Shri Laxmi Ranganath Temple ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3287 Kant

                               :1:


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 DHARWAD BENCH

  DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                            BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

         WRIT PETITION NO.8127/2006 (LR)

BETWEEN:

Shri Laxmi Ranganath Temple, Haliur,
AT Hallur, Tq.: Hirekerur, Dist.: Haveri,
By its Trustees.

(1)   Basavaraj S/o. Fakkeerappa Balegar,
      Age 38 years,

(2)   Basavaraj S/o. Mahadevappa Menasinakayi,
      Age 70 years,

(3)   Jayaprakash S/o. Basavanneppa Malagi,
      Age 38 years,

(4)   Parasappa S/o. Bhimappa Dibballi,
      Age 60 years,

(5)   Revanappa S/o.Govindappa Talavar,
      Age 35 years,

(6)   Manjappa S/o. Kotrappa Madiwalar,
      Age 35 years,

(7)   Shanmukhappa S/o. Hanumanthappa Hadadi,
      Age 30 years,

(8)   Gangappa S/o. Basappa Balludi,
      Age 30 years,
                                 :2:


       All are agriculturist,
       R/o.: Hallur, Tq.: Hirekerur,
       Dist.: Haveri.
                                                       ... Petitioners

(By Shri P.G. Mogali, Advocate)

AND:

(1)    The State of Karnataka,
       By its Secretary,
       Department of Revenue,
       Multi-Storied Building, Bengaluru-1.

(2)    The Land Tribunal, Hirekerur,
       Tq.: Hirekerur, Dist.: Haveri,
       By its Secretary,

(3)    Ranganagouda, Major,
       Age 45 years,

(4)    Gopalagouda,
       Age 42 years,

       Respondent Nos.3 & 4 are sons of
       Late Krishnayya S/o. Venkayya Sumerayar,
       R/o.: Hallur, Tq.: Hirekerur,
       Dist.: Haveri.
                                                  ... Respondents

(By Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, HCGP for R1 & R2;
 Shri Lingesh V.Kattimani for Shri S.G. Kadadakatti,
 Advocate for R3 & R4)


       This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by
respondent No.2, dated 27.11.1981 vide Annexure-E.


       This petition coming on for final hearing, this day, the
Court made the following:
                                 :3:


                               ORDER

The petitioners, a Temple Trust represented by its

Trustees, have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to

quash the order dated 27.11.1981, passed by the respondent

No.2, by which the occupancy right was conferred on the father

of the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. It is stated that the land bearing Sy.No.35/1+2 of

Deshankaranahalli Village, Hirekerur Taluka, measuring 10 acres

12 guntas was endowed to Shri Laxmi Ranganatha Temple and

was shown as "Deva Daya Inam Land" in the revenue records.

The RTC extract for the year 1966-67 showed the name of

Smt.Tulasavva Venkayya Sumerayar as Archak of the Temple

and that she was in possession and cultivation of the aforesaid

land. It also discloses that the manner of cultivation was

"1" indicating that it was cultivated by the Temple itself. The

father of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 was also one of the

Trustees of the Trust that was managing the Temple.

Smt.Tulasavva did not claim any right in respect of the land. On

the contrary, the father of the respondent Nos.3 and 4,

submitted a letter to the Tahasildar, Hirekerur Taluka on

12.12.1978 purportedly on behalf of Smt.Tulasavva contending

that she was in possession of the land and that an order bearing

No.W.T.N.SR.88/78 was issued to her calling her to pay the

premium. He therefore requested the Tahasildar to indicate the

amount of premium that had to be paid for registering

Smt.Tulasavva as an occupant. The Tahasildar without applying

his mind forwarded the same to the Special Tahasildar for Land

Reforms, Hirekerur on 21.12.1978. The application was placed

before the Land Tribunal which recorded the statement of the

father of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 27.11.1981 and passed

an order dated 27.11.1981 conferring occupancy rights upon

Smt.Tulasavva at the behest of the father of the respondent

Nos.3 and 4.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner

has filed this writ petition.

4. It is contended in the writ petition that the petitioner

was not aware of the impugned order till May-2006. It claimed

that another person by name Basappa T. Shinde had sought

occupancy rights in respect of another land belonging to the

Temple, which was rejected and the same was confirmed by this

Court in W.P. No.7815/1996. One of the Trustees of the

petitioner had visited the office of the Tahasildar during May-

2006 in connection with the order passed in W.P. No.7815/1996.

It was at that time, the father of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 was

found in the office of the Tahasildar and was enquiring with a

Clerk and on seeing the Trustee of the petitioner, he abruptly left

the office. Thereafter when the Trustee enquired with the Clerk,

he came to know about the order passed on 27.11.1981 by the

Land Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by

the Land Tribunal is without notice to the petitioner, without

conducting an enquiry as prescribed under Rule 17 of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1961 (for short "the Rule 1961")

and neither Smt.Tulasavva nor the father of the respondent

Nos.3 and 4 had filed prescribed application for grant of

occupancy rights and that the Land Tribunal did not have the

jurisdiction to entertain the application. He also contended that

as on the date when the Land Tribunal passed the order,

Smt.Tulasavva was alive and therefore, the father of the

respondent Nos.3 and 4 had no right to claim occupancy rights.

He further contended that since the land in question was

endowed to the Temple, the Tahsildar of Hirekerur Taluka must

have been arrayed as a party respondent.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the father of the respondent Nos.3

and 4 was the adopted son of Smt.Tulasavva and he was in

possession of the said property as a tenant. Therefore, he was

entitled to seek grant of occupancy rights. However, he

submitted that since Smt.Tulasavva was alive, the occupancy

right was granted in the name of Smt.Tulasavva, which is

evident from the order passed by the Land Tribunal.

7. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted

that the revenue records indicated that the land in question was

cultivated by Smt.Tulasavva and the Land Tribunal has passed

the order in favour of Smt.Tulasavva and therefore, the

impugned order does not call for any interference.

8. The land in question is undisputedly endowed to the

Temple and therefore the provisions of the Mysore (Religious and

Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for Short, "the Act,

1955") was applicable to the facts of this case. Any person

claiming to be an Archak and tenant of such endowed land, had

to establish that he was cultivating such land for at least three

years prior to the date of vesting, by contributing his own

physical labour or that of the members of his family, who were

enjoying the benefits of such land. Such person is also bound

under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 to file an application seeking

grant of occupancy right. If an application is not filed in the

prescribed form, within the period specified the right of such

person to be registered as an occupant would stand

extinguished.

9. In the case on hand, there is no mention of

Smt.Tulasavva filing an application under Section 6-A of the Act,

1955. The Land Tribunal did not implead the Temple as

respondent or the endowment officer namely Tahsildar as

respondent. The Land Tribunal recorded the evidence of the

father of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 27.11.1981 and without

there being any proof that the father of respondent Nos.3 and 4

was in cultivation of the land, mechanically granted occupancy

right. In addition, the entire proceedings seem to be

orchestrated by the father of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and

not by Smt.Tulasavva and the name of the father of the

respondent Nos.3 and 4 was never entered in the revenue

records. Therefore, there is no proof that Smt.Tulasavva had

ever filed an application seeking occupancy right. She also did

not appear before the Tribunal.

10. In that view of the matter, the proceedings before

the Land Tribunal as well as the consequent order dated

27.11.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal does not satisfy the

requirement of law and therefore, the same deserves to be set at

naught.

11. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned

order passed by the Land Tribunal, Hirekerur dated 27.11.1981

is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Tribunal to

consider the following questions:

(a) Whether the application seeking grant of

occupancy right was filed by Smt.Tulasavva or the

father of the respondent Nos.3 and 4?

(b) Whether there was any proof to show that the

father of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 was an Archak

cum tenant of the said lands in question?

(c) Whether the Land in question is a 'Devadaya'

Inam, then whether the Temple and the Tahsildar of

Hirekerur Taluka should be added as respondents?

(d) Whether it has jurisdiction to decide the claim

in the view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of M.B.Ramachandran V.

Gowramma and Others reported in AIR 2005 SC

2671. If it has the jurisdiction then to dispose off

the claim of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in

accordance with the Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Rules, 1974.

(e) If the Temple is impleaded, it shall be given

ample and adequate opportunity to oppose the claim

of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for grant of

occupancy right?

All contentions are left open.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vnp*