Sri. Siddeswara Swamy Temple v. State of Karnataka
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Sri. Siddeswara Swamy Temple Bhaktha Mandaly, Devanahalli, No.242, Sippings Road, Bangalore—1, represented by it5 Secretary sri .A .D .SiddalI agappa. .. PTITIONER (By Sri A.TCrishna Bhat, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka represented by the secretary to the Department of Revenue, Gov er Ernent of Karnataka, Vidhana Soixth, Bangal ore—i.
The Land Tribunal, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore District.
Sri,5.Siddalah, since dead by L.R5. a) Sri. Appanna Radhya, Sb. Late Siddaiah, aged about 40 years, residing at Devanahalli, Town, Cote Beedi, Devanahalli, Bangal ore District. —2— b) Sri. Malla adhya, late Siddaiah, Sb aged about 60 years, residing at Devanahalli Town, Kote Beed hi, Devanahal ii, Bangalore District. c) Smt. Shanthamma, W/o .Dakhina Murthy, aged about 3 5 years, residing at t)evanahalli Town, Kote Be ed hi, Devanahal ii, Bangal ore District.
Sri. B. Shivanna, late K.N.Gusddaiah, Sb major, Devanahalli Town, DevanahallI, Banga1e District.
Sri. Appajappa, S/o.Muninanjappa, major, residing at Maralubagilu, Devanahalli Town, Bangalore DistrIct.
Sri .M .KrI shnappa, 3/0 late Pachanna Muniswamappa, aged about 48 years, residing at No.30, 18th Cross, Thanappa Garden, sampangiran1anagar, Bgalore—2 7. . . RESPONDENTS (By Smt. Bharathi Nagegh, A for R—l & 2) * k* This Writ Petition is filed uri Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for t1e records of ALRA 542/87 from the file of the ditIonal District Land Reforms Appellate AuthDrity, Bangalore, etc., This Writ Petition is coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the folliiag:— —3— ORDER The petitioner i5 rxt a Muzarai Institution. The temple is run by a ccmmdttee of management elected by the Society registered under the Icarnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The affairs of the management of the temple is bei ag 1 ooked after out of the income derived frcn the property bearing Sy.No. 58 and 65 of Devanahalli kasaba area owned by the petitioner temple.
It is the case of the petitioner that these lands are being cultivated by the temple by hiring the agricultural labourers. The second respondent Land Tribunal ha granted occancy rights in respect of the lands in qastion in favour of the respondents 3 to 5 without giving fair and reanabie opportunity to the petitiotr temple. Therefore, the statutory provisions under Section 48(A) of the !Carnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, read with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules read with Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue t, 1964, is contravened. It is also further stated that the impugned order is not preceded by a proper, legal and valid enquiry required to be condixted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reform5 Act, 1961. ‘zz It is also —4- contended that the second re, ondent Land Tribunal has ro jurisdiction to entertain the applications of the respondents 3 to 5 and passed the impugned order as the claim me by the petitioner under Section 6(A) of the Karnataka Religious & Charitable Inam Abolition Act, 1977, has not come into existence as it was still born enactment.
In g1port of hi submission, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner reoorted in SHRI KT3DLI sRflGE1I SANSTHANN4 vs • STATE OF KARNATAKA (ILR 1992 Kar. 1827). Therefore, he would submit that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is witbout jurisdiction. Hence, It is nullity in the eye of law. Thi8 question need not be considered by this Court a this ciuestion was not raised before the Tribunal, but the impugned order is not sustainable for the following reasons. From the record, it is noticed that fair and reasonable opportunity ha8 not been given to the petitioner, an enquiry contemplated under Section 48(A) of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land R-e.nue Rule5 read with Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 wa rot conducted. In my view, the impugn& order —5— is not sported by valid and cogent reagon, considering the various relevant factors before granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents 3 to 5.
It is also further noticed that the Tribunal has not followed the mandatory procedure laid down under Rule 19 of the T(arnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 as the Tahaslldar on receipt of the applications filed by respondents 3 to 5 shall 8end extracts of the applications to the Tribunal concerned and the Tahasildar shall verify the particulars mentioned in the application with reference to the revenue records including the record of rigits wherever they are prepared and there afterwards public notice and individual notice referred to sub—section (2) of Section 48(A) shall be issued in Form No.8 and 9 respec-. tively, thi9 procedure has not been followed. On this ground also the impugned order is not 8ustainable in law.
2. For the reasons stated above, the imrugned order at Annexure-.A is quashed. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction I the Be WIthj six months from the date of receipt of th15 order after OPPortunity to the PBtltioner an respondents 3 to S on merit8, but no cOsts are
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Registration Act, 1908; Carnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961; Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 — r. 5.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 18 Jun 1998. The bench was V GOPALA GODA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.