Dismissed

Sri Naganna S v. the Land Tribunal

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023WP/2356/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order granting temple land occupancy rights to priests was dismissed. The court held that an unexplained delay of over 40 years rendered the petition liable to be dismissed on the grounds of latches, irrespective of a recent proposed sale by the occupants.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of and dismissed on the ground of delay and latches without detailed examination of the underlying dispute.

Sri Naganna S Vs the Land Tribunal — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 2356 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2356 OF 2023 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NAGANNA. S., S/O. LATE SANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED

¶8

SMT. YOGAMMA, W/O S. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. BASAVARAJU, S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O BACHANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶10

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

B. G. PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA -571 463.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. RAJA L., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MALAVALLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA -571 401.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 2356 of 2023

¶18

THE ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER, 2^ND AND 3^RD FLOORS, MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN, VENKATA RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU -560 018.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA -571 401.

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR, MALAVALLI TALUK, MALAVALLI, MANDYA -571 430.

¶21

SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA, S/O. LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶22

SRI. BASAVARAJU, S/O. LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶23

SRI PUTTASWAMY, S/O. LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SL.NO.5 TO 7 MARE RESIDENTS OF BACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, B.G. PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA -571 463.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)

¶26

¶27

WP No. 2356 of 2023

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/09/1981 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO.941/1981-82 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶32

Though the matter is listed for preliminary

¶33

hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶34

Heard Sri. Raja.L., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. V.Seshu, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶35

The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 28.09.1981 passed by respondent No.1-The Land Tribunal, Malavalli granting occupancy right to respondent Nos.5 to 7 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.41, measuring 1.17 acres; Sy.No.107

¶36

¶37

WP No. 2356 of 2023

¶38

measuring 8.31 acres; Sy.No.43 measuring 3.31 acres and Sy.No.99 measuring 1.13 acres of Bachanahalli Village, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent Nos.5 to 7 were archakas of temple Basaveshwara Devaru of Bachanahalli Village, Malavalli Taluk. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 were cultivating the temple land and on their application, the Tribunal granted occupancy right. He further submitted that respondent Nos.5 to 7 under Annexure-E, sale agreement dated 05.01.2022 are proposing to sell the granted land. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court questioning the occupancy right granted under impugned order at Annexure-K dated 28.09.1981. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Temple land shall not be sold and only priest could cultivate the land of the Temple for livelihood.

¶40

The petitioners are before this Court after more than 40 years from the date of grant of occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7. There is no explanation to

¶41

¶42

WP No. 2356 of 2023

¶43

the delay in challenging the occupancy right granted to respondent Nos.5 to 7. The only explanation by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to delay is execution of sale agreement dated 05.01.2022 by respondent Nos.5 to 7. Sale agreement entered into by respondent Nos.5 to 7 is in the year 2022. That cannot be a reason to condone the delay of more than 40 years. The delay between 1981 to 2022 is not explained. The petition suffers from delay and latches. Only on the ground of delay and latches, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to challenge if sale takes place in pursuance to the agreement to sale before appropriate forum.

¶44

With the above, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

SMJ

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri Naganna S v. the Land Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Naganna S v. the Land Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri L a Lingaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kenchaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr K Venkatagiri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K P Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh H Vs the State of Karnataka

M Nanjaiah Vs the Tahasildar