Babu S/O Siddappa v. The State of Karnataka

NC:(2025:KHC-D:18004-DB( WA(No.(100754(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA,(AT(DHARWAD( THDATED(THIS(THE(11 (DAY(OF(DECEMBER,(2025( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(G(PANDIT( (AND((

(THE(HON'BLE(MRS(JUSTICE(GEETHA(K.B.(

WRIT,APPEAL,NO.100754,OF,2025,(LR),

BETWEEN:((

BABU,S/O,SIDDAPPA,KADAPATTI,, AGE.,60,YEARS,,OCC.,COOLIE,,, R/O,VIJAYANAGAR,,KUNCHANUR,ROAD,,,

JAMAKHANDI,,TQ.,JAMKHANDI,,DIST.,BAGALKOT., (REPRESENTED,THROUGH,HIS,GPA,HOLDER, ANNAPPA,S/O,BABU,KADAPATTI,,,

AGE.,31,YEARS,,, OCC.,ADVOCATE,&,AGRICULTURE,,, R/O,VIJAYANAGAR,,KUCHNUR,ROAD,,

JAMAKHANDI,,TQ.,JAMAKHANDI,,, DIST.,BAGALKOT-587101)., …APPELLANT,

(BY,SRI.,V.M.,SHEELAVANT,,ADVOCATE), , AND:(

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,, VISHAL NINGAPPA REP.,BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,, PATTIHAL Digital ytisignedtiby DEPARTMENT,OF,REVENUE,, VISHAL0NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location:0HIGH0COURT M.S.,BUILDING,,BENGALURU-01., OF0KARNATAKA DHARWAD0BENCH ,

2., THE,LAND,TRIBUNAL,,JAMAKHANDI,, TQ.,JAMAKHANDI,,, DIST.,BAGALKOT-587101., ,

3., KALAPPA,, S/O,SIDDAPPA,KADAPATTI,, AGE.,66,YEARS,,OCC.,AGRICULTURE,, R/O,NEAR,ALAGUR,PLOT,,JAMAKHANDI,, TQ.,JAMAKHANDI,,DIST.,BAGALKOT-587301., , NC:(2025:KHC-D:18004-DB( WA(No.(100754(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

4., CHANNAPPA,, S/O,SIDDAPPA,KADAPATTI,, AGE.,61,YEARS,,OCC.,AGRICULTURE,, R/O,NEAR,ALAGUR,PLOT,,, JAMAKHANDI,,TQ.,JAMAKHANDI,,, DIST.,BAGALKOT-587301., ,

5., THE,TAHASILDAR,,JAMAKHANDI,,, DIST.,BAGALKOT-587301., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,DINESH,M.,KULKARNI,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3,&,R4), , , THIS, WRIT, APPEAL, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 4, OF, KARNATAKA,HIGH,COURT,ACT,,1961,,PRAYING,TO,SET,ASIDE, THE, ORDER, DATED, 29-10-2025, PASSED, BY, THE, LEARNED, SINGLE, JUDGE, IN, WRIT, PETITION, NO.104284/2025, (LR), CONFIRMING, THE, ORDER, DATED, 23/06/2025, PASSED, BY, THE, RESPONDENT,NO.2/LAND,TRIBUNAL,JAMAKHANDI,IN,KLR-1-CR-54/JAMAKHANDI, PRODUCED, AT, ANNEXURE-E,, BY, ALLOWING, THIS,APPEAL,IN,THE,INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY., , THIS, WRIT, APPEAL, COMING, ON, FOR,, PRELIMINARY,HEARING,,THIS,DAY,,JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED, THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, THE,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S,G,PANDIT, ,AND,, ,THE,HON'BLE,MRS,JUSTICE,GEETHA,K.B.,

ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The petitioner/appellant is before this Court under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, aggrieved by an order dated 29.10.2025 in WP No.104284/2025, whereunder, the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the order dated 23.06.2025 passed in No.KLR-1-CR-54/JAMKHANDI, by respondent No.2/Land Tribunal, permitting respondents No.3 and 4 to participate in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner by making an application under the provisions of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 20211.

¶2Heard the learned counsel Sri. V.M. Sheelavant for the appellant, learned AGA for respondents No.1, 2 and 5 as well as learned counsel Sri. Dinesh M Kulkarni for respondents No.3 and 4. Perused the entire writ appeal papers.

1 For short, 'Amendment Act, 2021'

¶3Learned counsel Sri. V.M. Sheelavant for the petitioner/appellant would mainly contend that the petitioner has made an application under the Amendment Act, 2021, within time prescribed therein. He further submits that respondents No.3 and 4 have not filed any application for re-grant within time. Therefore, he submits that respondents No.3 and 4 subsequently cannot implead themselves as applicants in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner by making an application under Order I Rule 10(4) of CPC. It is also submitted that cut-off date for making an application was 31.12.2022, whereas the application under Order I Rule 10(4) of CPC was filed by respondents No.3 and 4 on 23.09.2024. Thus, he submits that the Land Tribunal could not have allowed the application of respondents No.3 and 4 to come on record as applicants before the Land Tribunal. Thus, he submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the contention of the petitioner.

¶4Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Dinesh M Kulkarni for respondents No.3 and submits that respondents No.3 and 4 are the brothers of the petitioner and the father of the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4 was tenant and therefore, he submits that the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition with the observation made therein.

¶5Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to, whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge warrants interference by this Court.

¶6Answer to the above point would be in the "negative" for the following reasons:

¶7The relationship between the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4 is not in dispute. The petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4 are the brothers. The petitioner has made an application for re-grant in terms of

Amendment Act, 2021 within time prescribed therein i.e. on

31.12.2022. Respondents No.3 and 4 have filed an application under Order I Rule 10(4) of CPC seeking to implead themselves as applicants on 23.09.2024. The said application is allowed with the following observation: "F £ÀqÀÄªÉ zÁªÁzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è vÀªÀÄUÀÆ UÉÃtºÀPÀÄÌ dAnAiÀiÁV EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ PÁgÀt vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß CªÀ±ÀåPÀ ¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀgÀ£ÁßV ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ±Á«ÄÃ®Ä ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî¨ÉAPÉA§ÄzÀÄ GzÉÝòvÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀiÁVzÉ. EzÀPÉÌ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ªÁzÀzÀ°è GzÉÝòvÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀgÁVzÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß M¦àzÀÝ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¸ÀĪÀ CA±ÀªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ, vÀªÀÄUÉ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀgÀÄ ºÉÆqɧr ªÀiÁr ºÉÆgÀºÁQzÀÄÝ, vÀªÀÄUÉ ¦vÁæfðvÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥Á®ÄPÉÆqÀzÉà ªÉÆøÀvÀ£À ªÀiÁr ªÀAavÀgÀ£ÁßV¹zÁÝgÉ JA§ ªÁzÀ ªÀÄAr¹ CªÀgÀÄ zÁªÁzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ 40-50 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ªÀiÁr®è vÁªÉà ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀzÁV ºÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæyð¹zÁÝgÉ. ¸ÀzÀjà PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¦vÁæfðvÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ «µÀAiÀĪÀÅ F ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ ¥Àj¢üAiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀ¢®è, CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¦vÁæfðvÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ¨sÁ¢vÀjzÀzÀÝ°è ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¢ªÁt £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÀAqÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ zÁªÁzÀ d«Ää£À°è GzÉÝòvÀ CfðzÁgÀjUÀÆ UÉÃt ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ½ªÉAiÉÄÃ? JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀĪÀzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¥Àj¢üAiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ, ¥Àæ¸ÀPÀÛ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ zÁªÁzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À UÉÃt ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÉÆA¢zÀ CºÀðvÉ/C£ÀºÀðvÉ §UÉÎ, «ZÁgÀuÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è GzÉÝòvÀ CfðzÁgÀjUÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ zÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ CªÀPÁ±À ¤Ãr D°¸ÀĪÀzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ."

¶8The Land Tribunal has made it clear that the eligibility of the applicants would be decided during the course of the proceedings and the Land Tribunal has only permitted respondents No.3 and 4 to come on record as the applicants. Merely allowing them to come on record as the

applicants, would not mean that the Land Tribunal has granted relief to respondents No.3 and 4. As observed by the Land Tribunal, the eligibility or entitlement of the petitioner as well as respondents No.3 and 4 is yet to be decided. Even otherwise, the observation made by the learned Single Judge at paragraph-8 of the impugned order would be very relevant.

¶9In the above circumstances, we find no merit in the writ appeal and accordingly, the writ appeal stands rejected.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration.

Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE JTR Ct:Vp List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31