SMT BASAVVA W/O VEERAYYA HIREMATH SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17946
WP No. 103506 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020064282026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 103506 OF 2026 (LR-)

BETWEEN:

SMT. BASAVVA W/O VEERAYYA HIREMATH
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR

SMT. GURUSHANTAVVA W/O VEERAYYA HEBBALAMATH,
AGE. 86 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOLEITAGI 582112,
TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG.

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER,
SHRI. MANJUNATH S/O VEERAYYA HEBBALAMATH,
AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOLEITAGI 582112,
TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
TO DEPARTMENT REVENUE,
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench

2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
SHRIHATTI TALUK,
TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG-582112.
REPRESENTED Y ITS CHAIRMAN

SHRI BHEEMAPPA
S/O DODDANEELAPPA BADABHIMAPPANAVAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S

3. SHRI. BASAVARAJ
S/O BHIMAPPA BADABHIMAPPANAVAR,
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ITAGI - 582112, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17946
WP No. 103506 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020064282026

4. SHRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O BHIMAPPA BADABHIMAPPANAVAR
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ITAGI - 582112,
TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG.

5. SMT. IRAMMA
W/O NEELAPPA BADABHIMAPPANAVAR
AGE. -- YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ITAGI - 582112,
TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG.
6. SMT. RATNAVVA W/O AJJAPPA RATI
W/O BHIMAPPA BADABHIMAPPANAVAR
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAJANAL, TQ. HUVINHADAGALI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGARA.

7. SMT. DRAKSHAYANI
W/O SANJEEVAPPA KAMANNAVAR,
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALLIPUR-583219, TQ. HUVINHADAGALI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.

8. SMT. DEVAKKA W/O IRAPPA KAMANNAVAR
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALLIPUR-583219, TQ. HUVINHADAGALI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.

9. SMT. TIRAKAVVA W/O TIPPANNA HAVANUR
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATTENUR-583219, TQ. HUVINHADAGALI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.

10. SMT. SHANTAVA
W/O CHANABASAPPA HONNAPPANAVAR
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALLIPUR-583219, TQ. HUVINHADAGALI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17946
WP No. 103506 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020064282026

11. SMT. SUSHILAVVA W/O JADIYYA CHIKKAMATH
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HARTI-582103, TQ./DIST. GADAG.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. A.M. GUNDWADE, ADVOCATE FOR R11;
SRI. S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R5,R7,R8,R9,R6 AND R10 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.03.2026 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 TRIBUNAL IN NO.K.L.R.T.N.C.S.R.800 AS PER ANNEXURE-M
AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

1. One Basavva W/o Veerayya Hiremath had filed an
application in Form No.7 read with Section 48-A of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961, seeking occupancy
rights in respect of land bearing Survey No.174/2,
measuring 8 acres 18 gunats and re-survey No.213/2a,
measuring 4 acres situated at Itagi Village. The said
application has been rejected by the Tribunal vide

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17946
WP No. 103506 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020064282026

impugned order dated 24.03.2026, produced at
Annexure-M to the writ petition, holding that the petitioner
having failed to establish she being the original the tenant
in respect of said properties. Being aggrieved, the present
petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is unsustainable, firstly on the premise
that the Tribunal, while rejecting the application of the
petitioner has held respondent No.11 to be the tenant,
without there being an application filed under Section 48-A
in Form No.7. Secondly, he submits that the issue with
regard to occupancy rights in respect of land in Survey
No.174/2 measuring 8 acres 18 guntas was subject matter
of the orders dated 20.05.1981 produced at Annexure-F,
as well as the orders dated 17.02.1994 and 15.06.2002.
Thirdly, he submits that the said orders have attained
finality in respect of the said survey number and once the
said orders having attained finality, the Tribunal ought not
to have reopened the matter. On these three primary

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17946
WP No. 103506 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020064282026

grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the order impugned is required to be quashed.

3. In response the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.11 submits that it is the admitted case of
the petitioner that respondent No.11 is the owner of the
land, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 before the
Tribunal and that the original petitioner was claiming to be
a tenant under her. Therefore, the question of respondent
No.11 herein, who was respondent No.2 before the
Tribunal, filing an application Form No.7 would not arise.

4. He submits that the reference of the words
“ ” in the operating portion of the order is a
C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ
misnomer. A reading of the entire order makes it clear
that, even according to the original petitioner, respondent
No.11 has been unambiguously admitted to be the owner
of the land and original petitioner claimed to be her tenant.
Therefore, the insistence of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that respondent No.11/respondent No.2 being
the tenant is misleading.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17946
WP No. 103506 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020064282026

5. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the order
of the Tribunal in respect of land in Survey No.174/2,
measuring 8 acres 18 guntas, ought not to be reopened in
view of the orders dated 20.05.1981 produced at
Annexure-F, as well as the orders dated 17.02.1994 and
15.06.2002, learned counsel for the respondents brings to
the notice of the Court that the orders passed by the
Tribunal were set aside by the coordinate Bench of this
Court in Writ Petition No.16919/1981, Writ Petition
No.9894/1994 and Writ Petition No.32075/2002,
respectively.

6. Thus, he submits that all the three orders, which the
petitioner claims to have attained finality, have been set
aside by this Court and it is based thereon the impugned
proceedings were taken up by the Land Tribunal for fresh
consideration.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents also refers to the
reasons assigned by the Tribunal and submits that the
original petitioner did not produce the documents justifying
her claim to be tenant under the respondent No.11. It is

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17946
WP No. 103506 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020064282026

further submitted that the said property was joint family
property and is subject matter of the partition between the
father of the original applicant and the grandfather of the
respondent No.11. In terms of the said partition, the
subject lands were allotted to the grandfather respondent
No.11. As such, the original petitioner claiming to the
tenant would not arise.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that
the said aspect of the matter has been taken note by the
Tribunal in the impugned order while rejecting the
application.

9. Heard. Perused the records.

10. The first contention of the petitioner that the Tribunal
erred in conferring the occupancy rights in favour of
respondent No.11, who was arrayed as respondent No.2
before the Tribunal, without an application being filed by
her, is baseless, inasmuch as the original petitioner
claimed her tenancy rights under respondent No.11,
unequivocally admitting her to be the owner of the land.
Nowhere in the impugned order, produced at Annexure-M

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17946
WP No. 103506 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020064282026

running into nine pages, is there any mention about
respondent No.11(respondent No.2 before the Tribunal)
claiming to be the tenant in respect of the subject
property. The Tribunal in fact, has taken note of the very
contention of the petitioner at page 8 of the impugned
order, relevant portion of which reads as under:

“CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è 2.3.2 PÉëÃvÀæ 2 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ 2 £ÉÃ
JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀgÀ ªÀiÁ°ÌAiÀÄ°èvÀÄÛ JA§ÄzÁV «ªÀj¹zÁgÉ. C®èzÉ JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀ £ÀA.2
£ÉÃzÀÝªÀgÀÄ F »AzÉ ¨sÀÆ »qÀÄªÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÁUÀ JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀgÀÄ 2£ÉÃ
JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀjUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÝjAzÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É Qæ«Ä£À¯ï PÉÃ¸ï
zÁR¯ÁVzÀÝgÀ §UÉÎ M¦àPÉÆArzÀÝjAzÀ 2£ÉÃ JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀgÉÃ ¨sÀÆ ¸ÁUÀÄªÀ½
ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ¨sÀÆ£ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¥ÀnÖzÉ.”

11. Thus, the very claim of the petitioner being tenant under
respondent No.11 (respondent No.2 before Tribunal) is
unsustainable.

12. The only advantage which the petitioner seems to be
taking is with respect to the second paragraph of the
operative portion, wherein the Tribunal has held as under:
: DzÉÃ±À ::
“²gÀºÀnÖ vÁ®ÆèQ£À ElV UÁæªÀÄzÀ j.¸À.£ÀA.174/2 PÉëÃvÀæ 08J-18UÀÄA
ºÁUÀÆ 213/2J PÉëÃvÀæ 04J-00UÀÄA £ÉÃzÀÝªÀÅUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA¨sÀAzÀ ¥ÀlÖAvÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ
gÉÊvÁ¦ ºÀPÀÄÌ PÉÆÃj ¸À°è¹zÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17946
WP No. 103506 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020064282026

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ, ²æÃªÀÄw: ¸ÀÄ²®ªÀé PÉÆÃA. drAiÀÄå aPÀÌªÀÄoÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj
«ªÁzÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ½UÉ C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀð ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ¸ÀºÀªÀÄvÀzÉÆA¢UÉ
wªÀiÁð¤¹ DzÉÃ²¹zÉ.
F DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß «µÀAiÀÄ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀjUÉ GPÀÛ ¯ÉÃR£À ¤Ãr ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹, EzÀ

¢£ÁAPÀ:24-03-2026 gÀAzÀÄ WÉÆÃ¶¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.”

13. The language employed in the second paragraph appears
to be an error, inasmuch as “ ” referred to
C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ
therein has to be read in the context of the entire order as
indicating that she being in exclusive possession of the
property as the owner thereof. It is only to that extent she
is referred to as “ ” and not in the sense of
C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ
a tenant, as being insisted by the petitioner herein.

14. As regards the second contention of the petitioner that the
order in respect of land in Survey No.174/2 having
attained finality in terms of the orders dated 20.05.1981,
17.02.1994 and 15.06.2002, the same also cannot be
countenanced, in view of the fact brought to the notice of
this Court by learned counsel for the respondents that the
said orders were set aside in Writ Petition
Nos.16919/1981, 9894/1994 and 32075/2002. The second
contention urged by the petitioner is also considered to be
rejected.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17946
WP No. 103506 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020064282026

15. In that view of the matter, no error or illegality can be
found in the order passed by the Tribunal. Petition lacks
dismissed
merit and accordingly, same is .

16. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and
accordingly same are disposed of.

Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE

RHR, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 33