MOHAMMAD ISUF IBRAHIM SAB vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17234
WP No. 111722 of 2017

CNR: KAHC020035752017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

WRIT PETITION NO. 111722 OF 2017 (LR-)

BETWEEN:

1. MOHAMMAD ISUF IBRAHIM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O IBRAHIM SAB,
R/O: UNCHALLI VILLAGE, SIRSI TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE: 581318.

2. ABDUL KABIR IBRAHIM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O IBRAHIM SAB,
R/O: UNCHALLI VILLAGE, SIRSI TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE: 581318.

3. MOHAMMAD YASIN IBRAHIM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O IBRAHIM SAB,
R/O: UNCHALLI VILLAGE, SIRSI TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE: 581318.

BHARATHI
H M

4. MOHAMMAD ISSAC IBRAHIM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O IBRAHIM SAB,
R/O: UNCHALLI VILLAGE, SIRSI TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE: 581318.

5. ABDUL SALEEM IBRAHIM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O IBRAHIM SAB,
R/O: UNCHALLI VILLAGE, SIRSI TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE: 581318.

Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: high court of
karnataka, dharwad bench
Date: 2026.10.30 14:20:30
+0530

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17234
WP No. 111722 of 2017

CNR: KAHC020035752017

6. JAIN B. W/O IBRAHIM SAB (DECEASED)
BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

6A. SMT. JAIBUNNISA BEPARI W/O AMEERJAN BEPARI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
TH
ALTAF NAGAR,4 CROSS,
HUBLI -580024.

6B. SMT. SHAMSHAD M S BHASHA W/O M S BHASHA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NO. 89, GOUDALLI, HUBLI ROAD,
POST. ISHLOOR, TQ. SIRSI,
PIN -581358.

6C. SHAKIRA AURANGZAIB KHAZI
W/O AURANGZAIB ABDUL REHAMAN KHAZI,
A/A 44 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE,
NO. 285, KOLAKANDKERI,
CHANDAVAR, HONNAVAR TALUK,
UTTAR KANNADA -581323.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. LAXMESH PUTTA MUTAGUPPI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE TAHASHILDAR,
SIRSI TALUK, SIRSI,
UTTARA KANNADA-581401.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SIRSI SUB-DIVISION,
SIRSI TALUK,, SIRSI,
UTTARA KANNADA-581401.

3. SUSHEELA W/O GANAPATHI RAJAPOOT,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

4. GANESH S/O GANAPATHI RAJAPOOT,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17234
WP No. 111722 of 2017

CNR: KAHC020035752017

5. RAMA S/O GANAPATHI RAJAPOOT,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.

6. LAXMAN S/O GANAPATHI RAJAPOOT,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.

7. SHALINI W/O SEETARAM NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.

ALL ARE AT AND R/O UNCHALLI VILLAGE,
SIRSI TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-581318.

8. JYOTI W/O GANESH NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: BISLKOPPA, PO: EKKAMBI, TQ: SIRSI,
DHARWAD-581358.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI SOURABH HEDGE AND SMT. SOUMYA HEDGE, ADVOCATES FOR
R4 TO R8)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2017 IN
APPEAL NO. 721/2011 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17234
WP No. 111722 of 2017

CNR: KAHC020035752017

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

ORAL ORDER

The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated
26.09.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,
Bengaluru in Appeal No.721/2011 at Annexure-A. By that
order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by respondent
Nos.3 to 8 herein and has remanded the matter to the
Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry.

2. I have heard Sri.Laxmesh Mutaguppi, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.Sourabh Hegde
and Ms.Soumya Hegde, learned counsels for respondent Nos.4
to 8.

3. Sri.Mutaguppi contended that the Tribunal erred in
interfering with the order of the Assistant Commissioner,
setting it aside and remitting the matter for a fresh enquiry. It
is his case that the Tribunal ought not to have proceeded only
on the basis of the extent of land recorded in the revenue

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17234
WP No. 111722 of 2017

CNR: KAHC020035752017

records but ought to have considered other material like report
of the spot inspection. It is his case that the petitioners’ father
was in possession of 17 guntas of land in Sy. No.27 and
therefore, the order of the Assistant Commissioner under
Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is in
accordance with law. The Tribunal committed an error in
interfering with the said order and therefore, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 contends that there is sufficient
material like revenue records which shows that the petitioners’
father was in cultivation only of 2 guntas of land. The Tribunal
has remitted the matter for a fresh enquiry by the Assistant
Commissioner. The order of the Assistant Commissioner at
Annexure-B appears to be a standard form order wherein only
the names and figures are filled in by hand and the rest of the
order is in a standard printed format. One of the reasons for
the Tribunal to set aside the order of the Assistant
Commissioner is that the order is a standard format order and
there is no enquiry or adjudication.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17234
WP No. 111722 of 2017

CNR: KAHC020035752017

5. On a careful consideration of the material on
record, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and that of
the Tribunal and the contentions of the learned counsel, the
order of the Tribunal appears to be correct. The Tribunal has
set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and has
remitted the matter to that authority for a fresh enquiry.

6. The provisions of Section 77-A of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act, 1961 require an enquiry to be conducted by
an officer who grants occupancy rights under that provision.

7. In the present case, the records do not show that
any enquiry was held because there is no such indication
forthcoming from the order of the Assistant Commissioner at
Annexure-B.

8. Since the Tribunal has only remitted the matter for
a fresh enquiry, there is no justification or warrant for
interference with that order by this Court in writ jurisdiction.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17234
WP No. 111722 of 2017

CNR: KAHC020035752017

9. Leaving open all questions to be agitated before the
Assistant Commissioner to whom the matter has been remitted
dismissed
by the Tribunal, the writ petition is .
No order as to costs.

Sd/-
(RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA)
JUDGE

PJ/CT:SD
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 49