos.27914 & 31669/2010 dated 05.10.2010.

¶44

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

¶45

petitioner that the petitioner has placed the order dated

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45667 WP No. 39290 of 2016

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

13.04.2012 passed in W.P.No.28379/2011 before the Land Tribunal in the proceedings in TRI.5019/5020/81-82. Despite the Tribunal has failed to consider the same and continued with the proceedings. As such, he submits that the continuation of the proceedings by the Tribunal amounts to overreaching the order of this Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition by quashing the proceedings pending before the Land Tribunal.

¶49

Per contra , learned HCGP submits that though he secured the original records from the Tribunal, he is unable to find out whether any proceedings are pending before the Tribunal or not.

¶50

As could be gathered from records, admittedly this Court in W.P.No.28379/2011, reviewed and recalled the order passed in W.P.Nos.29714 & 31669/2010 dated 05.10.2010. As such, the liberty granted to respondent No.3 was recalled and the earlier order of the Land Tribunal dated 20.06.2010 was confirmed. In such circumstance, the Tribunal ought not to have proceeded with the case of respondent No.3 in proceedings in TRI.5019/5020/81-82. Apparently, the Tribunal

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:45667 WP No. 39290 of 2016

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

¶54

has misread the order passed by this Court and continued the proceedings, which is liable to be quashed in view of the above

¶55

order. In that view of the matter, I proceed to pass the

¶56

following:

¶57

i. The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶58

ii. A writ of certiorari is issued. The proceedings in

¶59

TRI.5019/5020/81-82 pending on the file of respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶60

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶61

HKV

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Continuation of proceedings in TRI.5019/5020/81-82 by respondent No.2 (Land Tribunal, Kundapura) in favour of respondent No.3 despite the order dated 13.04.2012 in W.P.No.28379/2011 reviewing and recalling the order dated 05.10.2010 in W.P.Nos.27914 & 31669/2010; the petitioner contends this amounts to overreaching this Court's order and seeks quashing of the proceedings (Annex-F).¶48
Land Tribunal, Kundapura (respondent No.2)
Prior proceeding
Petitioner purchased land bearing Sy.No.167/1 measuring 1 acre at Kattebelthur village, Kundapura Taluk, under Sale Deed dated 22.01.2010.¶39
Prior proceeding
One Bachi Hengsu filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy right over Sy.No.46/3 of Kattebelthur village; the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right on 04.07.1981.¶39
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 (daughter-in-law of Bachi Hengsu) filed an application dated 30.06.2010 before the Land Tribunal for inclusion of Sy.No.167/1A (1 acre 38 cents) and Sy.No.167/1B (1 acre 10 cents) of Kattebelthur village.¶39
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 also sought correction of the Tribunal order to include 1 acre 87 cents in Sy.No.167/1; the application came to be rejected.¶39
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 preferred writ petitions W.P.Nos.27914 & 31669/2010 before this Court; they were allowed vide order dated 05.10.2010 directing respondent No.2 to consider her application.¶42
Prior proceeding
On learning of that order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28379/2011 seeking to set aside the order dated 05.10.2010 in W.P.Nos.27914 & 31669/2010.¶42
Prior proceeding
By order dated 13.04.2012 in W.P.No.28379/2011, relying on Seethadevi vs. Narayana Kamath and Others (1987 (2) Kar.L.J 89), this Court held there is no scope for considering the validity of an application filed after the cut-off date.¶43
Prior proceeding
Accordingly, in W.P.No.28379/2011 the Court reviewed and recalled the order dated 05.10.2010 passed in W.P.Nos.27914 & 31669/2010.¶43

Sri. Ganesh Somanath Somani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ganesh Somanath Somani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vishwanatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Honnegowda Vs Sannakka @ Neela

Smt Kamakshamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S C Burman Vs the Tahsildar

Smt Hanumakka Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Balakrishna Vs the Principal Secretary