Attempt To Gain At Cost Of Family Members: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions In Land Dispute With ₹1 Lakh Costs Each
The High Court held that the petitioners had instituted multiple proceedings against their own family members by placing false and forged documents to unlawfully gain property, and that such conduct amounted to fraud on both the respondents and the Court, warranting dismissal of the writ petitions with exemplary costs.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by members of the same family, holding that the petitioners had attempted to unlawfully secure rights over properties belonging to their relatives by resorting to false claims, forged documents and prolonged litigation.
The Court was hearing multiple writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Land Tribunal, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, and the Civil Court, by which claims for the grant of land under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and interlocutory applications in connected civil suits had been rejected.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Rai K, while stating that the “conduct of the petitioners has to be deprecated as they not only dragged the contesting respondents before this Court by filing multiple frivolous litigations, but also wasted the precious time of the Courts”, further held that “the said conduct of the petitioners has to be dealt with iron hands by imposing costs. Hence, writ petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs 1,00,000/- each payable by the petitioners”.
Background
The disputes arose from competing claims over several agricultural lands. The petitioners, who were related to the respondents by blood and marriage, claimed occupancy rights by filing Form No.7A under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, asserting tenancy and cultivation since the early 1970s.
These claims were rejected by the Land Tribunal on the ground that the petitioners failed to establish any landlord-tenant relationship, actual cultivation, or vesting of land with the State. The Tribunal’s orders were upheld by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, and review petitions were also dismissed.
Parallel civil suits were instituted by family members asserting ownership based on registered wills, sale deeds, and inheritance. During the pendency of those suits, the petitioners filed multiple interlocutory applications seeking framing of additional issues and stay of proceedings, which were also rejected by the Trial Court, leading to the present writ petitions.
Court’s Observations
The Karnataka High Court examined the factual matrix in detail and found that the petitioners’ claims were inherently contradictory and unsupported by credible evidence. It noted that one petitioner had claimed cultivation since 1972 despite being only six years old at the relevant time, rendering the assertion inherently implausible.
In respect of another claim, the Court observed that the alleged landlord was a close family member, which negated the very existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Court held that tenancy cannot arise between family members in such circumstances merely based on self-serving documents.
The Court further noted that the enquiry under Rule 26(c) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules is a limited enquiry confined to verifying whether statutory conditions under Section 77A are satisfied, and not a full-fledged adjudication akin to proceedings under Section 48A of the Act. It held that the Authorised Officer had followed the correct procedure and that no violation of natural justice was made out.
The Court also took note of the findings of the Truth Lab report relied upon by the Appellate Tribunal, which indicated that the alleged geni chits were forged. It was observed that the petitioners had taken mutually destructive pleas by claiming tenancy in Form No.7A while asserting adverse possession in civil proceedings, further undermining their credibility.
Referring to settled law on fraud, the Court reiterated that judicial proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud, and that litigants who attempt to mislead the Court cannot seek equitable relief.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the petitioners had filed Form No.7A applications and pursued multiple rounds of litigation solely for unlawful gain by perpetrating fraud on their own family members. It found that the claims were false, unsupported by records, and intended to knock off self-acquired and inherited properties of the respondents.
Observing that the petitioners had dragged the dispute for decades and wasted valuable judicial time through frivolous proceedings, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions.
The Court imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 each on the petitioners, directing that the amount be paid to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within one month, failing which the Registry was directed to take necessary action
Sri Thingale Vikramarjuna Hegde v. Smt. Manorama S. Shetty & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:53722)
Appearances
Petitioners: Senior Advocate D R Ravishankar
Respondents: Advocates Vaishali Hegde, Nishanth S, Rahul Cariappa KS, AGA
