SHRI HUSSAINSAB S/O RAJESAB HOSAVAL SINCE DECEASED R/BY HIS LRS. vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16755-DB
WA No. 100069 of 2026
C/W WA No. 100070 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020031422026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100069 OF 2026 (LR)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100070 OF 2026
IN WA No. 100069/2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SHRI. HUSSAIN SAB S/O. RAJESAB HOSAVAL,
SINCE DECEASED HIS LRS.
SHRI. MUKTUMSAB
S/O. HUSSAINSAB HOSAVAL @ MALAGI,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
R/O: HOSAVAL VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.
2. SHRI. MOULASAB
S/O. HUSSAINSAB HOSAVAL @ MALAGI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
R/O: HOSAVAL VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.
3. SHRI. SUBANISAB
S/O. HUSSAINSAB HOSAVAL @ MALAGI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
R/O: HOSAVAL VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.
4. SMT. AMEENA W/O. FAKKIRSAB ONTINAL,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
R/O: HOSAVAL VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16755-DB
WA No. 100069 of 2026
C/W WA No. 100070 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020031422026
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.
5. SMT. FATIMA W/O. MUKTUMSAB MANDYAL,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
R/O: HOSAVAL VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.
6. SMT. MASABI
D/O HUSSAINSAB HOSAVAL @ MALAGI,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HOSAVAL VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
DHARWAD – 580 001.
3. SHRI. AYYAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA DESAI,
AGE: 83 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HANGARAKI,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD – 581 105.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAKESH M. BILKI, GA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. K. DIWAKARA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT DATED 07/01/2026 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE
SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.109958/2025 THEREBY
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16755-DB
WA No. 100069 of 2026
C/W WA No. 100070 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020031422026
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT/S
PETITIONERS AND ETC.
IN WA NO. 100070/2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SHRI. HUSSAINSAB S/O. RAJESAB HOSAVAL,
SINCE DECEASED R/BY HIS LRS.
SHRI. MUKTUMSAB
S/O. HUSSAINSAB HOSAVAL @ MALAGI,
AGE:59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HOSAVAL VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.
2. SHRI. MOULASAB
S/O. HUSSAINSAB HOSAVAL @ MALAGI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HOSAVAL VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.
3. SHRI. SUBANISAB
S/O. HUSSAINSAB HOSAVAL @ MALAGI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HOSAVAL VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.
4. SMT. AMEENA
W/O. FAKKIRSAB ONTINAL,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HOSAVAL VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.
5. SMT. FATIMA W/O. MUKTUMSAB MANDYAL,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HOSAVAL VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.
6. SMT. MASABI
D/O. HUSSAINSAB HOSAVAL @ MALAGI,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16755-DB
WA No. 100069 of 2026
C/W WA No. 100070 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020031422026
R/O: HOSAVAL VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
DHARWAD – 580 001.
3. SHRI. AYYAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA DESAI,
AGE: 83 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HANGARAKI,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD – 581 105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAKESH M. BILKI, GA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. K. DIWAKARA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 07/01/2026 PASSED BY THE
HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
NO.100073/2026 THEREBY DISMISSING THE WRIT
PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ON
MERITS AND ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16755-DB
WA No. 100069 of 2026
C/W WA No. 100070 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020031422026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )
The appellants stand before us calling in question the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.109958 of
2025 connected with W.P. No.100073 of 2026, whereby the
writ petitions preferred by the present appellants comes to be
rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Shivaraj Balloli
appearing for the appellants; the learned Government Advocate
Sri. Rakesh M. Bilki for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and the
learned Senior Counsel Sri. Diwakara along with the learned
counsel Sri. S.N. Banakar for respondent No.3.
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
3.1. The father of the appellants institutes a suit in O.S.
No.96 of 1973 for declaration and injunction against the
respondent No.3 and one Yallappa Talawar. The said suit is said
to have been decreed declaring the father of the appellants as a
tenant and restraining the defendants from disturbing the
possession. On the basis of the judgment and decree in O.S.
No.96 of 1973, it transpires that the name of the appellants
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16755-DB
WA No. 100069 of 2026
C/W WA No. 100070 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020031422026
came to be mutated in the record of rights of the subject
property in M.E. No.197 by deleting the name of Yallappa
Talawar. On 01.05.1975 the father of the appellants is said to
have filed Form No.VII in respect of the petition property
seeking grant of occupancy rights. This comes to be rejected by
the respondent No.2 – Land Tribunal on 26.12.1981. The
rejection of the claim of the appellants is challenged in Writ
Petition No.10664 of 1993 by the father of the appellants,
which comes to be allowed and the matter is remitted back to
the hands of the respondent No.2 – Land Tribunal for fresh
consideration. After the remand, the Land Tribunal, in terms of
its order dated 14.11.2025 rejects the claim of the appellant
which drove the appellants in W.P. No.109958/2025. The
learned Single Judge rejects the petition on manifold grounds.
It is this that drives the appellants to this Court in the subject
petition.
4. The learned counsel Sri. Shivaraj Balloli would
submit that the father of the appellants had a decree with
regard to declaration in a suit for declaration and injunction and
the Land Tribunal has not taken note of the decree while
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16755-DB
WA No. 100069 of 2026
C/W WA No. 100070 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020031422026
passing the order on 14.11.2025. He would submit that the
order of remand to the Land Tribunal by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.10664 of 1993 is also not taken note
of in the proper perspective by the Land Tribunal. He would
seek that the matter be remitted back to the hands of the
Tribunal for a fresh consideration.
5. Per contra , the learned Senior Counsel Sri.
Diwakara appearing for the respondent No.3, would vehemently
refute the submission in contending that the father of the
appellants who claims to be a tenant and who is said to be in
possession of a decree in a suit for declaration and injunction,
approaches this Court in W.P. No.10664 of 1993 without
making the owner of the land a party secures an order at the
hands of the Court for a remand and the order passed on
19.11.1997 led to passing of the order dated 14.11.2025 by
the Tribunal. The fact remains that the order of original
rejection by the Land Tribunal dated 26.12.1981 stood
unassailed for decades. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel
would submit that while not making the owner a party, which is
by itself an act of fraud on the part of the appellants, the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16755-DB
WA No. 100069 of 2026
C/W WA No. 100070 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020031422026
matter was remanded and any further proceedings taken
thereto would undoubtedly be a product of such fraud. He
would submit that the learned Single Judge has considered the
issue in its proper perspective and seeks dismissal of the
petition.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel.
7. The afore-narrated facts, dates, link and chain of
events are all a matter of record. The learned Single Judge on
answering the claim of the appellants, has by the following
order, rejected the petition. The order reads as follows:
1. The petitioners, the legal representatives of late
Sri.Husseinsab, S/o.Rajeshsab Hosaval, have filed
W.P.No.109958 of 2025 assailing the order dated
14.11.2025, passed by the Land Tribunal
(Annexure-A), rejecting the claim for grant of
occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing
Block No.30 of Hosaval Village, Dharwad Taluk,
measuring 7 acres.
2. The connected writ petition W.P.No.100073 of 2026
is filed challenging the earlier rejection order dated
26.12.1981 passed by the same Tribunal.
3. Since both the petitions arise out of the same claim
under Form No.7 and involve common questions of
facts and law, they are heard together and are
disposed of by this common order.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16755-DB
WA No. 100069 of 2026
C/W WA No. 100070 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020031422026
4. Though the matter is listed for hearing on vacating
order, with the consent of both the parties, the writ
petitions are taken up for final disposal.
5. Brief facts :
5.1. The father of the petitioners claimed to be a
tenant of the scheduled land and filed Form
No.7 seeking grant of occupancy rights.
5.2. The Land Tribunal, after conducting enquiry,
rejected the said claim by order dated
26.12.1981, primarily on the ground that the
claimant’s name was not reflected in the
cultivator’s column of the revenue records as
on the relevant date.
5.3. Challenging the said order, the father of the
petitioners approached this Court in WP
No.10664 of 1993, which came to be
disposed of with certain observations.
5.4. It is not in dispute that the true owner of the
land was not impleaded in the said writ
petition.
5.5. Decades later, the legal representatives of
the original applicant sought revival of the
proceedings before the Land Tribunal.
5.6. The Land Tribunal, after issuing notice to the
present landlord and conducting a fresh
enquiry, once again rejected the claim by a
speaking order dated 14.11.2025.
5.7. The said order is challenged in WP
No.109958 of 2025 and also filed
W.P.No.100073 of 2026 challenging the
original order dated 26.12.1981.
6. Contention of the petitioners:
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16755-DB
WA No. 100069 of 2026
C/W WA No. 100070 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020031422026
6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the Land Tribunal failed to consider the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.96 of
1973, wherein the father of the petitioners
was declared to be a tenant and
consequential directions were issued for
correction of the revenue entries. It is urged
that the said decree, having attained finality,
binds the landlord and the Tribunal.
6.2. It is further contended that the rejection of
Form No. 7 is perverse, that the Tribunal
failed to appreciate documentary evidence
and mutation entries, and that the delay in
pursuing remedies ought not to defeat
substantive rights, particularly when the
petitioners seek only to correct the technical
defects.
7. Contention of respondents:
7.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the landlord submits that the rejection of
Form No.7 by order dated 26.12.1981 has
attained finality and that the repeated
challenges amount to the re-litigation and
abuse of process.
7.2. It is urged that the order passed in WP
No.10664 of 1993 is not binding on the
present landlord, as he was not a party to
those proceedings.
7.3. It is further contended that the Land Tribunal
has conducted a fresh and independent
enquiry after notice to all the concerned and
passed a reasoned order on 14.11.2025,
which does not suffer from perversity or
illegality warranting any interference by this
Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
the points that arises for consideration are;
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16755-DB
WA No. 100069 of 2026
C/W WA No. 100070 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020031422026
i. Whether the decree passed in O.S.No.96
of 1973 binds the Land Tribunal for the
purpose of grant of occupancy rights?
ii. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to
finally determine the tenancy for the
purposes of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act?
iii. Whether the impugned orders dated
26.12.1981 and 14.11.2025 warrant
interference?
9. The suit in O.S.No.96 of 1973 was instituted in the
year 1973 and decreed on 23.10.1973, i.e., prior to
the appointed date 01.03.1974 under the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. At that point of
time, civil courts continued to exercise jurisdiction
over landlord-tenant disputes, as the statutory
machinery under the Land Reforms Act had not yet
become fully operational. However, the legal effect
of the said decree must be understood in its proper
statutory context. While the Civil Court had
jurisdiction to pass the decree at that time, the said
decree cannot confer a statutory right of tenancy or
bind the Land Tribunal in proceedings under
Sections 44, 45 and 48 of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act. Upon the appointed date, the
determination of tenancy and entitlement of
occupancy rights fell within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal, requiring an
independent statutory enquiry.
10. Accordingly, the decree in OS No. 96 of 1973 could,
at best, constitute a piece of evidence, but would
not substitute the enquiry that is mandated under
the Act.
11. The order passed in WP No.10664 of 1993 cannot
enure to the benefit of the petitioners, as the true
owner was not impleaded therein. An order passed
in proceedings behind the back of the necessary
party cannot bind such party, nor can it be relied
upon to unsettle the finality of the earlier orders.
The original rejection order dated 26.12.1981 was
passed after enquiry and stood unassailed for
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16755-DB
WA No. 100069 of 2026
C/W WA No. 100070 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020031422026
decades. The subsequent order dated 14.11.2025
has been passed after issuing notice to all the
concerned, recording evidence and assigning
cogent reasons. This Court finds no perversity,
procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error in the
said order, warranting any interference.
12. The filing of successive writ petitions challenging
both original and subsequent orders on the same
Form No.7 does not advance the petitioners’ case,
particularly when the statutory determination has
been consistently against them.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the
petitioners have failed to make out any case for
interference. However, having regard to the long
pendency of the matter and the fact that the
petitioners have pursued their remedies under a
bona fide belief, this Court refrains from imposing
costs. Accordingly this Court passes the following
order:
ORDER
Writ Petition No.109958 of 2025 and Writ Petition
dismissed
No.100073 of 2026 are hereby .
Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands
disposed of.
8. The learned Single Judge refers to every contention,
holds that the original rejection order dated 26.12.1981 stood
unassailed for decades and the subsequent Order 14.11.2025
which has now been passed after issuing notice to all the
stakeholders, does not warrant any interference.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the respondents cannot now contend that the
owner was not made a party in the remand proceedings as the
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16755-DB
WA No. 100069 of 2026
C/W WA No. 100070 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020031422026
owner has now participated in the remand proceedings, is
though noted, is not convincing for us to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge.
10. The learned Single Judge, by rendering detailed
reasons, has rejected the claim of the present appellants. In an
intra-court appeal, unless we find perversity in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge, we would not interfere
with the order as a matter of course.
11. Finding no perversity in the order so passed, the
Writ Appeals must fail and, accordingly, stand rejected .
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
RSH/CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38