The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a Land Tribunal order in a decades-old land dispute, holding that earlier proceedings before the Court had been initiated in the name of a person who had already died.
Justice E.S. Indiresh, in an order dated August 31, 2026, also held that the petitioners had failed to disclose the material fact of the landowner’s death and therefore could not seek equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned 4 acres and 21 guntas of land in Sy. No. 38 of Belavadi Village, Srirangapatna Taluk. C. Ningamma had filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights over the property. The Land Tribunal granted those rights to her on November 9, 1981.
The Tribunal’s decision was later challenged before the High Court in W.P. No. 34939 of 1993 in the name of C. Mariyappa, represented through his General Power of Attorney holder. The High Court allowed that petition in 2001 and sent the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.
However, the record before Justice Indiresh showed that Mariyappa had died on August 8, 1988-years before the 2001 writ petition was decided. The Court also noted that Ningamma had not been represented in those proceedings.
Court’s Observation
The High Court found that the earlier writ proceedings had been conducted in the name of a deceased person and that the material fact of his death had not been properly disclosed.
The Court observed:
“It is also significant to note that Respondent No.4 therein, Smt. Ningamma, was not represented in the said proceedings. These circumstances clearly indicate that true material facts were suppressed before this Court and that the proceedings were conducted by misrepresentation.”
The Court further held that, since Mariyappa had died before the earlier writ petition, the 1981 Land Tribunal order had attained finality for practical purposes. It therefore rejected the argument that the petitioners had been denied a fair hearing in the subsequent Tribunal proceedings.
Justice Indiresh relied on Supreme Court decisions including Maulvi Issa Qureshi, Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade and K.D. Sharma, emphasising that parties seeking extraordinary writ relief must disclose all material facts candidly.
Decision
The High Court held that the 2001 order in W.P. No. 34939 of 1993 was a nullity in law because the proceedings had been pursued in the name of a deceased person.
It dismissed W.P. No. 6541 of 2024 and imposed costs of ₹10,000, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, within two months.
