A writ petition seeking directions to remove encroachment on 35 acres of Gramathana land was disposed of due to lack of locus standi. The court found the petitioners failed to establish a specific right or interest in the administration of the land or temples.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:43841 WP No. 20845 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20845 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GANAPATHY N BHAT.,ADVOCATE)
NC: 2024:KHC:43841 WP No. 20845 of 2024
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:43841 WP No. 20845 of 2024
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577 431.
NC: 2024:KHC:43841 WP No. 20845 of 2024
R/AT NADAVALLI VILLAGE THYGARTHI POST SAGAR TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577 431.
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577 431.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B J SOMAYAJI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. SPOORTHI V, HCGP FOR R4 TO R7; SRI. MANJUNATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R12 TO R14; NOTICE TO R8 TO R11 SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO 7 TO REMOVE THE ENCROACHMENT ON THE GRAMATANA LAND MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE WITHIN TIME FRAME PERIOD.
NC: 2024:KHC:43841 WP No. 20845 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have sought for directions to the official respondents to remove what the petitioners describe as 'encroachment' of 35 acres of land within the Gramathana of Thygarathi Village and within the limits of Thygarathi Grama Panchayath, Nadavalli Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District. The petitioners, as regards their locus to seek such directions, have stated thus:
"The petitioners submit that, the petitioners are resident of Thygarthi Panchayath Area and they are interested to protect the Gramathana land which is administered by the respondent No.1. In the said Gramathana area panchayath office and there are eight Old temples are in existence i.e., Sree Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Sree Veerabhadraswamy Temple, Sree Suryanarayanaswamy Temple, Sree Siddeshwara Temple, Sree Bhadrakali Temple,
NC: 2024:KHC:43841 WP No. 20845 of 2024
Sree Ugra Narasimhaswamy Temple, Sree Adishakthi Temple and Sree Bhooteshwara Temple and the petitioners and other villagers are devotees of the said temples and they are doing pooja and other activities by appointing priest to conduct poojas and other rituals. The said temple existed in the gramatana land which is existed more than 100 years and the said village is called as Temple Village."
When queried on the petitioners' locus to maintain this writ petition, Sri Ganapathy N Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the assertions as aforesaid, contends that the petitioners' case is that they have necessary locus standi to file the present petition and the petition must be considered in the light of their assertions that [a] they are members of a Trust which oversees some of the Temples mentioned afore [b] their children are studying in certain schools in the village [c] this land measuring 35 acres is reserved, amongst others, for the purposes of construction of a school and community hall.
NC: 2024:KHC:43841 WP No. 20845 of 2024
However, the learned counsel is not able to
assert that the concerned Trust has been given any interest to construct or otherwise maintain these properties. In the absence thereof, this Court cannot infer locus standi in the petitioners to maintain this petition when the settled law is to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless as public-spirited persons, a right is established and it is alleged that such right is infringed.
Hence, the petition stands disposed of subject to all just exceptions, including the petitioners' right to avail their remedy as a public-spirited person.
SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
AN/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners have locus standi to maintain the writ petition for removal of encroachment on Gramathana land.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI B MANJAPPA
SRI H V RAVINDRA
SRI. C SHIVANNA
THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH THYAGARTHI
THE TALUK PANCHAYATH SAGAR TALUK
THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH SHIVAMOGGA
B M SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
