Karnataka High Court
WRIT PETITION 70449 of 2012 on 4 December 2001
2025:KHC-D:6327
Digitallysigned by VN BADIGERLocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA,DHARWADBENCH,DHARWAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 70449 OF 2012 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. FARIDABI W/O. BABAJAAN BUDDANAVAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI PIN CODE – 581104.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. S. KUKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL HANGAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. PIN CODE: 581104.
3. KHADARSAB S/O. MAHAMMADSAB NARAYAPUR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: HANAGAL, POST: NAREGAL, DIST: HAVERI PIN CODE- 581104.
4. MAINUDDINSAB S/O. MAHAMMADSAB NARAYAPUR, AGE: 63 YEARS, WP No. 70449 of 2012
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: HANAGAL, POST: NAREGAL, DIST: HAVERI, PIN CODE 581104.
5. ZAILANISAB
S/O. MAHAMMADSAB NARAYAPUR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAREGAL, TQ:HANAGAL, POST: NAREGAL, DIST: HAVERI, PIN CODE – 581104.
6. CHAMANSAB S/O. MAHAMMADSAB NARAYANPUR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI. PIN CODE – 581104. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S
6a.SMT. KOUSARBANU W/O. CHAMANSAB NARAYANPUR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI, PIN CODE: 581104.
6b.KUM. SANIYA D/O. CHAMANSAB NARAYANPUR, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI, PIN CODE: 581104. MINO REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER 6(A).
7. SMT. BAANUBEGAUM W/O. ABDUL KHADAR ATTIGER, AGE: 58 YEARS, R/O. KARADAGI,
Page 1 of 6
WP No. 70449 of 2012
POST: KARADAGI, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. PIN CODE – 581118.
8. BHIM RAO S/O. SRINIVAS RAO DESAI, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANGAL, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. PIN CODE: 581104. DECEASED BY HIS LR
8a)RAGHAVENDRA S/O. LATE BHIMRAO DESAI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOUSE NO.P-78, RAJENDRA NAGAR, HAVERI, TQ: HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN CODE – 581104.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5, R6(A) & R6(B) AND R7; (R6(B) IS MINIOR REPTD. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN R6(A); SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R8(A) - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
A.ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE 2[ND] RESPONDENT-LAND TRIBUNAL, HANGAL, IN BEARING NO.L.R.M/S.R/R/59 / 52+204 DATED 04.12.2001 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘K’ AND IN BEARING NO.L.R.M.S.R.:59/ 52+204 DATED 03.08.2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-“L”.
B.ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE 2[ND] RESPONDENT TO PASS A SPECIFIC ORDER ON THE FROM NO.7 FILED BY FATHER OF PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-“E” AND TO REJECT FORM NO.7 OF RESPONDENTS NOS.3 TO 7.
Page 2 of 6
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 4.12.2001 and 03.08.2012, produced as per Annexures-K and L, passed by the Land Tribunal, Hangal-respondent No.2.
2. Heard Sri.B.S.Kukanagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Dinesh M Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5, 6(A), 6(B) and 7 and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the materials on record.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that one Chamansab was the protected tenant in respect of various items of properties since 1940. The record of rights were standing in his name, including in respect of the disputed land i.e., Survey No.76, measuring 12 acres 26 guntas of
Page 3 of 6
Naregal village. The said Chamansab died issueless on 08.02.1959. He is survived by his brothers Mahamaadsab, and his step-brother Hajaratsab. Mahamaadsab got his name entered in the record of rights. However, Mahamaadsab and Hajaratsab filed two different Form No.7 in respect of various items of properties, including Survey No.76. Initially, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in favour of Hajaratsab in respect of Survey No. 76 and rejected his claim in respect of other properties vide order dated 1.10.1981, produced as per Annexure-G. Mahamaadsab challenged the said order at Annexure-G by filing writ petition No.14744/1982 (Re-numbered as WP No.2102/1993). The same came to be allowed by this Court and the impugned order produced as per Annexure-G was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.
4. It is stated that the Land Tribunal passed the order, rejecting Form No.7 filed by Hajaratsab in respect of Survey No.76, vide order dated 04.12.2001, but granted occupancy right in favour of Mahammadsab. It is the
Page 4 of 6
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, even though the impugned order was passed on 4.12.2001, Hazratsab had died on 20.09.2001 as per the death certificate, produced as per Annexure-M. Therefore, the impugned order Annexure-K is against the dead person. Therefore, the petition is to be allowed and the matter is required to be remitted back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.
5. During the course of argument, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.2 of 2013 against respondent Nos. 3 to 7 herein for partition and separate possession of various properties including the disputed land bearing Survey No.76 of Naregal village. The said suit initially came to be decreed in part only in respect of the house property, holding that the claim of the petitioner for Survey No. 76 will be subject to the result of the case before the Land Tribunal. It is stated that the said judgment and decree was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing RFA No.100034 of 2018. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 have challenged the said decree in
Page 5 of 6
respect of the house property by filing RFA No.100031 of 2018. It is also stated that both these Regular Fist Appeals came to be disposed of by common judgment and decree dated 27.02.2025, dismissing RFA No.100034 of 2018 and allowing RFA No.100031 of 2018. It is found that in Regular First Appeals, the Court had formed an opinion that the petitioner is not the daughter of Hajaratsab. Therefore, she is not entitled for any of the properties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the common judgment passed by this Court in RFA No.100034/2018 C/w.RFA No.100031/2018 was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court recently. But nothing has been produced in support of such contention. Admittedly, the Trial Court passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner herein in a suit for partition and separate possession. This Court in the first appeals referred to above, recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner is not the daughter of Hajaratsab. Therefore she is not entitled for any share in the properties.
Conclusion
7. When such categorical finding is recorded by the Civil Court, the petitioner cannot have any say in this matter. Hence, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention taken by the petitioner. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-(M.G.UMA) JUDGE
VB – upto para 5 gab – para 6 to end CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
Page 6 of 6
Loading citations and judicial treatment…