The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a land dispute writ petition and affirmed an original 1981 grant of occupancy rights in favour of a tenant, observing that legal proceedings instituted in the name of a deceased person are a nullity in law and that litigants who suppress material facts cannot claim equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A single-judge bench presided over by Justice E.S. Indiresh dismissed the petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased landlord and directed them to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an application in Form No. 7 filed by one Smt. C. Ningamma seeking occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Survey No. 38 of Belavadi Village, Srirangapatna Taluk, measuring 4 acres and 21 guntas. The landlord of the land was C. Mariyappa. By an order dated November 9, 1981, the Land Tribunal, Srirangapatna, granted occupancy rights in favour of Smt. C. Ningamma.
Challenging the grant, an appeal was preferred in LRRP No. 527 of 1986 before the Appellate Tribunal, which was later renumbered before the High Court as Writ Petition No. 34939 of 1993. On October 4, 2001, the High Court allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Following remand, proceedings were initiated before the Land Tribunal. Ultimately, on March 11, 2023, the Land Tribunal passed an order in LRT 175/1981-82. Aggrieved, the legal representatives of late C. Mariyappa approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 6541 of 2024, seeking to quash the 2023 order.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the entire remand proceedings before the Land Tribunal were conducted behind their back. It was submitted that after the matter was posted for enquiry, it was adjourned to November 2, 2022, for spot inspection, but no sitting took place on that date. Counsel further argued that on March 11, 2023, the order sheet recorded an adjournment to March 15, 2023, yet the final order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing or serving subsequent notices to the legal representatives. On these grounds of violation of natural justice, the petitioners sought interference.
In response, Senior Counsel appearing for private respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and 9 to 11 submitted that Smt. C. Ningamma had rightfully been granted occupancy rights on November 9, 1981. It was pointed out that while C. Mariyappa had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Sri. Badruddin Khan on July 22, 1987, the landlord died on August 8, 1988. Consequently, the agency terminated by operation of law upon his death.
Senior Counsel argued that the writ petition filed in 1993 (W.P. No. 34939 of 1993) and the remand order passed on October 4, 2001—nearly 13 years after Mariyappa’s death—were non-est in law because the proceedings were conducted in the name of a dead person while the tenant went unrepresented. It was further highlighted that when Petitioner No. 1 filed an application before the Land Tribunal on December 20, 2011, to come on record, she deliberately withheld the date of death of C. Mariyappa, stating vaguely that he had died “long ago.” Contending that the petitioners had suppressed material facts, abused the legal process, and approached the court with unclean hands, the respondents sought dismissal with exemplary costs.
The Additional Government Advocate representing the State justified the Land Tribunal’s order and produced the original records.
Court’s Analysis
Upon perusing the records, the High Court noted that the death of C. Mariyappa on August 8, 1988, was established through documentary evidence, yet no satisfactory explanation was provided by the petitioners as to how a writ petition came to be filed before the High Court in his name through a Power of Attorney holder years after his death.
The bench observed that because the landlord had passed away in 1988, the original order dated November 9, 1981, granting occupancy rights to Smt. C. Ningamma had attained finality, as no valid writ petition was instituted in law. The court remarked:
“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. In view of the same, I find considerable force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents, that the order passed by this court remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal is not an order in law.”
The High Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in Maulvi Issa Qureshi v. District Judge, Deoria and others, quoting:
“From the narration of the facts, it is clear that when the suit had come to be filed on behalf of a dead person professing to be alive and the co-plaintiff was impleaded in the suit, it would be obvious that the co-plaintiff played fraud upon the court and misused the judicial process.”
The bench also cited the Supreme Court decision in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra and others, noting that an adjudication rendered in favour of deceased parties amounts to a nullity and does not have the force of law.
Addressing the petitioners’ failure to disclose the exact date of Mariyappa’s death before the Land Tribunal, Justice Indiresh deprecated their conduct, stating:
“Having approached this Court with unclean hands, the petitioners are not entitled to seek equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The court highlighted the principles governing writ jurisdiction laid down by the Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, quoting:
“The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief.”
The bench also cited Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India, reaffirming that a party whose hands are soiled cannot hold a writ of the court.
Decision
The High Court held that because C. Mariyappa died on August 8, 1988, the 2001 remand order was a nullity and all subsequent proceedings before the Land Tribunal were of no legal effect. Consequently, the original order dated November 9, 1981, granting occupancy rights to Smt. C. Ningamma, had attained finality.
Rejecting the petitioners’ contention regarding denial of a fair hearing, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The bench ordered the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, within two months from the date of pronouncement of the order.
Case Title: Sri. C. Mariappa (Since Dead by LRs) v. The Land Tribunal, Srirangapatna Taluk and Others
Case No.: WP No. 6541 of 2024
Bench: Justice E.S. Indiresh
Date: August 31, 2026
