RANGANAGOUDA S/O LATE KRISHNAYYA S/O VENKAYYA SUMERAYAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

- 1 -

WA No. 100162 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100162 OF 2022 (LR-)
BETWEEN:

1.
RANGANAGOUDA S/O LATE KRISHNAYYA S/O
VENKAYYA SUMERAYAR
AGE: 60 YEARS,
R/O. HALLUR-581210
TALUK HIREKERUR
NOW RATTIHALLI,
DIST HAVERI

2.
GOPALAGOUDA S/O LATE KRISHNAYYA S/O
VENKAYYA SUMERAYAR
AGE: 57 YEARS,
R/O. HALLUR-581210
TALUK HIREKERUR
NOW RATTIHALLI, DIST HAVERI
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S G KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING,

CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
Date: 2023.02.22
11:39:51 +0530
- 2 -

WA No. 100162 of 2022

BENGALURU-560001

2.
THE LAND TRIBUNAL
HIREKERUR, TQ HIREKERUR
NOW RATTIHALLI, DIST HAVERI,
BY ITS SECRETARY

SHRI LAXMI RANGANATH TEMPLE HALLUR
AT. HALLUR TQ HIREKERUR
NOW RATTIHALLI, DT HAVERI
BY ITS TRUSTEES

3.
BASAVARAJ S/O FAKEERAPPA BALEGARA
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O HALLUR,
TALUK HIREKERUR-581210
NOW RATTIHALLI, DIST HAVERI

4.
BASAVARAJ S/O MAHADEVAPPA MENASINAKAYI
AGE. 85 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O HALLUR,
TALUK HIREKERUR-581210
NOW RATTIHALLI, DIST HAVERI

5.
JAYAPRAKASH S/O BASAVANNEPPA MALAGI
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O HALLUR TALUK HIREKERUR-581210
NOW RAYTTIHALLI,
DIST HAVERI

6.
PARASAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA DIBBULLI
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O HALLUR, TALUK HIREKERUR-581210
NOW RATTIHALLI, DIST HAVERI

7.
REVANAPPA S/O GOVINDAPPA TALAVAR
- 3 -

WA No. 100162 of 2022

AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O HALLUR, TALUK HIREKERUR-581210
NOW RATTIHALLI, DIST HAVERI

8.
HANJAPPA S/O KOTRAPPA MADIVALAR
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O HALLUR, TALUK HIREKERUR-581210
DIST HAVERI

9.
SHANMUKHAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA HADADI
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O HALLUR,
TALUK HIREKERUR-581210
NOW RATTIHALLI, DIST HAVERI

10. GANGAPPA S/O BASAPPA BALLUDI
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O HALLUR TALUK HIREKERUR
NOW RATTIHALLI, DIST HAVERI
…RESPONDENTS
(SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON BLE COURT TO, SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.8127/2006 AND TO
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 3 TO
10 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
- 4 -

WA No. 100162 of 2022

The captioned appeal is filed by the landlords

questioning the order of the Land Tribunal dated

27.11.1981, conferring occupancy rights in favour of the

respondent Nos.3 and 4.

Learned Single Judge referring to the material

on record, found that the land in question is ‘Devadaya

Inam Land’. On examining the material on record, the

learned Single Judge has found that the respondent Nos.3

and 4 filed an application under Section 6A of the Mysore

(Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, (for

short ‘the Act’) without impleading the Temple as a

respondent. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of

the view that, the Land Tribunal has conferred the

occupancy rights without impleading either holder or

landlord of the land in question. The learned Single Judge

therefore, held that, the order under challenge passed by

the Land Tribunal conferring the occupancy rights does not

satisfy the mandatory requirements of law. Consequently,

- 5 -

the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal was set

aside and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

Perused the order under challenge.

On going through the order under challenge we

would find that, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed an

application under Section 6A of the Act seeking grant of

occupancy rights. Admittedly, the appellants herein are

claiming to be the Archaks and tenants of endowed land. If

the holder of the Office who is necessary party was not

impleaded in the proceedings, the grant of endowed land

without impleading the Temple as the respondent is not

sustainable and therefore, the learned Single Judge was

justified in setting aside the order. The order of the

learned Single Judge remanding the matter for fresh

enquiry after notifying

the necessary

party,

is in

accordance with law.

- 6 -

We are unable to understand as to how the

appellants can have as the order conferring occupancy

rights is passed in violation of principles of natural justice

and therefore not sustainable. If learned Single Judge

found that entire proceedings before the Land Tribunal

stands vitiated on account of grant of occupancy rights by

violating the mandatory procedure contemplated under

the Act, the order under challenge is in accordance with

law. We do not find any infirmities in the order passed by

the learned Single Judge. The appeal being devoid of

merits, stands dismissed.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

svh

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Click Here to Read the rest of this document