Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 32108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
NC: 2026:KHC:30207
WRIT PETITION NO.13811 OF 2016 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. WENCESLAUS MARIAN RODRIGUES
S/O ANSELM RODGIGUES,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
"SAPNA", THOTTAM POST,
TENKANIDIYOOR VILLAGE,
UDUPI-576108.
2. MRS. ROSY RODRIGUES
W/O.LATE LAWRENCE RODRIGUES,
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS.
3. WILMA FERNANDES NEE RODRIGUES
D/O.LATE LAWRENCE RODRIGUES,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
4. MR. OSMOND RODRIGUES
S/O.LATE LAWRENCE RODRIGUES,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
5. THELMA DIAS NEE RODRIGUES
D/O LATE LAWRENCE RODRIGUES,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 5 ARE
R/AT NO.29/43, ADARSH NAGAR
WORLI, MUMBAI-400 025.
6. MS. FLAVIA AROZA NEE CRASTA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
D/O LATE BONIFACE CRASTA AND
LATE LIVINA CRASTA NEE RODRIGUES.
7. LANCELOT CRASTA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O. LATE BONIFACE CRASTA AND
LATE LIVNA CRASTA NEE RODRIGUES,
RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7 ARE
R/AT "MARIASHRAM,
MOODUTHONSE VILLAGE
BEHIND KEMANNU CHURCH,
KEMANNU POST,
UDUPI-576108
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
MR.WENCESLAUS MARIAN RODRIGUES
S/O.ANSELM RODGIGUES,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
"SAPNA", THOTTAM POST,
TENKANIDIYOOR VILLAGE,
UDUPI-576108.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER,
UDUPI TALUK.
2. MR. DONATH RODRIGUES
S/O SIMON RODRIGUES,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT THOTTAM POST,
TENKANIDIYOOR VILLAGE,
UDUPI-576108.
3. MR. RONALD RODRIGUES
S/O.LATE P.D.RODRIGUES,
AGED ABOUT 54YEARS,
R/AT VYSHALI CATERERS,
NO.324/IX/A, 2ND FLOOR,
VYSHALI COMPLEX, SHASTRI CIRCLE,
KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT.
4. UDUPI SRI KANIYUR MUTT
UDUPI,
REPRESENTED BY PONTIFF,
SRI.VIDYAVALABHA THEERTHA SWAMIJI,
5. THE TAHSILDAR
UDUPI TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.J. ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R5;
SRI. YADAVA K., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R3 & R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Rajashekar
For the Respondents: B.J. Eswarappa, Yadava K.
The Land Tribunal cannot arbitrarily reject a previously granted occupancy right based on a settlement between rival claimants if the original grant was valid and the subsequent claim lacks a legal basis under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
Headnote:The petitioners, being legal representatives of the original applicant, challenged an order passed by the Land Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The original applicant had been granted occupancy rights over land in Sy. No. 89/6 via an order dated 26.09.1981, while a rival claim by respondent No. 2 was rejected. Following a remand by the High Court and a subsequent sale of the property to respondent No. 2 by the owner, the Land Tribunal rejected the applications of both parties on 28.10.2011 based on a settlement between rival claimants. The core issue was whether the Land Tribunal could reject a previously confirmed occupancy right based on a subsequent settlement and sale between other parties without proper legal basis. The court reasoned that the Tribunal committed an error by ignoring the initial grant of occupancy rights from 1981 and failed to establish the basis upon which the rival claimant sought occupancy rights as a landlord under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Writ Petition is allowed.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2011 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. IN this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 28.10.2011 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1.
3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition are that the subject land in question bearing Sy.No.89/6 measuring 26 cents including the other land in the remaining Sy. Nos. situated at Tenkanidiyoor Village, Udupi Taluk was under cultivation of one Mrs. Mercina Rodrigues. The petitioners are the legal representatives of said Mercina Rodrigues. It is stated that Mrs. Mercina Rodrigues had made an application in Form-7 seeking occupancy right in respect of the subject land and copy of the same is produced at Annexure-B. The Land Tribunal, after considering the material on record was pleased to grant occupancy rights in respect of the lands mentioned in the order dated 26.09.1981 (Annexure-C). It is further stated that respondent No.2 - the rival claimant had also filed Form-7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of the Sy.No.89/6 measuring 26 cents and the Land Tribunal, by order dated 26.09.1981 (Annexure-D) rejected the application made by respondent No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 preferred W.P.No.29253/1989 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 12.03.1984, allowed the Writ Petition and as such, remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. It appears that respondent No.4 claiming to be the owner of the land in question has executed registered Sale Deed dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure-E), in favour of respondent No.2. In the meanwhile, the Land Tribunal, by its order dated 28.10.2011(Annexure-A), considering the settlement arrived at between respondent Nos.2 and 3, as such, rejected the applications in Form-7 filed by both Smt. Mercina Rodrigues and Sri. Donath Rodrigues. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of Smt. Mercina Rodrigues have presented this Writ Petition, assailing the order at Annexure-A dated 28.10.2011.
3. Heard Sri. S. Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. B.J. Eswarappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 5 and Sri. Yadava K., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
4. Sri. S. Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, argued by referring to the confirmation of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal as per Annexure-C and said order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 26.09.1981 has not been challenged by respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein and therefore, same has reached finality. However, as the rival claim made by respondent No.2 has been rejected by the Land Tribunal and being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 had filed W.P.No.29253/1981 before this Court and this Court remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal. In the interregnum period, respondent No.4 is alleged to have sold the property in favour of respondent No.2 as per the registered sale dated 28.04.2010 and therefore it is contended that, since the application made by the respondent No.2 was rejected on 26.09.1981 which has reached finality and the said aspect of the matter was ignored by the Land Tribunal and accordingly, learned counsel sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri. B.J. Eswarappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 5 sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard on previous occasion by this Court on 11.06.2026. However, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2 and as such, in order to provide an opportunity to the respondent No 2, the matter was ordered to be taken up tod
