Puttappa S/O Holeyappa Karanalli Vs Holebasappa S/O Basalingappa Bagavi

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341 WP No. 65168 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 65168 OF 2012 (LR-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PUTTAPPA S/O. HOLEYAPPA KARANALLI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶9

GOURAVVA S/O. PUTTAPPA KARANALLI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAMSABHAVI, TQ: HAVERI,

¶10

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD

¶11

SHIVAYOGEPPA S/O. PUTTAPPA KARANALLI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAMSABHAVI, TQ: HAVERI,

¶12

BASAVARAJ S/O. PUTTAPPA KARANALLI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAMSABHAVI, TQ: HAVERI.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. P. N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

HOLEBASAPPA S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAMSABHAVI, TQ: HIREKERUR

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341 WP No. 65168 of 2012

¶18

DIST: HAVERI.

¶19

MALLESHAPPA S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HAMSABHAVI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶20

PALAXAPPA S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAMSABHAVI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶21

SOMASHEKHAR S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAMSABHAVI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶22

CHANNABASAPPA S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAMSABHAVI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶23

GIRIJAMMA S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAMSABHAVI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶24

MAHADEVAKKA S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAMSABHAVI,

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341 WP No. 65168 of 2012

¶26

TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶27

VIJAYA S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAMSABHAVI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶28

SHAKUNTALA S/O. BASALINGAPPA BAGAVI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAMSABHAVI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341 WP No. 65168 of 2012

¶33

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341 WP No. 65168 of 2012

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341 WP No. 65168 of 2012

¶42

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent

¶43

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.

¶44

Learned counsel submits that even though,

¶45

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.

¶46

Learned counsel also submitted that impugned

¶47

order was passed on 24.11.2004. After lapse of more than

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341 WP No. 65168 of 2012

¶49

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.

¶50

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

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341 WP No. 65168 of 2012

¶52

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.

¶53

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

¶54

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4341 WP No. 65168 of 2012

¶55

contention of the petitioners that they were not notified by

¶56

the Assistant Commissioner cannot be accepted.

¶57

However, admittedly, the order was challenged

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

the writ petition. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶61

The writ petition is dismissed .

¶62

Sd/(M.G.UMA) JUDGE

¶63

MKM,EM CT: ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5

Puttappa S/O Holeyappa Karanalli v. Holebasappa S/O Basalingappa Bagavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttappa S/O Holeyappa Karanalli v. Holebasappa S/O Basalingappa Bagavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanta W/O.Vasant Desai Vs the Upper Tashildar, Hubli

Basagouda Patil S/O Shankar Vs Deputy Commissioner

Hanamanth S/O Appasab Chikkur, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Venkoba S/O Thimappa Dasar Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramadevara Temple of Tilavalli Vs Malathi Bai W/O Late Sripad Rao Nadiger

Smt. Yellawa Kalloleppa Waddar Vs the Deputy Commissioner