Dismissed¶60

Sri Basavanna v. the State of Karnataka

Writ Petition (KLR-RES) – Mandamus – RTC entry of temple deities' names

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2025WP/22878/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple deities' names in RTC; writ of mandamus; locus standi of persons claiming to be temple deities; Karnataka Land Tribunal/Land Reforms Tribunal occupancy rights; Mysuru (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, Form No. 7; Annexure-D order dated 05.01.1981 granting occupancy rights to legal heirs of Thammadi Madappa; representation dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure-F); absolute property of private respondents; writ petition dismissed; Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India; Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum.

What did the court decide?

Upon review of the records and in view of the admission in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the occupancy rights were lawfully granted by the competent Land Tribunal in favour of the private respondents. ¶56

Sri Basavanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos.1 to 3 are obliged to entertain and act upon the petitioners' representation dated 25.06.2024 seeking that action be taken to reflect the names of the temple deities in the RTC, having regard to the occupancy rights already granted by the Land Tribunal to private respondent Nos.4 to 7. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

¶56

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners, who claim to be deities of the Temple, have no locus standi to challenge or seek redressal in respect of the occupancy rights granted to the private respondents.

¶56

Key takeaways

The authorities are under no obligation to entertain or consider the petitioners' representations.ratio¶56
The land in question stands established as the absolute property of the private respondents by virtue of the occupancy rights granted by the competent Land Tribunal.ratio¶59
The grievances raised by the petitioners lack merit, and no interference or indulgence is warranted by this Court.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (KLR-RES) — Mandamus — RTC entry of temple deities' names — Petitioners claiming to be deities of a temple sought a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider their representation dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure-F) and reflect the deities' names in the RTC. HELD: The original applicant Thammadi Madappa had filed Form No. 7 under the Mysuru (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act; he died during the pendency of the enquiry, and by order dated 05.01.1981 (Annexure-D) the Land Reforms Tribunal granted occupancy rights to his legal heirs, the private respondent Nos.4 to 7 — a factual matrix expressly admitted in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. In view of this admission, the occupancy rights were lawfully granted by the competent Land Tribunal in favour of the private respondents; the petitioners, claiming to be deities of the Temple, have no locus standi to challenge or seek redressal; the authorities are under no obligation to entertain their representations; and the land stands established as the absolute property of the private respondents. The petitioners' grievances lacked merit and no interference was warranted; the writ petition was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1272 WP No. 22878 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 22878 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.BASAVANNA

¶9

S/O SHAMBULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD

¶10

KIRALU, VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU KARNATAKA - 571311

¶11

2. SRI.SHASHIDHAR

¶12

S/O CHIKKA SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 110/B, LINGAYATH BEEDI KIRALU, MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 571311

¶13

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI K.M.GURUSWAMY S/O MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OLD R/AT NO.83, KIRALU, MYSURU KARNATAKA - 571311

¶15

SRI.MALAGAPPA S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS VARUNA HOBLI, KIRALU AYYARAHALLI, MYSURU KARNATAKA - 571311

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:1272 WP No. 22878 of 2024

¶18

SRI.CHINNASWAMY S/O LATE MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OLD R/AT LINGAYAT BEEDI KIRALU, AYYARAHALLI MYSURU KARNATAKA - 571311.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. ROHITH SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIKAS SOUDHA

¶23

BANGALORE - 560001

¶24

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MYSORE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION GIRI BHOVI PALAYA - 570011

¶25

THE TAHSILDAR MYSORE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION GIRI BHOVI PALAYA - 570011

¶26

SRI.SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE L MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OLD R/AT KIRALU VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU KARNATAKA - 571311

¶27

SRI.PRASAD S/O LATE L MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OLD R/AT KIRALU VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU KARNATAKA - 571311

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:1272 WP No. 22878 of 2024

¶30

SRI N VIJAY S/O LATE SHAMBULINGAPPA MAJOR R/AT KIRALU VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU KARNATAKA - 571311

¶31

SMT.S.MANJULA D/O LATE SHAMBULINGAPPA MAJOR R/AT KIRALU VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU KARNATAKA - 571311

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.3)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO 3 TO PASS ORDERS TO THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS AT ANNX-F DTD 25.06.2024 TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE TEMPLE DIETIES AS MENTIONED AND ETC.

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

In the captioned writ petition, the petitioners are

¶39

seeking mandamus against respondent Nos.1 to 3 to

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:1272 WP No. 22878 of 2024

¶42

consider the representation dated 25.06.2024 and

¶43

take action and reflect the name of the temple deities in the RTC.

¶44

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned HCGP.

¶45

3. Learned HCGP referring to the Land Tribunal Order evidenced at Annexure-D has brought to the notice of this Court that the Land Tribunal has already confirmed occupancy rights on the private respondent Nos.4 to 7.

¶46

4. Upon a meticulous review of the records, it is evident that the original applicant, Thammadi Madappa, had filed Form No. 7 under the provisions of the Mysuru (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act. During the pendency of the enquiry, the original applicant passed away. Consequently, the occupancy rights were confirmed in favor of the legal heirs of

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1272 WP No. 22878 of 2024

¶48

Thammadi Madappa. This factual matrix is not disputed and is explicitly admitted by the petitioners themselves, as reflected in paragraph 5 of their writ petition. To provide clarity, the relevant portion of

¶49

paragraph 5 is extracted below:

¶50

"5. The petitioners submit that based on the application filed by the late Thammadi Madappa under Mysuru (Religious and Charitable) Inams, the Land Reforms Tribunal vide its order dated 05.01.1981 has in its decision held that the applicant, who made the application under the said act, has died and his legal heirs one L.Madappa and Shambulingappa, the grandchildren of the applicant are in possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, the occupancy rights were granted under the act. The said document is produced as Annexure-D."

¶51

5. The petitioners admit that based on the

¶52

application filed by the late Thammadi Madappa under

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:1272 WP No. 22878 of 2024

¶55

Mysuru (Religious and Charitable) Inams, the Land Reforms Tribunal, vide its order dated 05.01.1981, has in its decision held that the applicant, who made the application under the said Act, has died, and his legal heirs, one L. Madappa and Shambulingappa, the grandchildren of the applicant, are in possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, the occupancy rights were granted under the Act. The said document is produced as Annexure-D.

¶56

6. In view of the unequivocal admission in the pleadings of the writ petition, it becomes apparent that the occupancy rights were lawfully granted by the competent Land Tribunal in favor of the private respondents. The petitioners, who claim to be deities of the Temple, have no locus standi to challenge or seek redressal in this regard. Furthermore, the authorities are under no obligation to entertain or consider the petitioners' representations since the land

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:1272 WP No. 22878 of 2024

¶59

in question has been established as the absolute property of the private respondents by virtue of the occupancy rights granted by the competent Land Tribunal. Therefore, the grievances raised by the petitioners lack merit, and no interference or indulgence is warranted by this Court.

¶60

The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶61

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶62

NBM

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri Basavanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Basavanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Microland Limited Vs K M Lakshmaiah Reddy

Mrs. Veda Pradha Vs M/S Jabm Onesource Private Limited

Basappa S Vs the Principal Secretary

Smt Sukhaveniyamma Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Y C Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Sarojini Shedthi Vs State of Karnataka