IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.31400 OF 2014 (LR)

BETWEEN: UMASHASHI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

1. SRI. BHOJA AMIN S/O LATE PIJINA PUJARI AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

2. SRI. ASHOK KUMAR S/O SRI. BHOJA AMIN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

3. SRI. AMRITH KUMAR S/O SRI. BHOJA AMIN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

4. SMT. REKHS PRATHISH D/O SRI. BHOJA AMIN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.76 BADAGUBETTU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK UDIPI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M/S. MADHAVA BUILDERS (P) LTD UDUPI BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI S HEGDE UDUPI.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL OFFICER UNDER SEC. 77-A OF THE KLR ACT UDUPI.

3. SODE MUTT UDUPI, BY ITS MANAGER UDUPI.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA, AGA FOR R2;

SRI. KEERTHI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

R3 SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETT ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.894/2006 (I.E. ANNEXURE-A) AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND UNSEQUENTIALLY DISMISS THE APPEAL NO.894/2006 FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.01.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. ORDER Captioned petition is filed by the legal heirs of one M.P. Rao assailing the remand order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal(KAT) to Assistant Commissioner to hold fresh enquiry under Section 77A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961(for short "Act").

2. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The subject-matter of the petition land is 26 cents in Survey No.54/2 of No.76, Badagubettu village, Udupi Taluk originally owned by Aroorlakshminarayana Rao of Udupi. Petitioners asserts that their father took the petition land by paying monthly rental of Rs.45/- and he has planted about 10 to 12 coconut plants. Petitioner asserts that he has inherited tenancy rights. After coming into force of the Land Reforms Act, 1977, the application tendered by the original petitioner Umashashi was considered by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner after due enquiry has granted occupancy rights in respect of petition land.

3. Respondent No.1 assailed the order of respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner before the KAT in Appeal No. 894/2006. The KAT has allowed the appeal and the matter is now remitted back to respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the claim made under Section 77A of the Act.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.M. Chandrashekar appearing on behalf of the counsel for petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has questioned the very locus of respondent No.1 in questioning petitioners' tenancy rights over the land in question. He would further point out that respondent No.3 being the original landlord has not questioned the order of grant made by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner while allowing the application filed in Form No.7A. Citing Section 4 of the Act, learned Senior Counsel would point out that petitioner has to be considered as deemed tenant and therefore, contends that the remand order at the instance of the purchaser is bad in law and therefore, warrants indulgence at the hands of this Court. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the civil Court in O.S.No.123/2000 and O.S.127/2000 against respondent No.1. Citing this, he contends that the petitioners' possession is substantiated. Consequently, the suit filed by original petitioner Umashashi in O.S.No.123/2000 is decreed and the counter suit filed by respondent No.1 in O.S.No.127/2000 is dismissed.

5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.2. There is no representation for counsel for r