JANGA S/O DEVU GOUDA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16449
WP No. 110211 of 2016


CNR: KAHC020036132016



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

WRIT PETITION NO. 110211 OF 2016 (LR-)

BETWEEN:

1. JANGA S/O DEVU GOUDA,
AGE:57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MALAVALLI VILLAGE, KUMTA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.



2. HANUMANTHA S/O DEVU GOUDA,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MALAVALLI VILLAGE, KUMTA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.



3. HOSABI W/O KRISHNA GOUDA,
AGE:78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MALAVALLI VILLAGE, KUMTA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.



4. KARIYAPPA SUGGI GOUDA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MALAVALLI VILLAGE, KUMTA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA

BHARATHI
H M

…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: high court of
karnataka, dharwad
bench
Date: 2026.10.29
14:42:17 +0530
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU.

2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL KARWAR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KARWAR, DIST. KARWAR.
3. TIMMA NAGAPPA GOUDA,
AGE:65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16449
WP No. 110211 of 2016


CNR: KAHC020036132016


R/O. MALAVALLI VILLAGE, KUMTA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

4. LAXMANNA NAGAPPA GOUDA,
AGE:55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MALAVALLI VILLAGE, KUMTA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

5. MAHADEVA NAGAPPA GOUDA,
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MALAVALLI VILLAGE, KUMTA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

6. SHANKARA NAGAPPA GOUDA,
AGE:60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MALAVALLI VILLAGE, KUMTA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

7. AMMA W/O BADAKKA GOUDA,
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MALAVALLI VILLAGE, KUMTA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. VISHWANATH HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R7)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED
ND
29.09.1976 PASSED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT BEARING NO. ಎ .
ಆ. . ಎ. ಆ. 1021, 14027- PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F 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

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16449
WP No. 110211 of 2016


CNR: KAHC020036132016


ORAL ORDER

The Land Tribunal, Kumta Taluk, seems to be maintaining
consistency in its approach of violating the mandatory
requirements of Rule 17(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Rules, 1974. It is so said because very recently, this Court
disapproved of the approach of the Land Tribunal in not
clubbing applications for occupancy rights in respect of the
same land and passing separate orders. That order was made
on 30.09.2026 in WP No.109440/2014 wherein two different
orders on two different dates have been passed granting
occupancy rights in respect of different persons in respect of
the very same land. The present case is an improvement of the
track record of the Tribunal in as much as on the very same
day two different orders have been passed by the Land Tribunal
granting occupancy rights in respect of the same land in favour
of two different persons.

2. The present writ petition challenges the order dated
29.09.1976 passed by the Land Tribunal, Kumta (Annexure-F
to the writ petition) by which occupancy rights in Sy. No.41 of
Malavalli village has been granted in favour of the predecessor-

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16449
WP No. 110211 of 2016


CNR: KAHC020036132016


in interest of the present respondent Nos.3 to 7 herein whose
name was Nagappa Mablu Gowda. Occupancy rights were so
granted to an extent of 2 acres 19 guntas. That grant was
made pursuant to an application made on 01.05.1975 by the
applicant.

3. The father of the petitioners namely
Sri.Hanumantha Devu Gouda had also made an application on
10.11.1975 seeking occupancy rights to an extent of 2 acres 20
guntas in the same Sy. No.41. That was also allowed by the
Tribunal on the same day, namely, 29.09.1976 thereby
regulating in conflicting orders.

4. I have heard Sri. Prashanth S. Hosamani, learned
counsel for petitioner and Smt. Nandini B. Somapur, learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2,
Sri. Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 to
7.

5. The Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 were
enforced with effect from 01.03.1974. Rule 17(6), which is
applicable to the present case, reads as under:
“17. Procedure to be followed by the

Tribunal:-

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16449
WP No. 110211 of 2016


CNR: KAHC020036132016


(6) If there are more applications than one for
registration of occupancy rights by different
persons in respect of the same land, those cases
shall be clubbed together and a common order
passed.”


6. While considering the separate applications for
grant of occupancy rights in respect of the same land, the Land
Tribunal is mandated to club all the cases together and pass a
common order. As noted above, this question has been
considered by this Court in a recent case in WP
No.109440/2014.

7. It is necessary to note that the order at Annexure-F
dated 29.09.1976 is challenged by way of a writ petition filed
on 16.12.2016, i.e., after 40 years. Prima facie , the writ
petition is hit by delay and laches.

8. Quite apart from the issue of delay and laches,
there is also a complication of two conflicting orders, albeit
passed on the same date, in respect of the same land. Unless
both the orders are set aside, the Tribunal cannot be directed
to pass a fresh common order while complying with the
mandatory requirements of Rule 17.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16449
WP No. 110211 of 2016


CNR: KAHC020036132016



9. However, all the issues arising in this case have
been considered by this Court in the recent judgment passed in
WP No.109440/2014. The relevant portions of the said
judgment read as follows:
“4. It is seen that the application in Form No.7
seeking occupancy rights was filed by the petitioner's
father, Sri Gajanan Ganesh Bhat on 22.12.1974
(Annexure-F). In that application, the respondent is
shown as Ganapathi Krishna Bhat and others. The father
of respondent No.3-Ganapathi Krishna Bhat filed his
application in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights on
25.12.1974 (Annexure-G). Although Sri Ganapathi
Krishna Bhat sought occupancy rights in Survey No.1/3,
his claim was for an extent of 1 gunta while the claim of
Sri. Gajanan Ganesh Bhat was for 12 Annas. Although
both the applications were in respect of the land in the
same survey number, the Land Tribunal thought it fit to
decide and dispose of the applications by separate
orders. This is in clear breach of Rule 17(6) of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, which reads as
under:

“17. Procedure to be followed by the
Tribunal:-
(6) If there are more applications than one
for registration of occupancy rights by different
persons in respect of the same land, those cases
shall be clubbed together and a common order
passed.”

5. The present anomalous situation is a result of the
mechanical approach adopted by the Land Tribunal in
disposing of claims for occupancy rights, in blatant
violation of the mandatory requirements of Rule 17(6).
The salutary requirements of Rule 17 are not an empty
formality and have been prescribed for a valid and
significant purpose. The consequences of a breach of the
mandatory requirements of Rule 17 are apparent in the
present case.

6. The father of the petitioner has been granted
occupancy rights in respect of 12 Annas of land in
Sy.No.1/3 by an order of the Land Tribunal dated

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16449
WP No. 110211 of 2016


CNR: KAHC020036132016


25.11.1975. By a subsequent order dated 28.05.1976,
the father of respondent No.3 has been granted
occupancy rights to the same extent of 12 Annas in the
very same land. Therefore, the mechanical approach of
the Land Tribunal has resulted in the present imbroglio,
which cannot be countenanced.

7. Although the petitioner in the present Writ Petition
challenges an order of 28.05.1976 by way of the Writ
Petition filed in the year 2014, it may not be appropriate
to reject the Writ Petition only on the ground of delay
and laches, particularly, in view of the fact that the Writ
Petition itself has been pending before this Court since
2014. The petitioner has also been granted an interim
order right from the inception. In these circumstances,
although there is substantial delay and laches, the Writ
Petition is not being rejected only on the technical
ground of delay and laches. It is also necessary to recall
that the rule of delay and laches in writ jurisdiction is
not a statutory limitation but a self-imposed,
discretionary limitation exercised by Courts. The rule
which says that the Court may not inquire into a belated
claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on
sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must
depend upon its own facts. The test is not the physical
running of time. Where the circumstances so warrant
and the illegality is manifest, such illegality cannot be
sustained on the sole ground of laches1 . The attitude of
the Land Tribunal in brushing aside the mandatory
prescriptions under Rule 17, which in turn incorporates
Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act makes it
all the more necessary that the orders of the Tribunal
are set aside.

8. There is yet another technical hurdle in making an
effective order in this Writ Petition, which is that the
order dated 25.11.1975 in favour of the petitioner's
father has not been challenged by any person. One
approach is to assume that previous order dated
25.11.1975 is subsumed in the subsequent order dated
28.05.1976, which is in respect of the very same extent
of land in the very same survey number. The other is to
set aside both the orders to ensure that there is
compliance with the mandatory requirement of Rule
17(6). In the present case, it is necessary to set aside
both the orders of the Tribunal.

9. The approach adopted in setting aside both the
orders of the Tribunal even in the absence of a challenge

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16449
WP No. 110211 of 2016


CNR: KAHC020036132016


to the earlier order is supported by judgments of this
Hon’ble Court in Parashuram S/o. Laxman Patil and
others vs. The Land Tribunal, Khanapur and
2
others and in Basappa Gurusangappa Baragundi
and etc., vs. The Land Tribunal, Badami and others
3
etc. . In Parashuram (supra) this Court has held as
under:

“2. This intra Court appeal is directed
against the order of the learned Single Judge
rendered in W.P.No.12213/2004 dated
20.03.2018. The learned Single Judge taking
note of the fact that there were competing
claims in respect of subject lands and the order
in W.P.No.30754 of 1996 and law laid down by
a co-ordinate bench, in the case of Basappa
Gurusangappa Vs. Land Tribunal, Badami
and Others reported in 1979(2) Kar.L.J.370,
has been pleased to set aside all the three
orders of Land Tribunal, Khanapur, whereby the
applications of all the three competing parties
have been separately and independently
adjudicated and orders have been passed. The
learned Single Judge has held that the same is
contrary to the law laid down by the co-
ordinate bench in the case of Basappa
Gurusangappa Vs. Land Tribunal, Badami
and Others reported in 1979(2) Kar.L.J.370.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would
strenuously contend that there was no
challenge to the order of the Land Tribunal
dated 12.05.1977, by which the Land Tribunal
was pleased to confer the occupancy rights on
the appellant and hence he would contend that
the learned Single Judge has erred in granting
the relief that was not prayed for. In our
opinion, the orders of the Land Tribunal dated
12.05.1997 and 19.11.1981, could not have
been passed by the Land Tribunal without
considering all the applications together. The
law in this regard is no more res-integra.

4. We are in agreement with the law laid
down by the Coordinate bench in Basappa’s
case. It is settled law that, in the event of there
being competing claims, the Land Tribunal is
required to hear and consider all the
applications together. In the instant case, the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16449
WP No. 110211 of 2016


CNR: KAHC020036132016


three applications have been independently
considered and disposed of by separate orders,
which is impermissible. In our opinion, the
orders are rendered non-est in the light of the
law laid down by the Co-ordinate bench.”

10. In Basappa (supra) the facts were slightly
different inasmuch as the subsequent application for
occupancy right was filed during the extended period as
per the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act,
1978. However, the slight variation in facts will make no
difference to the authoritative pronouncement of the law
in the following terms :

“10. When rival applications are made
before the Tribunal for grant of occupancy right
in respect of the same land, it is, in our opinion,
the duty of the Tribunal to consider together
those rival applications and decide them by a
common order. Otherwise, there cannot be a
proper adjudication of the rival claims. Even if
one of the rival applicants had filed his
application earlier and the Tribunal had granted
him occupancy right in respect of that land and
subsequently another applicant makes an
application within the time limit provided by S.
48A in respect of the same land, the Tribunal
cannot decline to consider the subsequent
application on the ground that it has already
granted occupancy right in respect of that land
to the earlier applicant. The Tribunal is bound
to consider every application filed within the
time limit provided by the Act and it is no
answer to such application to say that land is
not available for grant of occupancy right
therein. The only way in which the Tribunal can
be enabled to consider the later application, is
to set aside its earlier order and to direct it (the
Tribunal) to consider together both the rival
applications and to decide thereon. It may look
startling that an order of the Tribunal which
was valid when it was made and did not suffer
from any infirmity, should be set aside, merely
because another person makes a rival
application in respect of the same land after the
Tribunal has granted occupancy right in respect
of that land to the earlier applicant. But there is
no other way in which the Tribunal can

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16449
WP No. 110211 of 2016


CNR: KAHC020036132016


discharge its obligation to consider all
applications filed in time.

11. Applying the above principle, the
orders made by the Tribunal on the applications
of respondents 9, 10 and 12 in this appeal, and
of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 812 of
1978, have to be quashed in order that the
Tribunal may consider together and dispose of
by a common order, the aforesaid applications
and the application made by the appellant in
Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1978. In this view, it
becomes unnecessary to consider other
contentions of parties in this appeal and these
writ petitions.”


10. Although all the issues in the present case are
covered by the judgment of this Court which has in turn relied
on earlier binding precedents, there is an additional fact that is
pointed out by Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. That aspect is that the order
dated 29.09.1976 (Annexure-F to the writ petition) passed in
favour of the predecessor of the respondents, wherein it is
found that the cultivation was “
ಕ ”. Even in the schedule
describing the lands in respect of which the occupancy rights
are granted, there is a noting by hand that which reads as
“
ಕ ಹ ”. Although this gives a new dimension to the
case, the fact remains that the Tribunal has to adjudicate on
the entitlement of the actual tenant or tenants who were in
actual cultivation on the relevant date so as to confer

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16449
WP No. 110211 of 2016


CNR: KAHC020036132016


occupancy rights on such person or persons. That will be
possible only when all applications in respect of the same land
are taken up together and decided by a common order, as
mandated by Rule 17(6).

11. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this writ
petition is fit to be allowed and both the orders dated
29.09.1976 in respect of Sy. No.41 of Malavalli village passed
by the Land Tribunal deserve to be set aside. Resultantly, the
following:
ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed .
ii. The order produced as Annexure-F to
the writ petition in Case No.LRTSR, 1021,
14027 insofar as it grants occupancy rights
to an extent of 2 acre 19 guntas in Sy.
No.41 in favour of the Sri. Nagappa Mablu
Gouda is set aside.
iii. The order dated 29.09.1976 in Case
No.LRTSR, 1021, 14027 insofar as it

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16449
WP No. 110211 of 2016


CNR: KAHC020036132016


granted occupancy rights to an extent of 2
acres 19 guntas in Sy. No.41 of Malavalli
village in favour of Sri. Hanumantha Devu
Gowda is also set aside.
iv. The Land Tribunal is directed to
club the application dated 10.11.1975 filed
by Hanumanth Devu Gowda (Annexure-A)
and the application dated 01.05.1975 filed
by Nagappa Mablu Gowda (Annexure-E) and
decide them together in strict compliance of
Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Rules, 1974.
v. After receipt of the records of
the case, the Tribunal shall issue notices to
all the concerned parties and give adequate
opportunity to them and decide the case in
accordance with law.
vi. The order dated 21.09.2017
directing maintenance of status-quo in

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16449
WP No. 110211 of 2016


CNR: KAHC020036132016


respect of possession with respect to the
land in question passed by this Court will
continue till the disposal of the applications
by the Land Tribunal.
No order as to costs.


Sd/-
(RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA)
JUDGE

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