Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1535
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J.
L.S.Narayanappa (Priest By Occupation) Since Deceased By His Lrs – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Revenue Department Bengaluru-560 001 – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.19137 & 29329-29335 OF 2018(LRRES)
Decided on : 26-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI S.M.DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, SRI G.B.MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE
Headnote:
Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 - Section 6A - Authority of Land Tribunal - Name of temple it is Government land - Petitioner brother second petitioner their one more brother third petitioner are said to be Village District - said temple had acres and junta of land in survey District - Said land is subject matter of these writ petitions and earlier litigation - Petitioners herein would state that an application was filed by petitioner and their brother seeking occupancy rights in respect of aforesaid land as of aforesaid temple Section Karnataka Religious and Charitable Abolition Act – Held, Even when said applications were taken up for consideration independently it is seen that neither Tribunal nor Appellate Authority or any of authorities which has looked into this matter has seen title land in noticing whether it vested with Government or with temple - Temple is malaria temple - Land could not have been in name of temple since it is Government land - If it is Government land unless there is an authorization by Government granting cultivation rights in favor of respondent they could not claim that they are tenants of said land - In fact RTC also would support in indicating that though tenancy rights is traceable only from year same is not supported by any order granting tenancy right to respondents - In that view matter this Court would notice that serious error is committed in deciding applications filed by petitioners as well as by respondent - Court would set aside not only order of Deputy Commissioner in proceedings but also judgment KAT in confirming same in its judgment thereby remand this matter back to Deputy Commissioner to reconsider same in background of land being Government land and to ensure whether any authorization was there to respondent to cultivate same on tenant to consider granting occupancy right - Petition disposed
ORDER:
The petitioners herein are the appellants in appeal No.531/2014 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (‘the KAT’ for short), Bengaluru where the order of the second respondent – the Deputy Commissioner in proceedings No.LRF:INM(MLR)8/2006-07 dated 25.02.2014 was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to these writ petitions are as under:
The first petitioner-L.S.Narayanappa, his brother second petitioner L.S.Narasaraju and their one more brother, third petitioner-L.S.Hanumanth Raju are said to be Archaks of Sree Madduramma temple, Lakkur Village and Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District. The said temple had inam of 5 acres and 1 gunta of land in survey No.300 of Lakkur Village, Malur Taluk, Kolar District. The said land is subject matter of these writ petitions and earlier litigation. The petitioners herein would state that an application was filed by petitioner Nos.1, 2 and their brother seeking occupancy rights in respect of aforesaid land as Archaks of aforesaid temple under Section 6A of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short).
3. It is seen that the said application filed on 16.12.1974 was rejected by order dated 19.07.1982 on the ground; that the application which was filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein under Section 6 of the Act is allowed; land has already been granted in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4; as such the application of the petitioners does not survive for consideration was the sum and substance of order dated 19.07.1982 by the Land Tribunal, Malur.
4. The petitioners did not challenge the said order. Instead they challenged the order passed by the Tribunal in granting saguvali chit in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the premise that the said order is erroneous inasmuch as when there is already an application seeking occupancy rights in respect of the same property, the Tribunal ought to have considered both applications together and to pass appropriate orders on the same. In the instant case, since the same not being done, there is an error which calls for redressal in setting aside the order of the Tribunal in granting the occupancy rights in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein and thereafter to take up the applications of the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4 together and to dispose of the said applications on merits.
5. The appeal which was filed by the petitioners herein before the Appellate Authority of the Land Tribunal came to be decided with divergent views, where the judicial member of the Tribunal was in favour of the grounds urged by the petitioners herein whereas other members of the Tribunal were in support of the earlier order which was already passed by the Tribunal in recognising respondent Nos.3 and 4 as tenants. In this background, the Appellate Authority of the Land Tribunal is said to have taken the matter to the Civil Court under Section 116(b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘the KLRA Act’ for short) which is numbered as DLRA.433/1986 on the file of the Civil Judge, KGF, where the learned Civil Judge by an order dated 08.08.1988 accepted the view of the judicial member and rejected the view taken by other members in confirming the occupancy rights made in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4.
6. It is seen that the order of the Civil Judge, KGF in DLRA.433/1986 was the subject matter of challenge before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in LRRP.No.354/1989 where the Coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 07.11.1997 set aside the order dated 08.08.1988 passed by the learned Civil Judge in DLRA.433/1986 and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar for reconsideration. The said remanded matter, which was taken up before the Deputy Commissioner in proceedings No.LRRP(INM)(HNM) 08/2006-07 came to be disposed of by an order dated 25.02.2014 in confirming the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 with reference to survey No.300 of L
