Sri Hussainsab Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI MAY PLEASE BE PASSED QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN KLR/7/HOSAVAL/S.R.-5 DATED 14.11.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITON AND ETC.

¶40

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:133 WP No. 109958 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100073 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

IN WP No. 100073/2025:

¶43

BETWEEN:

¶44

SRI. HUSSAINSAB S/O. RAJESAB HOSAVAL, SINCE DECEASED BY LRs,

¶45

SRI. MUKTUMSAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB HOSAVAL @ MALAGI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶46

SRI. MOULASAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB HOSAVAL @ MALAGI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶47

SRI. SUBANISAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB HOSAVAL @ MALAGI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶48

SMT. AMEENA W/O. FAKKIRSAB ONTINAL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶49

SMT. FATIMA W/O. MUKTUMSAB MANDYAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶50

SMT. MASABI D/O. HUSSAINSAB HOSAVAL @ MALAGI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. HOSAVAL, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-580008.

¶51

…PETITIONERS

¶52

(BY SRI. SAGAR HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.R.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶53

4 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC-D:133 WP No. 109958 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100073 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

AND:

¶57

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU -01.

¶58

THE LAND TRIBUNAL R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DHARWAD -01.

¶59

SRI. AYYAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA DESAI, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANGARAKI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-581105.

¶60

…RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. S.N.BANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶62

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI MAY PLEASE BE PASSED QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN KLR/HSWL/ 23+24+7+20+2+42+5+8+44+18+9+3+22+1+28+27+19+17+14 DATED 26.12.1981 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITON AND ETC.

¶63

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶64

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶65

5 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC-D:133 WP No. 109958 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100073 of 2026

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

COMMON ORAL ORDER

¶69

The petitioners, the legal representatives of late Sri.Husseinsab, S/o.Rajeshsab Hosaval, have filed W.P.No.109958 of 2025 assailing the order dated 14.11.2025, passed by the Land Tribunal (AnnexureA), rejecting the claim for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Block No.30 of Hosaval Village, Dharwad Taluk, measuring 7 acres.

¶70

The connected writ petition W.P.No.100073 of 2026 is filed challenging the earlier rejection order dated 26.12.1981 passed by the same Tribunal.

¶71

Since both the petitions arise out of the same claim under Form No.7 and involve common questions of facts and law, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

¶72

Though the matter is listed for hearing on vacating order, with the consent of both the parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

¶73

6 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC-D:133 WP No. 109958 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100073 of 2026

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

5. Brief facts :

¶77

5.1. The father of the petitioners claimed to be a tenant of the scheduled land and filed Form No.7 seeking grant of occupancy rights.

¶78

5.2. The Land Tribunal, after conducting enquiry, rejected the said claim by order dated 26.12.1981, primarily on the ground that the claimant’s name was not reflected in the cultivator’s column of the revenue records as on the relevant date.

¶79

5.3. Challenging the said order, the father of the petitioners approached this Court in WP No.10664 of 1993, which came to be disposed of with certain observations.

¶80

5.4. It is not in dispute that the true owner of the land was not impleaded in the said writ petition.

¶81

5.5. Decades later, the legal representatives of the original applicant sought revival of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal.

¶82

7 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:133 WP No. 109958 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100073 of 2026

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

5.6. The Land Tribunal, after issuing notice to the

¶85

present landlord and conducting a fresh enquiry, once again rejected the claim by a speaking order dated 14.11.2025.

¶86

5.7. The said order is challenged in WP No.109958 of 2025 and also filed W.P.No.100073 of 2026 challenging the original order dated 26.12.1981.

¶87

6. Contention of the petitioners:

¶88

6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

¶89

the Land Tribunal failed to consider the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.96 of 1973, wherein the father of the petitioners was declared to be a tenant and consequential directions were issued for correction of the revenue entries. It is urged that the said decree, having attained finality, binds the landlord and the Tribunal.

¶90

8 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC-D:133 WP No. 109958 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100073 of 2026

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

6.2. It is further contended that the rejection of Form No. 7 is perverse, that the Tribunal failed to appreciate documentary evidence and mutation entries, and that the delay in pursuing remedies ought not to defeat substantive rights, particularly when the petitioners seek only to correct the technical defects.

¶94

7. Contention of respondents:

¶95

7.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord submits that the rejection of Form No.7 by order dated 26.12.1981 has attained

¶96

finality and that the repeated challenges amount to the re-litigation and abuse of process.

¶97

7.2. It is urged that the order passed in WP No.10664 of 1993 is not binding on the present landlord, as he was not a party to those proceedings.

¶98

9 -

¶99

NC: 2026:KHC-D:133 WP No. 109958 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100073 of 2026

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

7.3. It is further contended that the Land Tribunal

¶102

has conducted a fresh and independent enquiry after notice to all the concerned and passed a reasoned order on 14.11.2025, which does not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting any interference by this Court.

¶103

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arises for consideration are;

¶104

i. Whether the decree passed in O.S.No.96 of 1973 binds the Land Tribunal for the purpose of grant of occupancy rights?

¶105

ii. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to finally determine the tenancy for the purposes of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act?

¶106

iii. Whether the impugned orders dated 26.12.1981 and 14.11.2025 warrant interference?

¶107

The suit in O.S.No.96 of 1973 was instituted in the

¶108

year 1973 and decreed on 23.10.1973, i.e., prior to

¶109

10 -

¶110

NC: 2026:KHC-D:133 WP No. 109958 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100073 of 2026

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

the appointed date 01.03.1974 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. At that point of time, civil courts continued to exercise jurisdiction over landlordtenant disputes, as the statutory machinery under the Land Reforms Act had not yet become fully operational. However, the legal effect of the said decree must be understood in its proper statutory context. While the Civil Court had jurisdiction to pass the decree at that time, the said decree cannot confer a statutory right of tenancy or bind the Land Tribunal in proceedings under Sections 44, 45 and 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Upon the appointed date, the determination of tenancy and entitlement of occupancy rights fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal, requiring an independent statutory enquiry.

¶113

Accordingly, the decree in OS No. 96 of 1973 could, at best, constitute a piece of evidence, but would not

¶114

11 -

¶115

NC: 2026:KHC-D:133 WP No. 109958 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100073 of 2026

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

substitute the enquiry that is mandated under the Act.

¶118

The order passed in WP No.10664 of 1993 cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioners, as the true owner was not impleaded therein. An order passed in proceedings behind the back of the necessary party cannot bind such party, nor can it be relied upon to unsettle the finality of the earlier orders. The original rejection order dated 26.12.1981 was passed after enquiry and stood unassailed for decades. The subsequent order dated 14.11.2025 has been passed after issuing notice to all the concerned, recording evidence and assigning cogent reasons. This Court finds no perversity, procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error in the said order, warranting any interference.

¶119

The filing of successive writ petitions challenging both original and subsequent orders on the same

¶120

12 -

¶121

NC: 2026:KHC-D:133 WP No. 109958 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100073 of 2026

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

Form No.7 does not advance the petitioners’ case, particularly when the statutory determination has been consistently against them.

¶124

For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference. However, having regard to the long pendency of the matter and the fact that the petitioners have pursued their remedies under a bona fide belief, this Court refrains from imposing costs. Accordingly this Court passes the following order:

¶125

ORDER

¶126

Writ Petition No.109958 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.100073 of 2026 are hereby dismissed .

¶127

Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶128

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶129

gab/CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri Hussainsab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Hussainsab v. the State of Karnataka

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

Moulasab S/O Modinsab Khanammanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sharad S/O. Balasaheb Jangate Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Ramesh Kumar S/O. Panna Lal Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr N Maruti Rao Vs the Rani Channamma University

Siddalingappa S/O Late Hampanna Kalagatti Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Jagadguru Sanganabasava Swamiji Vs the Tahasildar