SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA HONDANNAVAR vs FAKKIRAPPA S/O. CHOLAPPA BARKER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

WRIT PETITION NO. 79775 OF 2013 (LR)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA HONDANNAVAR,
SINCE DECEASED HENCE THEIR LEGAL HEIRS BROUGHT
ON RECORD.

1A. SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA
HONDANNAVAR,
AGE. MAJOR YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEKAR NAGAR BASAVESWAR CIRCLE,
POLICE STATION, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI.

1B. PREMA D/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA HONDANNAVAR,
AGE. MAJOR YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEKAR NAGAR BASAVESWAR CIRCLE,
POLICE STATION, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI.

1C. SMT. KALPANA K. TIPPAKKANAVAR,
AGE. MAJOR YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEKAR NAGAR BASAVESWAR CIRCLE,
POLICE STATION, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI.

1D. SMT. VIDYA C. BELLAD,
AGE. MAJOR YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEKAR NAGAR BASAVESWAR CIRCLE,
POLICE STATION, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI.

1E. SMT. GANGA I. ANGADI,
AGE. MAJOR YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEKAR NAGAR BASAVESWAR CIRCLE,
POLICE STATION, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI.










ROHAN
HADIMANI
T

Digitally signed by
ROHAN HADIMANI T
Location: high court of
karnataka, dharwad
bench
Date: 2026.10.31
11:26:16 +0530

2. RAVIRAJ S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA HONDANNAVAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF NEKAR NAGAR BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE,
POLICE STATION, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


3. SIDDAPPA S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA HONDANNAVAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF NEKAR NAGAR BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE,
POLICE STATION, OLD HUBLI HUBLI
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K. JAWALKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. SRI. FAKKIRAPPA S/O CHOLAPPA BARKER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF PARASAPUR VILLAGE, DHARWAD.

2. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O CHOLAPPA BARKER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF PARASAPUR VILLAGE, DHARWAD.

3. SRI. HANUMANTAPPA S/O CHOLAPPA BARKER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF PARASAPUR VILLAGE, DHARWAD.

4. SRI. SANGAPPA S/O CHOLAPPA BARKER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF PARASAPUR VILLAGE, DHARWAD.
5. SRI. KENCHAPPA S/O YALLAPPA NAGANNAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF AMARGOL VILLAGE, HUBLI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS.

5A. BASAVENAPPA KENCHAPPA NAGANNAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF AMARGOL VILLAGE, HUBLI.

5B. SHIVAMALLAPPA KENCHAPPA NAGANNAVAR,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF AMARGOL VILLAGE, HUBLI.

5C. SHIVALINGAPPA KENCHAPPA NAGANNAVAR,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF AMARGOL VILLAGE, HUBLI.

5D. ADIVEPPA KENCHAPPA NAGANNAVAR,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF AMARGOL VILLAGE, HUBLI.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013



5E. MANJAPPA KENCHAPPA NAGANNAVAR,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF AMARGOL VILLAGE, HUBLI.

5F. YALLAVVA W/O KENCHAPPA NAGANNAVAR,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF AMARGOL VILLAGE, HUBLI.

6. UDHACHAVVA W/O NINGAPPA SUNAGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
RESIDENT OF INDRAKOPPA, TQ: MUNDGOD.

7. PADMAVVA W/O YALLAPPA SUNAGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
RESIDENT OF KUSUGAL, TQ: HUBLI.

8. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
MINI VIDHANSOUDHA HUBLI.

9. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
BY ITS SECRETARY BANGALORE.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R8 AND R9;
V/C/O DATED PETITION AGAINST R1 TO R3 AND R7 STAND
DISMISSED;
NOTICE TO R4, R5(A TO F), R6 ARE SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OR JUDGMENT PASSED IN
KLR/SR/AMARGOL/16+37 BY THE BOARD OF LAND TRIBUNAL, HUBLI
PASSED ON 19.12.2012 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
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

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


ORAL ORDER

This case is yet another instance of the Land Tribunal
under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act turning Nelson’s eye to
the mandatory requirements of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land
1
Reforms Rules 1974 while holding and concluding proceedings
for grant of the occupancy rights. Although more than four
decades have passed since the matter was remanded by this
Court to the Land Tribunal, an unfortunate occasion has arisen
warranting yet another remand because of the indifferent
approach adopted by the Land Tribunal.
2. The facts, in brief, culminating in the present writ
petition are that;
One Sri.Cholappa Udachappa Baraker, predecessor in
interest of respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein had filed an application
seeking occupancy rights in Sy.No.249 of Amargol village to an
extent of 10 acres 39 guntas. The original petitioner No.1 and
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 belong to the family of the owners of
these lands. They were therefore the contesting respondents
opposing the claim for occupancy rights in the lands.

1
“KLR Rules”, in short

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


3. By order dated 05.10.1981, the Land Tribunal
granted occupancy rights of the aforesaid land in favour of the
original claimant Sri.Cholappa Udachappa Baraker. The present
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 along with Sri.Shivaputrappa
S/o.Siddappa challenged the order of the Tribunal by way of a
Writ Petition in W.P. No.2800/1982 before this Court. Learned
counsel for the petitioners verifies that Shivappa and Siddappa
(respondent No.3) are one and the same.
4. By an order dated 19.07.1983 this Court recorded
that the order of the Land Tribunal was not a speaking order
and did not contain reasons for granting occupancy rights in
favour of the claimants. This Court therefore quashed the order
of the Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for
a fresh enquiry in strict compliance with the requirements of
Rule 17 of the KLR Rules.
5. Thereafter, as per the records available, the
proceedings before the Land Tribunal seem to have been taken
up since the year 2006. By the impugned order dated
19.12.2012, the Land Tribunal has again granted occupancy
rights of the aforesaid lands in favour of the legal

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


representatives of the original claimant who are the
respondents in this writ petition.

6. I have heard Sri.Prakash K. Jawalkar, learned
counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent Nos.8 and 9. The office noting shows
that the petition has been dismissed against respondent Nos.1
to 3 and 7. The other respondents are served but they are not
represented.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Land Tribunal did not afford adequate opportunity to the
petitioners to participate in the proceedings after the matter
was remanded by this Court. It is his specific contention that
the signatures of the petitioners herein have been forged in the
order sheet maintained by the Land Tribunal as well as in the
copy of the notice purported to have been served on petitioner
No.1. He therefore submits that the proceedings have not been
conducted by the Tribunal in strict compliance of the
requirements of Rule 17 of the KLR Rules,. There has been a
violation of the principles of natural justice and he therefore
prays that the order of the Land Tribunal be set aside.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


8. Learned Additional Government Advocate has
produced the original records relating to the proceedings before
the Land Tribunal.
9. On a close examination of the order sheet
maintained by Land Tribunal, it emerges that from 2006 till
about 2008, the petitioners participated in the proceedings
before the Land Tribunal. The reason for saying so is because
the order sheet of the Tribunal contains the signature of the
petitioner No.1 for the relevant reasons.

10. On 01.04.2008 petitioner No.1 submitted a letter to
the Tahsildar, Hubballi, who is the Secretary of the Land
Tribunal requesting the status of proceedings before the Land
Tribunal. A copy of that letter is produced as Annexure-H to the
writ petition. The Tahsildar replied to that letter by the
document produced as Annexure-J and informed the petitioner
No.1 that the matter was pending for fresh enquiry and that
since the Land Tribunal was not in existence, no final orders
had been passed.
11. Thereafter, from 2009 up to 2012, the Land
Tribunal took up proceedings. The original order sheet is part of

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


the records produced by Learned Additional Government
Advocate. On perusal of the order sheet maintained by the
Land Tribunal, there is no signature of any of the petitioners on
dates when the proceedings were adjourned to a further date.
While there is no signature of any of the petitioners, it is
significant to note that the signatures of the legal
representatives of the original claimant are seen on most of
these dates when the proceedings were further adjourned. This
is specifically mentioned here because Rule 17(3) requires that
when a meeting is adjourned by the Tribunal, the date, time
and place of the hearing of the adjourned meeting shall be
made known to the parties present and their signature obtained
on the order sheet.
12. Rule 17(3) of the KLR Rules, reads as under:
“17. Procedure to be followed by the
Tribuanl:-

(3) When a meeting is adjourned, the date,
time, and place of hearing of adjourned meeting
shall be made known to the parties present, and
their signatures obtained on the order sheet.”

13. When things stood thus, in the year 2012, the Land
Tribunal appears to have picked up pace to conclude the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


proceedings. Sometime in November-2012, notices were
sought to be served on the present petitioners by the Land
Tribunal. There is a document produced as Annexure-E to the
writ petition where the Additional Tahsildar, Hubballi has made
a note that the present petitioners (respondents in the
proceedings before the Tribunal) were reported to have been
staying in Nekar Nagar as per the report submitted by the
Village Accountant, Keshwapur. The notices were therefore
returned for re-issue.

14. The Tribunal has purportedly issued a notice dated
29.11.2012 to the present petitioners. The address of the
petitioners is shown as Kanchagaragalli, Hubballi in the said
notice. The notice was marked to the Village Accountant of
Keshwapur with a request that the notice be served on the
noticees and the acknowledgment be sent.
15. The petitioners have produced a copy of the notice
as Annexure-F to the writ petition which is purported to have
been served on petitioner No.1. He is said to have received the
notice on behalf of all the petitioners.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


16. When the Additional Tahsildar had himself noted
that the petitioners were not staying in Keshwapur but they
were staying in Nekar Nagar, it is mysterious that the notice
was again marked to the Village Accountant of Keshwapur to be
served on the petitioners. It is the specific stand of the
petitioners in the writ petition that the signature shown on a
copy of the notice dated 29.11.2012 is not that of the petitioner
and that is a forged signature. The notice dated 29.11.2012
indicated 05.12.2012 as the next date of hearing before the
Land Tribunal.
17. On 05.12.2012 the Land Tribunal noted that despite
sufficient opportunity, the opposite parties (petitioners herein)
did not produce any evidence and they did not cross-examine
the witness on behalf of the claimants. The Tribunal recorded
that there was no cross examination on behalf of the present
petitioners and posted the matter for orders. No further date of
hearing or date of pronouncement of orders was indicated in
the proceedings on 05.12.2012. However, the order sheet
shows the signatures on behalf of the claimants and there are
also three signatures which is now claimed to be those of the

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


petitioners in this writ petition. It is the specific stand of the
petitioners that the signatures attributed to them in the order
sheet dated 05.12.2012 of the Land Tribunal, are not theirs and
they are forged.
18. In a writ petition challenging the order of the
Tribunal, it is not only difficult but also impermissible for the
Court to enter into the area of disputed questions of fact.
Whether a signature is genuine or forged is densely factual and
in writ jurisdiction, the High Court would not ordinarily take any
specific view in the absence of evidence. However, in the
present case, the petitioners have filed affidavits produced as
Annexures-D, V, W and X swearing on oath before this Court
that they had been staying in Nekar Nagar, that no notice was
ever served on them and that the signatures attributed to them
either on a copy of the notice or in the order sheet of the
Tribunal are forged and that they are not their signatures. With
all the limitations that a Writ Court has, all that can be done in
the present situation is to accept the assertion of the
petitioners on oath which has not been controverted either by
the claimants/contesting respondents in the petition or by any

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


party. The assertion of the petitioners that their signatures are
forged and that they were not duly served with notice will have
to be seen in the totality of circumstances. The facts and
circumstances narrated above, namely, that after about 2008,
the order sheets do not bear any signatures of the petitioners
herein and that sometime in April-2008, the Additional
Tahsildar had informed the petitioner No.1 that the Land
Tribunal was not in existence and therefore no final orders had
been passed, are relevant factors while appreciating the
assertion of the petitioners on oath.
19. The impugned order of the Tribunal at Annexure-A
records that the claimants before it had filed affidavits of
evidence, the Tribunal proceeds to hold that despite sufficient
opportunity, the opposite parties (the petitioners herein) did
not produce any material nor did they cross examine the
witness on behalf of the applicants. The exercise of accepting
an affidavit of evidence instead of recording the statement of
the claimants by the Presiding Officer is a breach of the
requirements of Rule 17 of the KLR Rules. It is necessary to
note that Rule 17(1) incorporates the provisions of Section 34

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for purposes of holding a
summary enquiry. Rule 17(1) reads as under:
“17. Procedure to be followed by the
Tribuanl:-

(1) The tribunal shall in respect of
applications made to it follow the
same procedure as specified for a
summary enquiry under Section 34 of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964 subject to the condition that the
records of the proceedings shall be
maintained in a language understood
by all its members.”


20. Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964 requires that the Officer conducting the enquiry records in
his own hand in Kannada or in English or in such other
language, the summary of the evidence and the minute of the
proceedings containing the material averments made by the
parties and the decisions and the reasons for the same. Section
34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 reads as under:
34. Summary inquiry .—When a summary
inquiry is prescribed for determination of any
question by or under this Act or any law for the
time being in force, the officer conducting such
inquiry shall himself, as such inquiry proceeds,
record in his own hand, in Kannada or in English
or in any other language of the taluk or village
as declared by State Government, the summary

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


of the evidence and a minute of the proceedings
containing the material averment made by the
parties interested, the decision and the reasons
for the same:
Provided that it shall at any time be lawful
for the officer, if he deems fit, to conduct an
inquiry directed by this Act to be summary,
under all or any of the provisions applicable to a
formal inquiry.”

21. Despite the provisions relating to summary
proceedings under Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act having been incorporated into Rule 17 of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Rules, the Land Tribunal has proceeded on the
basis of affidavits filed by the claimants. It does not emerge
from the record that the Tribunal or any Officer of the Tribunal
has recorded the summary of the evidence given by the
claimants as is mandated by Section 34. The mandatory
requirements under Rule 17 read with Section 34 are not an
empty formality. They are supposed to serve the salutary
purpose of ensuring that the parties to proceedings before the
Land Tribunal are not only given adequate opportunity but they
are also made to understand the nature of the material
evidence based on which the Tribunal will make its final
decision. It is needless to reiterate that the Karnataka Land

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


Reforms Act was enacted as part of agrarian reforms in our
country which till today continues mainly as an agrarian
economy. If the salutary purpose underlying the agrarian
reform legislation is to be meaningfully realised, the mandatory
requirements under Rule 17 read with Section 34 have to be
complied with by the Land Tribunal.

22. What is even more disturbing is the fact that as far
as on 19.07.1983, this Court had directed the Land Tribunal to
hold a fresh enquiry in strict compliance with the requirements
of Rule 17 of the KLR Rules. Despite the same, the Land
Tribunal has yet again conducted and concluded the
proceedings in violation of the mandatory requirements of Rule
17.
23. Although more than four decades have passed after
the first order of the Tribunal was passed, there is no option
other than remanding the matter again to the Tribunal with the
hope that due opportunity will be afforded to all the parties
concerned and the mandatory requirements of Rule 17 of the
KLR Rules read with Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, 1964, will be complied with.

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


24. In view of the finding that the Tribunal has not
conducted the proceedings in accordance with law, the order of
the Tribunal at Annexure-A deserves to be set aside and the
proceedings have to be remanded to the Land Tribunal.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the following is
made;
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed .
ii. The order dated 19.12.2012 passed by
the Land Tribunal, Hubballi in KLR/SR/
Amargol/16+37 is set aside.
iii. The proceedings in KLR/SR/
Amargol/16+37 are remitted to the Land
Tribunal, Hubballi for afresh consideration
after affording sufficient opportunity to all
the parties concerned and after fulfilling
all the requirements of Rule 17 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974.

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16941
WP No. 79775 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020020032013


iv. Given the antiquity of the matter, it is
expected of the Tribunal to expedite
proceedings and conclude the same
within a reasonable period of time.
No order as to costs.




Sd/-
(RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA)
JUDGE



PJ/CT:SD
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17