KALLAPPA BASAPPA BARKER vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18060
WP No. 102019 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020003562017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA
WRIT PETITION NO. 102019 OF 2017 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. KALLAPPA BASAPPA BARKER,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS
1A. BALAVVA W/O KALLAPPA BARKER,
AGE:65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND
AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGAD, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD.
1B. DEVAPPA S/O KALLAPPA BARKER,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGAD, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
2. DEVENDRAPPA IRAPPA MURKATTI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS
2A. DEVAKKAVVA W/O DEVENDRAPPA MURKATTI,
AGE:70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRI.,
R/O. MUGAD, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
2B. IRAPPA S/O DEVENDRAPPA MURKATTI,
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGAD, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
2C. PADMAPPA S/O DEVENDRAPPA MURKATTI,
AGE:48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGAD, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
2D. SHEKAPPA S/O DEVENDRAPPA MURKATTI,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGAD, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
2E. SUNDARAPPA S/O DEVENDRAPPA MURKATTI,
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGAD, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
BHARATHI
H M
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: high court of
karnataka, dharwad bench
Date: 2026.11.07 10:58:58
+0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18060
WP No. 102019 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020003562017
2F. DHARANENDRA S/O DEVENDRAPPA MURKATTI,
AGE:25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGAD, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SURESH P. HUDEDAGADDI AND SRI. A. C. PURAD,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANASOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-01.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. MAHADEVAPPA A/F MALLAPPA KADAKOL,
AGE:60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O:MUGAD, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. SURAJ M. KOTAGI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V. G. BHAT, ADVOCATE
FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
23.08.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 LAND TRIBUNAL,
DHARWAD, IN NO. KLR/MUGAD/SR/17+4+31, VIDE ANNEXURE-J
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18060
WP No. 102019 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020003562017
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated
23.08.2016 passed by the Land Tribunal, by which, the
application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of
lands measuring 7 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.221/1 of
Mugad Village has been rejected. A copy of the order of
the Tribunal is produced as Annexure-J.
2. I have heard Sri Suresh B. Hudedagaddi,
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Addl.
Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri
Suraj Katagi for Sri V.G. Bhat, learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
3. The facts, in brief, culminating in this petition
are as follows:
3.1 Sri Kallappa, the predecessor of the present
petitioners had filed an application seeking occupancy
rights in Survey No.221/1 to an extent of 7 acres 20
guntas of Mugad Village. Another application was filed by
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18060
WP No. 102019 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020003562017
Sri Devendrappa. The applications were initially allowed on
14.12.1987 by the Tribunal. Upon a challenge to the said
order, this Court by order dated 28.08.1998 set aside the
order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by
the Tribunal.
3.2 The Tribunal took up the applications for
consideration and the present impugned order dated
13.08.2016 was been passed after the remand.
4. Although several contentions were raised
before the Tribunal as to the entitlement of the applicants
for grant of occupancy rights, the Tribunal has decided the
matter only on one aspect. That aspect is that the
applicant before the Tribunal was in possession as a
mortgagee and not as a tenant. In that regard, the
Tribunal has relied on an order dated 25.06.1977 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. By that order, the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, in exercise of his powers under the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18060
WP No. 102019 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020003562017
1
Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 ordered that the land be
released to the applicant before him. A finding was
recorded that the land had been mortgaged by the
applicant before him. It is seen that at page Nos.102 and
103 of the Writ Petition Papers, the Land Tribunal has re-
produced the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The
same reads as under :
“An application has been given under section 4 of
the Karnataka Debt Relief Act wherein the applicant has
claiming relief as a ‘debtor’. Notices were issued to all the
parties and they were all present in the Court. The
statements of opponents 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been
recorded. The applicant and the opponents have stated
that the suit property was mortgaged by the applicant
who was the owner to the opponent and that the
opponents are at present cultivating the same. The
mortgage deeds which are registered have been produced
in the Court, so also the order of the Land Tribunal,
Dharwad holding the opponents to be the mortgages of
the suit property, and rejecting their applications for
declaring them as tanants. I, therefore hold the
transaction between the applicant and the opponents
regarding the suit property to be a mortgage.
The opponents have admitted in their statement
before me that the applicant has no other property
besides the mortgaged property and earns his livelihood
working as a coolie. The opponents have however refused
to sign their statements which were recorded in Court.
The oppoient 4 has also refused to sign the proceedings
sheet regarding his presence in the Court. It is clear from
the evidence on record that the applicant has no other
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the KDR Act’, for short
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18060
WP No. 102019 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020003562017
lands except the mortgaged suit property and that he
earns he earns his livelihood as a'coolies'. Hence the
Order:
order:-
The applicant is a 'debtor' as defined under the
Debt Relief Act and the suit property is ordered to be
released to him.
Dictated to the Stenographer, type sctipt edited,
corrected and signed this 25th day of June 1977.
Parties to be informed of the order.
sd/-
Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Dharwad Sub-Divn, Dharwad.”
5. Sri Suresh P. Hudedagaddi, learned counsel for
petitioners contended that the approach of the Land
Tribunal in the present round has been completely
erroneous. He submits that the Land Tribunal has
proceeded only on the basis of the aforesaid order of Sub-
Divisional Magistrate which treated the transaction
between the parties as a mortgage and on that basis a
finding was recorded that there was no tenancy and hence
there was no vesting of the land under Section 44 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Sri Hudedagaddi has
drawn the attention of the Court to the specific contention
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18060
WP No. 102019 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020003562017
raised by the applicants before the Land Tribunal as
recorded at page Nos.108 and 109 of the Writ Petition
Papers. The specific contention taken by the applicants
before the Land Tribunal by way of the written arguments
filed by the claimants reads as follows:
“3. It is further submitted that the Respondent has taken
up the contention that he had filed an application under
section 4 of Debt relief Act which came into force in the
year 1976 on the ground that he belongs to weaker
section of the society. The transaction between the
applicant and respondent is debt transaction. The learned
Sub Divisional Magistrate without considering the
pendancy of Form No 7 filed by the applicants, passed an
order. Once the matter is Pending before the Land
Tribunal for consideration for grant of occupancy rights of
the Sub Divisional Magistrate have to be waited until
completion of proceedings pending before the Land
Tribunal. Even though the transaction between the
applicants and Respondents is a advance lease. This
aspect without taking into consideration the Sub
Divisional Magistrate has passed the order. Being
aggrieved by the said order the applicant have preferred
the WP No 6892/1977 before the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka. The said order was quashed. Once the order
of Sub Divisional Magistrate was quashed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka, now the respondent can not rely
on the earlier order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate
passed in the year 1976. In this regard the application is
relying on the Judgement reported in 1978 part I KLJ
page No 9 wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that once
the matter was pending consideration by the Land
tribunal, The Sub Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction
to pass any order on that basis, no much weightage can
not be given to the order passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate.”
(emphasis supplied)
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18060
WP No. 102019 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020003562017
6. It is seen that the order dated 25.06.1977
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the KDR
Act was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition
No.6892/1977 by an order dated 18.10.1983. Thereafter,
by a subsequent order in the said Writ Petition, this Court
directed that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall await the
decision of the Land Tribunal before proceeding under
Section 5 of the KDR Act. The following order was made by
this Court in the W.P. No.6892/1977 on 18.10.1983.
“ORDER
This matter is brought up for ‘being spoken to’
since this petition was filed against the order of the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate made under the Karnataka Debt
Relief Act and therefore, since the order passed therein
was also quashed by my order dated 17-1-1983, the
subject matter of the dispute in this petitioni is remitted
to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for fresh enquiry under
the said Act, and he shall await the decision of the Land
Tribunal before proceeding further under Sec.5 of the said
Act.”
7. Despite drawing the attention of the Land
Tribunal to the fact that the order of the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate treating the transaction as a mortgage under
the KDR Act has been set aside and the matter remanded,
the Land Tribunal proceeded on the basis of the order of
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18060
WP No. 102019 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020003562017
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that had already been
quashed by this Court. By a subsequent order, this Court
also directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, upon remand,
to await the orders of the Land Tribunal since applications
for grant of occupancy rights were already pending
consideration. Despite all this, the Land Tribunal has
completely ignored the orders of this Court with respect to
the proceedings under the KDR Act. Although the order of
the Land Tribunal runs into several pages, the effective
consideration and discussion is in very brief form. The
discussion and reasoning of the Land Tribunal in the
impugned order at Annexure-J is in the following terms:
“ ಪ ತ ಪ ಕರಣದ
ಅಳವ ದ ಲ ಖ , ಮ ಖ
ರ ಲ ಉಭಯತರ# ಮಂ ದ ಖ
%& ಸ(ಲ ವರ
)ತ(ದ ಎಲ ವ+, ಅವ-ೕ/ಸ01 ,
-
(ದ (ದವ2, ಆ
ಸ01 ಪ ಕರಣದ
ಈ ಳ1ನ ಅಂಶಗಳ
89: ಪ9;ೕ
<= ಪ9;ೕ
<= ಅವಶ> ?ಂ=
ಕಂ@ಬ#ತ B .
1) ( ಜDೕ2 EಗFತ Fನ FGಂಕ 01.03.1974 ಅದರ
?
Eಕಟ IವJದ
KೖMN ಜDೕG1#ತ BOೕ
2) ಕGJಟಕ P QರR OS 1961 ಕಲಂ 44 ರ ಸರ ರ
ETತ(1#<Bೕ ?
3) ‘ - ’
ಪ ತ ಅUJ ರ PV
ಕರ ನ@? Kೖತ PV
ಕ
ಸಂಬಂಧ ಏಪJ&Y #<Bೕ ?
4) ಆBೕಶ ಏ2 ?
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18060
WP No. 102019 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020003562017
ಈ Zೕ
ನ ಅಂಶಗಳ 89: ಪ ಕರಣದ
ಆಳವ ದ ಲ
ಖ ಉಭಯತರ# ಮಂ ದ
)ತ (ದ ಖಗಳ2,
ಅವ-ೕ/ಸ01 ಈ ಳ1ನಂ[ ಸ(J2ಮತFಂದ
ಅ\% ಯಪಡ01B .
1)
ಪ ತ ( ಜDೕ2 ಉಭಯತರರ ಅUJ ರ9^ ಉಂ@_@ವ
ಕ`# ಒಳಪbY ಕಬcವd ( ಆಡVನ ) ಇ&Y #<= , ಪ ಕರಣದ
ಅಳವ ದ ಖfಂದ ಸg &ಕದ ಹರiನjY ಸg ಷY (lತ B . ಆ
ರಣ ( ಜDೕ2 KೖMN ಜDೕG1ರBೕ ಅಡVನದ
ಅUJ ರ# mlವi V #M K ಅಂM ಅ\% ಯ
ಬರ01B .
2) ( ಜDೕ2 ಮದ ಹ8 ಖ0d ಸಂn> 1933 oೕದS 2,
pಲಂ8ಷ(1 ಅವ-ೕ/ಸ01 , EಗFತ Fನ ಅದರ
EಕಟIವJದ
ಉಭಯತರ ಅUJ ರ# KೖತG[fಂದ
mlವi V ರBೕ ಇ#<ದ9ಂದ ೕವಲ ಅವರ qಸ#ಗr ಪಹs
ಪd ಯ
ಇ#<= +Eಗ2lಣ(1 ಇಂತಹ ಜDೕ2ಗr
44 .
ಸರ ರ ETತ ಕಲಂ ರ ಬರ0ರ=
ಆದS 9ಂದ ( ಜDೕ2 ೕವಲ ಅಡVನದ
ಇbY tಂ@ mlವi V #<ದ9ಂದ ಈ ಜDೕ2 ಕಲಂ 44
ರ ಯ ಅಹJ[ಯ ಅಹJ[ uಂFಲ (ದS 9ಂದ ಸರ ರ
.
ETತvಂ #<Fಲ ?ಂಬ ಅ\% ಯ ಬರ01B
3) ಈ ಅಂಶ 89ತಂ[ P V
ಕ Kೖತರ ನ@? ಉದw ದ ಖ
ಇ= No. KDR (M) SR-206A/76 Dharwad FGಂಕ
25.06.1977 ರಂ= Vನ> ಸx ಜನy V> UzY {ೕ| , Qರ(ಡ
,
ಸx ಜ} Qರ(ಡ ಇವ# uರ ದ ಆBೕಶದ ZೕK^ (
ಜDೕ2 ಅಡVನದ
ಇ#ವಂತಹ ಜDೕG1#<ದ9ಂದ ಇಂತಹ
ಜDೕ2ಗi^ ‘ Kೖತ - PV
ಕ ’ ಪ ~, ಉದw ಸ0ರ= ಅಂM
ಅ\% ಯ ಬರ01B .
4)
( ಜDೕ2 KೖMN ಜDೕG1ರB ಇ#<= ಈ Zೕ
ನ
ವರ fಂದ ಅUJ ರ# ಕGJಟಕ P QರR
OS 1961 ಅ2lಣ(1 ಅಹJ[ಯ2, uಂFರBೕ
ಇ#<ದ9ಂದ ಅUJ ರರ ಅUJಗr ಎಳ• €Y •ರಸ 9ಸ‚
,
ಅನಹJ(1=S ಅUJಗಳ2, dರಸ 9ಸ‚ ƒೕಗ> (1#ತ ?
ಅಂM ಅ\% ಯ ಬರ01B .
ಈ Zೕ
ನ ಪ m ವoಯ ವರ ಯ2, ಆಧ9
ಪ ಕರಣದ
ಈ ಳ1ನಂತ ಸ(J2ಮತFಂದ ಆBೕ; B .
ಆ ೕಶ
ಪ ತ ( ಜDೕ2 89: 1) ; ೕ ಕಲ ಪg ಬಸಪg „ರ ೕರ
2) Bೕ?ೕಂದ ಪg ಈರಪg …ರಕ&Y ( †ೕd ) ಇವರ (ರ ರ#
ಇವ#ಗr ನ o 7 ರ
KೖMN ಹ8 tೕ9 ಸ
ದ
ಅUJಗಳ2, ಈ Zೕ
ನ ಪ m ವo ವರ ಆಧ9
ಸ(J2ಮತFಂದ dರಸ 9 ಆBೕ; B .
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18060
WP No. 102019 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020003562017
, ,
ಈ ಆBೕಶವ2, ಉಕ ೕಖನ Eೕ ‡ರಳˆ‰ V
ಪ9ಷ 9 FGಂಕ 23-08-2016 ರಂ= [Kದ G> Šಲಯದ
‹ೕŒಸ0f: .”
(emphasis supplied)
8. Since the Land Tribunal has totally ignored the
orders of this Court whereby the proceedings under the
KDR Act had been quashed and the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate had specifically directed to await the decision of
the Land Tribunal regarding grant of occupancy rights, the
present impugned order of the Land Tribunal at Annexure-
J deserves to be set aside.
9. Although the matter is very old and the matter
has already been remanded by this Court to the Land
Tribunal on one occasion earlier, there is no alternative
but to remit the matter again to the Land Tribunal. This is
for the reason that this Court had specifically directed the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate acting under the KDR Act to
await the orders of the Land Tribunal. Resultantly, the
following order is passed:
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18060
WP No. 102019 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020003562017
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order of the Land Tribunal at Annexure-J
is set aside.
(iii) The matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal
to take into account the orders dated
17.01.1983 and 18.10.1983 passed by this
Court in W.P.No.6892/1977 and decide the
question of occupancy rights to the
claimants on its own merits and not on the
question whether the lands were subject
matter of Debt Relief proceedings under the
Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976.
(iv) The Tribunal shall afford adequate
opportunity to all the parties concerned and
decide the applications in strict compliance
of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Rules 1974.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA)
JUDGE
NAA
CT:SD
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 45