SMT. BYRAMMA, vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1231 OF 2025 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. BYRAMMA,
SINCE DECEASED REP BY LRS
1. SMT. B.G. MANJULA
D/O LATE BYRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BYRANAHALLI,
T BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 102.
2. SMT.VIJAYAMMA
D/O LATE BYRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT BYRANAHALLI,
T.BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 102.
3. SMT. JAGADAMBA
D/O LATE BYRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BYRANAHALLI,
T.BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 102.
Digitally
signed by
MALA K N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
4. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
D/O LATE BYRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BYRANAHALLI,
T.BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 102.
5. SRI NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE B K GANGABYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BYRANAHALLI, T BEGUR POST,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 102.
6. SRI MAYANNAGOWDA,
S/O LATE B K GANGABYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT, BYRANAHALLI, T BEGUR POST,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 102,
BANGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.HEGDE SHRIPAD GANGADHAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
NELAMANGALA -562 102,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
RANGAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
3. B R MUNIRAJ S/O LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT BYRANAHALLI VILLAGE, T. BEGUR POST,
KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
4. B R RAMESH S/O LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT BYRANAHALLI VILLAGE, T BEGUR POST,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
5. SRI. BYREGOWDA S/O LATE KAMBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
BYRANAHALLI, T BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 102.
6. THE TAHASILDAR,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
NELAMANGALA-562 102,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.K.KANTHARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 & R4
(CP NO.14386/2025);
SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1,R2 & R6;
SRI.R.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 25/06/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.5662/2025 BY
ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL AND B) FURTHER PLEASED TO
ORDER FOR DISMISSING THE SAID WP NO.5662/2015 AND
C)GRANT ANY OTHER ORDER, INCLUDING THE COST OF THE
PROCEEDINGS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
The present appeal is filed impugning the judgment and
order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.5662/2015 (LR).
2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid any
confusion, the parties are referred to herein by their respective
.
rankings before the writ court
I. Facts pleaded by the petitioners:
3. The petitioners in W.P.No.5662/2015 are the legal
representatives of late Rangaiah, who claimed title to the
agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.77/1A, measuring 31 guntas,
Sy. No. 79/1A, measuring 1 acre 9 guntas, and Sy. No. 55/1B,
measuring 6 guntas, situated at Byranahalli Village, Kasaba
Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. Their case
is that the lands formed part of the ancestral properties of the
family of Gavirangaiah alias Chikkanna, whose sons were
Puttarangaiah, Thimmaiah and Doddaiah. On the death of
Thimmaiah, his wife Muniyamma continued to cultivate the
lands, and the revenue entries were made in her name. The
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
petitioners relied upon a release deed dated 10.08.1943
executed by Thimmaiah and Muniyamma in favour of
Puttarangaiah and Doddaiah, contending that Muniyamma had
only a limited interest in the properties and had no authority to
alienate them in favour of a third party. They further relied
upon the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1959 passed in
O.S. No. 300/1957 by the competent Munsiff Court at
Doddaballapura, wherein, according to them, Muniyamma's
limited interest and the absence of any right to sell the suit
properties had been declared. It was their specific case that the
said decree had attained significance in determining the rights
claimed by the subsequent purchasers and that the decree
could not be ignored while considering the grant of occupancy
rights in respect of the very same lands. The petitioners
asserted that the family had remained in possession and
cultivation of the properties and that the subsequent entries
made in the revenue records in favour of B.K. Gangabyrappa
were contrary to the rights declared under the civil court
decree.
4. The petitioners further pleaded that
B.K.Gangabyrappa, the husband of respondent No. 3 and father
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
of respondents Nos. 4 and 5, had secured an order dated
06.02.1976 from the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala, in LRF
BYA.7/1975-76, granting occupancy rights in respect of
Sy.Nos.77/1A and 79/1A. According to the petitioners, the
Form No. 7 application had been processed without notice to
the persons claiming through the original owners, and the order
was obtained without bringing the earlier civil court decree to
the notice of the Tribunal. They contended that neither
Rangaiah nor the members of his family were parties to the
proceedings before the Land Tribunal and that the order could
not have been passed to their prejudice without affording them
an opportunity of hearing. On coming to know of the revenue
entries, Rangaiah and his family members instituted O.S. No.
192/2014 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nelamangala,
seeking a decree of permanent injunction against respondents
Nos. 3 to 5. They also initiated R.A. No. 169/2014 before the
Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura, challenging the
mutation entries in M.R. Nos. 3/1987-88 and 13/2000-01, and
obtained an interim order on 29.10.2014. The petitioners also
referred to the temporary injunction granted on 03.12.2014 in
O.S. No. 192/2014. Their grievance in the writ petition was that
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
the Land Tribunal's order dated 06.02.1976 had been made
without notice to them and in disregard of the decree in O.S.
No. 300/1957, and they accordingly sought a writ of certiorari
to quash the said order.
II. Statement of objections filed by the respondents:
5. The contesting respondents opposed the writ petition
and sought to sustain the order dated 06.02.1976 passed by
the Land Tribunal in LRF No. BYA.7/1975-76. Their case, as
reflected in the proceedings and the subsequent appeal, was
that B.K. Gangabyrappa had filed Form No. 7 seeking grant of
occupancy rights in respect of Sy. Nos. 77/1A and 79/1A and
that the application had been considered by the Tribunal in
accordance with the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the Rules
framed thereunder. It was contended on behalf of respondent
No. 3(a) that the land in question had been cultivated by B.K.
Gangabyrappa as a tenant and that the application had resulted
in the grant of occupancy rights by the competent authority.
The respondents relied upon the Tribunal records, including the
Form No. 7 application and the proceedings leading to the
grant, to contend that the order could not be reopened merely
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
on the ground that the petitioners were not parties to the
proceedings. They also relied upon the revenue records and the
subsequent entries made pursuant to the grant, maintaining
that the petitioners had not established any sufficient ground
for setting aside the order after such a long interval. The
respondents further disputed the petitioners' attempt to rely
upon the civil court decree in O.S. No. 300/1957 as a ground to
invalidate the occupancy rights proceedings, contending that
the grant had been made in favour of B.K. Gangabyrappa under
the land reforms proceedings and that the claim required to be
examined with reference to the records of the Tribunal.
6. The respondents also opposed the writ petition on the
ground of delay and laches, pointing out that the impugned
order had been passed on 06.02.1976, whereas the writ
petition had been instituted only in 2015, nearly 39 years later.
It was their contention that the petitioners and their
predecessors were residents of the same village and could not
reasonably claim to have remained unaware of the grant and
the consequential revenue entries for such a prolonged period.
The respondents subsequently relied upon the entries in the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
revenue records, the registration of Form No. 10 and the family
partition documents to contend that the grant was not a recent
or concealed transaction and that the petitioners' plea of lack of
knowledge was untenable. They further contended that the
petitioners had not been parties to the original proceedings
before the Land Tribunal and that the question of their
entitlement to challenge the grant had to be considered in the
light of the nature of the rights asserted by them. The
respondents also relied upon the subsequent civil proceedings
concerning possession and the interim orders passed therein,
maintaining that those proceedings did not by themselves
furnish a ground to annul the order of the Land Tribunal. The
objection, in substance, was that the grant had been made in
1976, the revenue records had thereafter been acted upon, and
the writ petition filed after an unexplained interval of nearly
four decades ought not to have been entertained.
III. Order passed in W.P. No. 5662/2015:
7. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 25.06.2025
in W.P. No. 5662/2015 (KLR), considered the challenge to the
order dated 06.02.1976 passed by the Land Tribunal,
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
Nelamangala, in LRF BYA.7/1975-76, whereby occupancy rights
had been conferred in respect of the lands in question. The
Court noticed that the petitioners claimed through the original
owners and relied upon the judgment and decree passed in
O.S. No. 300/1957, dated 28.09.1959, in support of their
contention that Muniyamma had only a limited interest in the
properties and could not have conveyed absolute rights in
favour of B.K. Gangabyrappa. The Court also took note of the
fact that the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings
before the Land Tribunal, although the order granting
occupancy rights affected the lands in respect of which they
asserted title. The learned Single Judge examined the rival
submissions with reference to the material available in the
Tribunal records, including the Form No. 7 application filed by
B.K. Gangabyrappa. It was noticed that the name of
Muniyamma was shown as the landlady and that the
proceedings had been conducted on the basis of the application
made by B.K. Gangabyrappa. The Court further considered the
effect of the earlier civil court decree and the contention that
the persons claiming through the original owners had not been
afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. In the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
circumstances, the learned Single Judge found that the absence
of the petitioners from the proceedings, despite the decree
relied upon by them, required the matter to be reconsidered by
the competent Tribunal after hearing all concerned.
8. By the operative portion of the order dated
25.06.2025, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition,
quashed the order dated 06.02.1976 passed by the Land
Tribunal in LRF No. BYA.7/1975-76, and remitted the matter to
the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration after providing an
opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The learned
Single Judge expressly kept open the contentions of the parties
to be urged before the Tribunal and directed that appropriate
orders be passed in accordance with law. The order did not
finally adjudicate the competing claims to occupancy rights or
declare any party to be entitled to the lands in question; the
matter was remitted for reconsideration after hearing those
whose rights were stated to be affected. The direction was thus
for a fresh decision by the competent authority, rather than a
final determination of title in favour of the petitioners. The
learned Single Judge considered that the Tribunal proceedings
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
had been held in the absence of the petitioners,
notwithstanding their reliance upon the judgment and decree in
O.S. No. 300/1957. It was in that factual setting that the order
of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter remitted. The
respondents, aggrieved by the said order, questioned the
correctness of the remand in the present writ appeal.
IV. Grounds urged in the present appeal:
9. The legal representatives of respondent No.3, along
with other respondents, have preferred the present appeal
challenging the order dated 25.06.2025 passed in
W.P.No.5662/2015. The principal ground urged is that the
learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the Land Tribunal's
order dated 06.02.1976 and remitting the matter for fresh
consideration, particularly when the writ petition had been filed
nearly 39 years after the grant of occupancy rights. The
appellants contend that B.K. Gangabyrappa had filed Form No.
7 and that the proceedings before the Tribunal were conducted
in accordance with the applicable provisions, including the
procedure relating to notice and publication. They submit that
the petitioners were not parties to the original proceedings and
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
that their subsequent challenge ought not to have been
entertained after such an inordinate delay. The appellants
further rely upon the revenue entries, the Form No. 10
proceedings, the partition documents and the subsequent
transactions concerning the family properties to dispute the
petitioners' assertion that they had no knowledge of the grant.
They contend that the learned Single Judge failed to give due
weight to these circumstances and to the long interval between
the order of the Tribunal and the institution of the writ petition.
It is also urged that the effect of the judgment and decree in
O.S. No. 300/1957 could not, by itself, justify setting aside the
Tribunal's order without examining the applicable provisions of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the procedure followed in
the original proceedings. On these grounds, the appellants seek
setting aside of the order dated 25.06.2025 and dismissal of
W.P. No. 5662/2015.
10. We have heard Sri.Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior
Counsel on behalf of the appellants/respondent Nos.3 and 4,
Sri.N.K.Kantharaju, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned AGA for the State and Sri.R.Anil
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Upon
consideration of the pleadings, the records placed before this
Court and the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioners and the respondents, the following point arises for
our consideration:
Whether the petitioners have made out any ground
warranting interference with the order dated
25/06/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P. No. 5662/2015 ?.
V. Reasons:
11. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and the respondents, and upon perusal of the order
dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.5662/2015 and the records placed before us, we are of
the considered view that the present appeal does not warrant
interference. At the outset, it is necessary to make it clear that
we do not propose to express any opinion on the merits of the
rival claims to the lands in question or on the ultimate
entitlement of any of the parties to occupancy rights. The
controversy before us is confined to examining whether the
learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
dated 06.02.1976 passed by the second respondent-Land
Tribunal in LRF.BYA.7/1975-76 and remitting the matter for
fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to
all concerned. The records disclose that the petitioners claim
through Puttarangaiah and Doddaiah, who were the brothers of
Thimmaiah, and that their family had asserted rights over the
subject properties on the strength of the earlier civil court
decree. It is not in dispute that the order of the Land Tribunal
was passed in proceedings in which the members of the
families claiming through Puttarangaiah and Doddaiah were not
parties. The effect of the said order upon their asserted rights,
particularly when an earlier decree concerning the alienation of
the very same properties had been relied upon, could not be
overlooked. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge
has not finally determined the rights of the parties, but has
directed the competent authority to reconsider the matter after
hearing all persons concerned. We find no reason to interfere
with such a direction.
12. The matter also requires to be viewed in the
background of the earlier round of litigation in the very same
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
writ petition. The original petitioner, Rangaiah, had challenged
the order of the Land Tribunal in W.P.No.5662/2015, and the
learned Single Judge, by order dated 26.08.2015, had rejected
the writ petition at the threshold. The said order was
challenged by some of the respondents in W.A.No.200/2016.
The Division Bench, while considering the matter, directed
reconsideration of the issue, thereby requiring the parties'
contentions to be examined afresh in the light of the relevant
facts and circumstances. It was pursuant to the remand made
by the Division Bench that the learned Single Judge
reconsidered the matter and passed the order dated
25.06.2025, which is impugned in this appeal. Therefore, the
order now under challenge cannot be considered in isolation,
without reference to the course adopted in the earlier
proceedings. The learned Single Judge was required to consider
the matter in the light of the remand and the circumstances
emerging from the record, including the fact that the persons
claiming through Puttarangaiah and Doddaiah had not been
parties before the Land Tribunal. The direction to provide an
opportunity of hearing to all concerned is consistent with the
purpose of the remand and does not amount to granting a final
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
declaration of title or occupancy rights in favour of the writ
petitioners. In our view, the appellants have not made out any
ground to hold that the learned Single Judge exceeded the
scope of the remand or committed an error warranting
interference by this Court in the present appeal.
13. A further circumstance which assumes importance
is the release deed dated 10.08.1943 executed by Thimmaiah
and Muniyamma in favour of Puttarangaiah and Doddaiah. The
petitioners rely upon the said document to contend that the
rights of Thimmaiah and Muniyamma in the subject properties
stood relinquished in favour of Puttarangaiah and Doddaiah,
and that Muniyamma could not thereafter deal with the
properties as though she possessed an absolute and
unrestricted right of alienation. This contention receives further
support, at the stage of examining the need for a fresh hearing,
from the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1959 passed in
O.S. No. 300/1957. The said suit, instituted by the family of
Puttarangaiah, questioned the alienation made by Muniyamma
in favour of B.K. Gangabyrappa, the father of the appellants,
and the decree declared that the alienation was not binding
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
upon the plaintiffs' family and that Muniyamma had no right to
sell the properties in favour of Gangabyrappa. These are not
circumstances which can be brushed aside merely because the
Land Tribunal proceedings had culminated in an order granting
occupancy rights on 06.02.1976. At the same time, the precise
legal effect of the release deed, the scope of the civil court
decree and their bearing upon the grant of occupancy rights are
matters which must be examined by the competent authority in
accordance with law. We refrain from recording any conclusive
finding on those questions in this appeal. It is sufficient to
observe that the existence of the earlier decree and the claim
of the petitioners through Puttarangaiah and Doddaiah
furnished a substantial reason for directing reconsideration
after hearing all affected parties.
14. The legal effect of a release deed must be
determined by its terms, the nature of the interest held by the
executants and the rights of the person in whose favour the
release is made. The question whether the document dated
10.08.1943 had the effect asserted by the petitioners must,
therefore, be considered along with the decree in O.S. No.
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
300/1957 and the other relevant records. If the rights of
Muniyamma stood restricted by the release deed and the
subsequent decree, the validity and effect of any alienation
made by her would have to be considered in that legal setting;
a person cannot convey an interest which that person did not
possess. We make it clear, however, that these observations
are only to explain why the earlier documents and decree
cannot be ignored in the proceedings before the Tribunal. We
do not hold that the grant of occupancy rights is automatically
invalid, nor do we decide the title or tenancy rights of any
party. Those questions remain open for determination by the
Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the relevant
documents and the applicable provisions of law.
VI. Conclusion:
15. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered
opinion that the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge does not call for interference. The earlier
proceedings in W.P. No. 5662/2015, the remand made by the
Division Bench in W.A. No. 200/2016, the non-participation of
the petitioners' predecessors in the proceedings before the
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
Land Tribunal, and the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1959
passed in O.S. No. 300/1957 are circumstances which justify
reconsideration of the matter after hearing all concerned. The
learned Single Judge has adopted a course which enables the
Tribunal to examine the relevant documents and the rival
claims in accordance with law, without foreclosing the
contentions of either side. We, therefore, decline to enter upon
the merits of the competing claims to title or occupancy rights,
leaving those questions open for determination by the Tribunal.
The appellants have not demonstrated any error in the order
under appeal warranting interference by this Court.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, the
order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P. No. 5662/2015 is affirmed and the matter is remitted back
to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.
17. The second respondent–Land Tribunal is directed to
reconsider the matter in accordance with the directions issued
by the learned Single Judge, after affording an opportunity of
hearing to all concerned parties and considering the relevant
documents, including the release deed dated 10.08.1943 and
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1959 passed in O.S. No.
300/1957, to the extent they are relevant in law.
18. The second respondent shall issue notice to the
petitioners, the respondents and all other concerned parties.
The petitioners and the respondents shall also bring to the
notice of the second respondent the names and particulars of
any other concerned persons, including the legal heirs or
successors of the persons claiming an interest in the subject
properties, who are required to be heard in the proceedings.
Upon such particulars being furnished, the second respondent
shall issue appropriate notice to all such persons and afford
them a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The parties shall be
at liberty to file their objections, pleadings and supporting
documents before the second respondent.
19. The second respondent shall fix 12.11.2026 as the
date for the first hearing and shall endeavour to complete the
entire proceedings and pass appropriate orders, in accordance
with law, within six months from 12.11.2026.
20. Having regard to the fact that the dispute has been
pending since 2015 and that considerable time has already
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52041-DB
WA No. 1231 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010502402025
elapsed in the course of the proceedings before the Courts, the
second respondent shall ensure that the matter is disposed of
expeditiously. Unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted.
In the event any party seeks an adjournment without sufficient
cause, the second respondent shall consider the request strictly
and may impose appropriate costs for any unwarranted delay.
21. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the rival claims to title or
occupancy rights, and all contentions are left open for
consideration by the second respondent in accordance with law.
22. The Land Tribunal shall keep in mind the above
observations while disposing of the matter afresh.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE
KNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17