IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 77159 OF 2013 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SAGARA BALARAM AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. S. SHESHAGIRI ACHAR, R/O. KAMPLI TALUK, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI.

… PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, HOSPET, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI.

2. SRI. SIRGUPPI DURGAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, KAMPLI, HOSPET TALUK, DIST: BALLARI.

MANJANNA

3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, E BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-1.

OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.23 11:01:15 … RESPONDENTS +0530 (BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R3;

R2-SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O/DATED 09.03.2016)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE NO.R/LR 245/79-80; QUASH BY ISSUE OF CERTIORARI THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/12/2012 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A THEREBY GRANTING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS TO THE

2^ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the impugned order dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure-A), passed by the Land Tribunal, Hosapet, whereby occupancy rights have been granted in favour of respondent No.2. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State and perused the material on record.

3. Though, the respondent No.2 is served with a notice, he has chosen to remain absent.

4. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy. Nos.678/A, 678/B and 677/B situated at Kampli village, Hosapet Taluk, Bellary District, measuring to an extent of 0.98 acres. Respondent No.2 filed an application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Initially, the land Tribunal granted occupancy right to respondent No.2, the same came to be challenged by the petitioner in WP No.11132/1982, which came to be allowed and remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

5. Upon remand, the Tribunal again granted occupancy rights to the respondent No.2. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority in LRA No.187/1987. On abolition of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed Civil Petition before this Court and pursuant to which, the proceedings before the appellate authorities stood transferred to this Court and treated as WP No.25628/1993. This Court, noticing the discrepancy including observations regarding the Tahasildar certificate and nature of saguvali karar, remanded the matter for fresh enquiry.

6. Pursuant to the remand, the Tribunal reconsidered the matter and by the impugned order dated

18.12.2012 granted occupancy rights to respondent No.2.

Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the lands fell to the share of the petitioner under a family partition dated 12.11.1959, when the petitioner was a minor, represented by his mother. It is contended that alleged tenancy in favour of respondent No.2 by the petitioner’s father is false and untenable. It is submitted that even assuming such a lease existed, the transaction is void, as the petitioner was minor at the relevant time.

8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State submits that the Tribunal has conducted a detailed enquiry and oral and documentary evidence including the evidence of the land lord has been considered and the order passed by the land Tribunal, does not warrant any interference.

9. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged and perused the material evidence.

10. The law under th