Sri. Rajashekar K v Vs the Deputy Commissioner

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 12.11.2004 PASSED BY R1 AS PER ANNEXURE F AND THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2017 IN APPEAL NO.170/2005 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AS PER ANNEXURE G AND ETC.

¶63

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶64

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶65

6 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:35163 WP No. 9062 of 2021

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

ORAL ORDER

¶69

In this petition, the writ petitioners are assailing the Order dated 12.11.2004 passed by respondent No.1 in LRF INM No.12/98-99 (Annexure-F) and Order dated 13.10.2017 in Appeal No.170/2005 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Annexure-G), inter alia , sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to take over the land in question, on behalf of the State.

¶70

The relevant facts for adjudication of this petition are that, the petitioners claim to be the residents of Kannamangala village, Channapatna taluk, Bangalore South District and they are interested to protect the property of Sri Madhavarayaswamy temple and Basaveshwara Devaru temple. It is also stated that, the land bearing Survey No.133 measuring 6 acres 28 guntas and Sy.No.195 measuring 1 acre 23 guntas of Kannamangala Village was endowed with the above mentioned temples.

¶71

It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2, one Sanjeevaiah and another Mallamma claim to be the Archaks of the temple in question have made an application

¶72

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35163 WP No. 9062 of 2021

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

seeking conferment of the occupancy right in respect of the land in question before the Land Tribunal at Channapatna.

¶75

It is further stated that the father of petitioner No.1 and several other villagers have approached this Court in WP No.2222/1984, WP.No.2055/1984 and WP No.2232/1984 challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy right in favour of the aforementioned Archaks on 16.03.1982 and the said order of conferment of the occupancy right was set aside by this Court by order dated 06.03.1991 (Anneuxre-A) in the aforementioned petition and thereafter, the matter was remitted to the competent authority for considering the material on record. Thereafter, an amendment was made to the Act and as such, the Competent AuthorityDeputy Commissioner Bangalore (Rural), Bengaluru, had got the jurisdiction to, consider the case of the parties and as such, during the pendency of the petition before respondent No.1, one Smt. K. R. Jayanthi, claims to be the daughter-in-law of the original applicant Sri.Sanjeevaiah had filed an application as per Annexure-C to come on record as a legal representative of the deceased Sri.Sanjeevaiah. It is the case of the petitioner that the said application was opposed by the petitioners.

¶76

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35163 WP No. 9062 of 2021

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

However, no order has been passed by the competent authority about the same. It is also stated in the writ petition that the other applicant, Sri.K.T.Srinivas, claims to be the legal representative of Thiruvenkatappa, who claims to be the Archak of the temple in question and in respect of the said claim, it is the case of the petitioners that the said applicant was not cultivating the land prior to 3 years from the date of filing application and therefore, the present writ petition is filed by the Petitioners.

¶79

Sri. M.C.Jayakirthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners refers to the order sheet produced at Annexure-E before the competent authority and submitted that though the application is being filed by Smt. K. R. Jayanthi, claims to be the daughter-in-law of late Sanjeevaiah, however, no order has been passed by the competent authority and therefore, conferment of the occupancy right by the competent authority in favour of Smt. K. R. Jayanthi, is required to be interfered with in this petition.

¶80

Further, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, in respect of the claim made by Sri.K.T.Srinivas and Smt.Devamma, it is contended that the

¶81

9 -

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:35163 WP No. 9062 of 2021

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

said applicants were not in cultivation of the land prior to the vesting of the land during 1970 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, Sri. M.C.Jayakirthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in the case of M.N. SHIVAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA¹ AND LAKKE GOWDA VS. H. VISVESWARA JOIS (DEAD) BY L.RS AND OTHERS.² and contended that, the impugned orders passed by the competent authority, as well as the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal requires to be set aside in this petition.

¶85

Per contra, Sri. G.V.Shashi Kumar, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.10 and 11 submitted that respondent Nos.10 and 11 were the purchasers of the land in question, from the original grantees. Therefore, it is submitted that, since the said respondents are in cultivation of the land in question, the writ petition does not survive for consideration.

¶86

It is further contended that, by referring to the finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at paragraph No.12 and submitted that the application made by the said Smt. K. R. Jayanthi claims to be the daughter-in-law of

¶87

1 ILR 1986 KAR 2472

¶88

2 2008 (6) KLJ 710

¶89

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:35163 WP No. 9062 of 2021

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

Sanjeevaiah has been accepted and the entire proceedings have been conducted before the competent authority, the application has been accepted and therefore, no interference is called for, in this petition.

¶92

Insofar as the other applicant/Sri.K.T.Srinivas is concerned, Sri. G.V.Shashi Kumar, learned counsel submitted that the RTC Extracts, from the year 1968 onwards stands in the name of the original applicants. Therefore, same has to be considered by this court.

¶93

Smt. Sharada H.V, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 produced the original records.

¶94

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and careful consideration of the impugned order passed by the competent authority at Annexure-F, and also looking into the order sheet produced at Annexure-E would indicate that one Smt. K. R. Jayanthi, wife of late Sri.Rajagopal, had filed an application stating that she is the daughter-in-law of the original applicant Sri.Sanjeevaiah and the said application was opposed by the petitioners herein. However, there were no orders passed by the competent authority and therefore, in respect of the claim made by the

¶95

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:35163 WP No. 9062 of 2021

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

respondents in respect of the Smt. K. R. Jayanthi is concerned,

¶98

I am of the view that the impugned orders at Annexure-F passed by respondent No.1 and Annexure-G passed by the KAT requires to be set aside.

¶99

In respect of the application made by the K.T.Srinivas is concerned, the grievance of the petitioners is that the said K.T.Srinivas was not being an applicant, was not cultivating the land prior to 3 years from the date of vesting is concerned, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶100

In this regard, Section 6A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, makes it clear that the applicant has to establish his possession and cultivation of the land in question prior to 3 years from the vesting of the land with the State Government. In that view of the matter, looking into the original records, I am of the view that the finding recorded by both the authorities requires to be set aside and the matter has to be re-agitated before respondent No.1 to reconsider the issue afresh after affording the opportunity of hearing to all the parties are concerned.

¶101

12 -

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:35163 WP No. 9062 of 2021

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

It is also open for the parties to place any relevant

¶105

material before the competent authority to establish their right over the land in question. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

¶106

ORDER

¶107

(i) Writ petition is allowed .

¶108

(ii) Order dated 12.11.2004 in LRF INM No.12/9899 (Annexure-F) and Order dated 13.10.2017 in Appeal No.170/2005 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Annexure G) are accordingly set aside.

¶109

(iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 to reconsider the issue afresh and after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, take decision in the matter in accordance with law.

¶110

(iv) It is also made clear that since the land in question has been sold in favour of the respondent Nos.10 and 11 by the original grantees and as the matter is being remitted to

¶111

13 -

¶112

NC: 2026:KHC:35163 WP No. 9062 of 2021

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

respondent Nos.1 for fresh consideration, till the conclusion of the proceedings before respondent No.1, the possession of respondent Nos.10 and 11 in respect of the subject land is to be protected. However, respondent Nos.10 and 11 are restrained from changing the nature of the land as on today.

¶115

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶116

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Sri. Rajashekar K v. Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rajashekar K v. Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dayananda Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M. Huchharayappa Vs the Land Tribunal

Sri. S Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Ramijabi Vs State of Karnataka

Ghousia Khannum Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Y Narayana Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka