Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 12009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 17457 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)
C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 7338 OF 2017 (LR)
IN WP No. 17457/2018 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KENCHAPPA S/O HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. SRI. GEVINDA RAJ S/O SANNA THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
3. SRI. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Digitally signed by KIRAN 4. SRI. R. SURESH KUMAR R S/O HUNSEDU RANGAPPA Location:
HIGH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS COURT OF KARNATAKA
5. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
6. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LAKKAVALLI RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 7. SRI. PHAKERAPPA S/O SRERANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
8. SRI. SHANTHAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 9. SRI. RANGANATHA S/O MALALAGEPPA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
10. SRI. PANDAPPA S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI SHIVAMOGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN : 577 203.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.N. SAMEER, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGARAJA IJARI, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 9;
V/O DATED 11.03.2025 PETITION STANDS ABATED AGAINST PETITIONER NO.10)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BUILDING SHIVAMOGA TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT PIN - 577 201.
2. THE TAHASHILDAR SHIVAMOGGA TALUK TALUK TAHASHILDAR OFFICE SHIVAMOGA CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN - 577 201. 3. SRI. GURUTEAK PRIVATE LIMITED NO. 874, MODI HOSPITAL ROAD RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU PIN - 560 044.
4. SRI. G. SHRINIVAS S/O LATE GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
5. SRI. SHIVA PRAKASH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
6. SRI. MADHU .K S/O KARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 7. SRI. SHIDDISH .M S/O MANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 8. SRI. RAVINDRA .K S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 9. SRI. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 10. SRI. NAGARAJAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
11. SRI. L.K. CHANDRU S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
12. SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE SHANMUKAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
13. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
14. SRI. JAGADISH S/O LATE KUNTARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
15. SRI. MANJUNATH .M S/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
16. KARIBADAPPA S/O NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 17. SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE MALALAGOPPA RANAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
18. SRI. SUNDRAPPA S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
19. SRI. SHIVARAJAPPA S/O LATE BAIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 20. SRI. RAJASHEKARA S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
21. SRI. NATARAJA S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
22. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O SARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
23. SMT. MANJAPPA .A.D S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
24. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE KUMARAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
25. SMT. SARVAMANGALA W/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
26. SRI. DEVENDRAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
27. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O LATE MUKARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
28. SRI. ANANDA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI, SHIVAMOGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 203.
[CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V/O/D 31.05.2024]
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VINAY SHREYAS, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SMT. AKSHATHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R28)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2017 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.R- MIS.21/2014-15 PASSED BY THE R-1 DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2003 IN RRT-CR NO.2840/2003-04 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN WP NO. 7338/2017 BETWEEN:
1. GANGA NAIKA S/O HALYA NAIKA AGEDA BOUT 57 YEARS R/O CHAMUNDIPURA, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211.
2. SMT. VELLIAMMA W/O MUNISWAMY GOUNDER AGED 45 YEARS R/O CHAMUNDIPURA, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211.
3. JAVEED S/O ABDHUL HAMEED AGED 39 YEARS R/O DURGAMMANA BEEDI, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211.
4. ABDHUL HAMEED S/O HAYATH SAB AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O DURGAMMANA BEEDI, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211.
5. SHEIK BASHA SAB S/O SHEIK HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O HOSURU, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211.
6. H.N. GOVERDHAN S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O KOHALLI PETE, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211.
7. R. CHIKKAPPA S/O REVAPPA AGE 48 YEARS R/O AYANUR KOTE, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211.
8. AMEER AHMED S/O ABDHUL HAMEED AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O CHAMUNDIPURA, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211.
9. PACHAPPA .M S/O MUNISWAMY GOUNDER AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O CHAMUNDIPURA, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211.
10. NARAYANA .M S/O MUNISWAMY GOUNDER AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O CHAMUNDIPURA, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211.
11. UMESH NAIKA S/O LACHCHA NAIKA AGED 52 YEARS R/O KOHALLI TANDA, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211.
12. SUNDRAPPPA S/O NAGAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/O AYNUR KOTE, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS NO. 2 TO 12;
V/O/D 08.04.2025 PETITION AGAINST PETITIONER NO.1 STANDS ABATED)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 201.
3. THE REGULARIZATION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THE TAHSILDAR SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 201.
4. THE LAND TRIBUNAL SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 201.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
5. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O PATEL RUDRAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O BILLARADEVARA KOPPA HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416.
6. H.G. SHIVARAJAPPA S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O BADARAHOSAHALLI SHIMOGA TALUK, SHIMOGA-577 416.
7. S.P. DEVENDRAPPA S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416.
8. PUTTAYALLAPPA S/O Y. GOWDA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416.
9. V.Y. GOWDA S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416.
10. S.P. JAGADHEESH S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416.
11. H.G. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O CHINNAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O BEDARAHOSAHALLI HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416.
12. SMT. VEERAMMA W/O VEERABHADRAPPA GOWDA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 13. MAHADEVAPPA S/O DODDAMARIYAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416.
14. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE VEERABASAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416.
15. SMT. SULOCHAN W/O V.Y. GOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 16. S.P. CHETHAN S/O V.Y. GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416.
17. S.P. SUSHMA D/O V.Y. GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416.
18. BASVANA GOWDA S/O P. VEERABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 19. SMT. SUJATHA W/O B.P. PATIL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDENT OF SHIVAJINAGAR HAVERI-581 110. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. H. MUJTABA, ADVOCATE FOR R7, R14, R15 AND R18;
SRI. RAMESH P. KULKARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R9;
R6, R11, R16, R17 AND R19 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.04.1993 IN LRF (T) INAMLG NO.1-11/1982-83, PASSED BY R-4 AT ANNEXURE-B CONFERRING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF LANDS IN SY.NO.2 OF MALALAKOPPA VILLAGE IN FAVOR OF R-5 TO 19 AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
A party cannot challenge a tribunal's order after previously withdrawing a petition against it, due to res judicata and the acceptance of the prior decision.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Revenue Act - Section 136(3) - Writ petitions challenging occupancy rights conferred by Land Tribunal - Petitioners' earlier challenges to the Land Tribunal's order were withdrawn, leading to acceptance of the Tribunal's decision. The court ruled that subsequent petitions challenging the same order were not maintainable. (Paras 26, 30, 31, 34)
(B) Res Judicata - The principle applies as the petitioners had previously accepted the Land Tribunal's order by withdrawing their earlier petitions. (Paras 26, 28)
(C) Delay and Laches - The court noted that the second challenge was made after 14 years, which warranted dismissal. (Paras 29, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested the Land Tribunal's order from 1993 conferring occupancy rights on other parties. They had previously filed and withdrawn petitions challenging this order.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners had lost the right to challenge the order due to prior withdrawals and the principle of res judicata.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners could challenge the Land Tribunal's order after previous withdrawals and whether the subsequent writ petitions were maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that prior acceptance of the Land Tribunal's order barred further challenges, and the principle of res judicata applied.
Result: Both writ petitions were dismissed.
ORAL ORDER
1. From the records produced and the arguments advanced, the following facts can be ascertained.
2. In respect of land bearing Sy.No.2 measuring an extent of 119 acres, the revenue entries stood in the name of one S.P.Veerabasappa as per the Record of Rights, Tenancy and Prop Inspection (RTC) for the year 1969-70. The name of S.P.Veerabasappa is stated to have been entered on the basis of a darkasth vide R.R.No.102.
3. However the name of S.P.Veerabasappa was rounded off and the entry "Sarkari Jangal Kharab" was made in the revenue records vide R.R.No.175.
4. This order of the Special Deputy Commissioner holding that the land in question was a Sarkari Jangal Kharab was challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.36/79 to 47/79 by a group of appellants. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 26.07.1980 allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for holding a fresh enquiry.
5. Pursuant to this order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the revenue entries were mutated vide M.R.No.5/81-82 in the following terms:
6. Thus, as on the year 1981-82, the entry of name of the Sarkari Jangal Kharab was deleted and as requested by the President, Malalagoppa Gramada Samyuktha Besaya Sahakara Sangha (Malalagoppa Village United Agricultural Co-operative Society) the names of the members of the Sangha till the disposal of the matter by the Land Tribunal was entered.
7. On remand, the Land Tribunal however proceeded to confer occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.119 in favour of 11 applicants. The operative portion of the Land Tribunal reads as follows:
8. It appears that the matter stood thus, the revenue entries were once again mutated vide M.R.No.4/1998-99, by which the name of the liquidator was ordered to be entered. Thereafter, once again, revenue entries were mutated vide M.R.No.2/2002-03 on the basis of the order of the Tahsildar. By virtue of this order, the name of S.P.Devendrappa, V.Y.Gowda, S.P.Jagadeesh, S.P.Basavanagowda were ordered to be entered in the revenue records jointly in respect of 119 acres of Sy.No.2/P49.
9. It may be pertinent to state here that being aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal on 05.04.1993, Kenchappa, petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.17457/2018 challenged the order of the Land Tribunal. However, he chose to thereafter withdraw this writ petition on 11.01.2002. Thus, the challenge made by Kenchappa, petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.17457/2018 to the order of the Land Tribunal stood withdrawn and he consequently he had accepted the order of the Land Tribunal.
10. Subsequently, 38 petitioners also filed W.P.No.40419-456/1995 challenging the order of the Land Tribunal. Incidentally, petitioner Nos.7, 9 and 10 in W.P.No.17457/2018 were the petitioner Nos.9, 28 and 19 respectively.
11. The petitioners therein also chose to withdraw the writ petition on 28.11.2001. It is therefore clear that the order of the Land Tribunal was the subject matter of challenge in two writ petitions and the same were withdrawn and, incidentally four of the petitioners in the present batch of the writ petitions, were the petitioners in those writ petitions. It therefore follows at least 4 of the petitioners herein had accepted the order of the Land Tribunal which conferred occupancy rights in favour of 11 applicants.
12. It may also be pertinent to state here that there was yet another writ petition in W.P.No.13054- 13065/2015 filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.7338/2017 challenging the order of the Land Tribunal. This writ petition which was filed in the year 2015 also sought to challenge the order of the Land Tribunal dated 05.04.1993. This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.09.2015. An application filed for recalling the said order and for restoration of the writ petition was also rejected by this Court on 17.02.2016.
13. After the dismissal of the said application for restoration, the present writ petition h
