SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 438814

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RAJESH RAI K
SRI. SADASHIVA POOJARY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 57005/2016



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 57005 OF 2016 (LR)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. SADASHIVA POOJARY

S/O LATE KRISHNA POOJARY,

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

2. SRI. RAGHU POOJARY

S/O LATE KRISHNA POOJARY

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

3. SRI. ASHOK POOJARY

S/O LATE KRISHNA POOJARY

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

4. SRI. RAMESH POOJARY

S/O LATE KRISHNA POOJARY

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

Digitally signed 5. SRI. KARUNAKARA POOJARY

by

S/O LATE KRISHNA POOJARY,

SHARADAVANI

B AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

Location: High

ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS

Court of

Karnataka RESIDING THOTADA MANE,

MANIBETTU, MATTAR POST,

SHIRVA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK,

UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 116.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101.

3. SMT. SUDHA HEGDE D/O LATE VITTAL SHETTY &

SMT. RAJEEVI HEGGADATHI , 4. SRI. MOHANDAS HEGDE S/O LATE VITTAL SHETTY & SMT. RAJEEVI HEGGADATHI

5. SMT. PRABHAMANI D/O LATE VITTAL SHETTY & SMT. RAJEEVI HEGGADATHI

6. SMT. POORNA D/O LATE VITTAL SHETTY & SMT. RAJEEVI HEGGADATHI RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 6 ARE ALL MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT ARANTHADI HOUSE, MANIBETTU, MATTAR POST, SHIRVA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 116.

7. SMT. RATHNAVATHI HEGGADATHI W/O LATE SHAMBU SHETTY , AGE MAJOR R/AT SHIVA KRUPA, OPP. AMMANNI RAMANNA SHETTY HALL, UDUPI - 576 101.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA FOR R1 AND R2;

SRI. AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R6;

NOTICE TO R3, R5 AND R7 HELD SUFFICIENT;

R4 - SERVED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.10.1977 PASSED BY R-2 LAND TRIBUNAL IN SO FAR AS NOT GRANTING OCCUPANCY RIGHT ON THE AGRICULTURAL TENANTED LANDS SHOWN IN THE SCHEDULE HEREIN BELOW AT ANNEX-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

In this Writ Petition, the petitioners have sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 25.10.1977 passed by respondent No.2 in No.LRY 91-54-TRI-1429:77-

78, as per Annexure-A.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the mother of the petitioners one Smt.Narsi Poojarthi was an agricultural tenant in respect of certain lands under the predecessor of respondent Nos.3 to 7 i.e., one Smt.Rajeevi Heggadathi on executing a Chalagani Chit dated 23.03.1957. Since she continued in possession of the land, after introduction of Section 48-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the KLR Act') she filed Form No.7 on 18.07.1974 seeking occupancy rights. However, she being an illiterate, mistakenly mentioned the incorrect survey numbers in Form No.7. The landlord conceded for grant of occupancy rights in some of the nanja lands and accordingly, the Tribunal has partly allowed the application on 25.10.1977 in No.LRY 91-54- TRI-1429:77-78 by granting occupancy right in respect of nanja lands. The petitioner's mother challenged the said order for non-granting of occupancy rights on remaining lands, by filing Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.44198/1985. In view of the constitution of the Appellate Authority, the said petition was transferred before the Land Tribunal-Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority has not decided the matter and later, the Appellate Authority was abolished. Instead of filing Civil Petition to transfer the pending appeal to this Court, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. Later, the mother of petitioner filed Form No.7A in respect to the same lands which she was earlier claimed. However, the Authority dismissed the claim on the ground that those lands were punja lands. The said order has not been challenged and attained finality. In the meantime, the petitioner challenged the earlier order in this Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the responde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top