IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1885 OF 2025 (LR)

BETWEEN:

1. MR. VENKATESH

S/O LATE MANSA MUKHARI

AGE 39 YEARS

R/AT NO.17-23, PADRE PUNODI

SRINIVASA NAGAR POST, SURATKAL

MANGALURU TALUK (D.K) - 575 025

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

signed by

REVENUE DEPARTMENT

SRIDEVI S

M.S. BUILDING

Location:

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI

High Court

of Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 001

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL

MANGALURU TALUK

MANGALURU

DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 001

REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

3. AMBA SHEDTI @ AMBA SHETTY SINCE DEAD BY HER LR. DR. K.VASANTH SHETTY S/O LATE M. RAMANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT NO.16-6-371/3 PRABHAVA HOUSE, VAS LANE BEHIND UNITY HEALTH COMPLEX FALNIR, MANGALURU - 575 002, D.K.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-1 & 2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10369/2023 (LR) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. For the reasons stated in the application – I.A.No.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.10369/2023 (LR) [impugned order]. In terms of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge had allowed the said writ petition and had set aside the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by respondent No.2 [Land Tribunal], pursuant to an application for rectification (LRT.No.474/79-80) filed by the appellant. In terms of the said order, the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights of land measuring 0.28 acres falling in Sy.No.40/2 located in Surathkal Village, Mangaluru Taluk by modifying/rectifying the earlier order dated 23.09.1980.

3. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.3 (writ petitioner), claiming to be the owner of the subject land, had challenged the said order.

4. The father of the appellant (Sri. Mansa Mukhari) had filed Form No.7, claiming occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 0.41 acres in Sy.No.41/1; 0.06 cents in Sy.No.237/1A2; and 0.28 acres in Sy.No.40/2 [the subject land]. The claim of the appellant’s father to be recognized as a tenant in cultivation of the said land, was examined by the Land Tribunal. The same was disposed of by an order dated 23.09.1980. Insofar as the land measuring 0.41 acres and 0.06 acres falling in Survey No.41/1 and 237/1A2 is concerned, the same was granted. However, the application for grant of rights in respect of the subject land was rejected.

5. A plain reading of the said order indicates that the said order was granted without the consent of respondent No.3. It also indicates that the appellant's father (applicant) had voluntarily stated that he did not claim any rights in which Daivasthana is in existence. The Land Tribunal had accordingly agreed to grant occupancy rights in respect of other lands, except in regard to the subject land.

6. The appellant had made an application after a lapse of almost 43 years for modification of the said order dated 23.09.1980, which was allowed by the Land Tribunal on the premise that the same fell within the scope of rectification of the earlier order dated 23.09.1980. The learned Single Judge faulted the Land Tribunal in entertaining the said application after a lapse of 43 years. The learned Single Judge held that the revenue records have continued in the name of the writ petitioner for 43 years and hence respondent No.3 has passed an order, which is without juris