1 \'\='.}-'.34(177/()9
N THE HFGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALOFNE'~:.f'[j--_:"w.
DATED THIS THE 24"' DAY 0:: NOVEMBER 2.:}:C:--9 V
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTFCE H.N.N:AQGA_r_v10HAr¢
WRET PETFTION NO: 245%/"2009 (K'LE3%-R.R/SF§A)A"':._:'""~
SETWEEN:
SR! P SRFNFVAS
s/0 LATE PELLAPPA, V ,
AGED A3001' 82 YEARS;'» --
sEcRETARY;xA} , ;.f a"=b,_j
SRF. VENUG-QF%£§LSVV.AAflY':.SE\/A ax/:,AND'A'Lz(TRusT)
R/OF ;<oNc3Ar\-*A'HA'a___L vs.;L;-q,AG__E,w. KAFWARA HOBLF,
CHlNTHAM.ANI T_ALu;<,~cH.n<.KA'BAgLAPuR DISTRICT T.
PETETIONER
(By says A sF'z"r:7".'/{)9
5 THE DEPUTY THASILDAR,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK.
CHINTHAMANI.
6 AS. RAMAKRISHNAACHAR,
S/O SHESHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O KAIWAPIA, CHINTHAMANE TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
BANGALORE W 560 050
7 A. KRISHNAMACHAR,
S/O RAMACHAR,
MAJOR IN AGE, =
R/O KAIWARA, CHINTI-IAI\IIANwI_.__.ALUI<i_
CHIKKABALLAPUR D.I'ST.RICT. '
BANGALORE -- 560 050- ~ - -.
';;AA.F.E'EA'SF'ONDENTS
(By 8mt.A_.D'.Viv.lAV'I.?-T, A F{')V»E%--_Vl'3Ht T-ORE; &
SI»I.T.RA.{A RA'M';_'A_;N{, I+QR_R6___& RI')
TRIS WRIT PERTION FTI_ED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OPTHE':'CONSTITUTIO'N"OE INDIA PRAYING CALL FOR THE
R'EC"O«RDS::j:'AI,ND'T'VTIPROCEEDS OF THE CASE TI-IIS HONBLE
A COUR"Ij4"ASEV.P'LE.IA2SED TO EXCISE ITS JURISDICTION UNDER
.A.fl';;I..AR,TICI.E 122$?-AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ETC.
" TRIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
.1.R.EAR'I'N'G IN '£3' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
A FOLLOWING:v
QLRIKIIW/K
3 \.\E_ i'. 1-i(i77f{l')
ORDER
in this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for”a__:wtrit=i.nV”these 2
nature of certioraré to quash the order passed “my. the 4′? respondent
on 20.09.2001 as per Annexure –~ J, theilorderiiidated
passed by the 3′” respondent as 5 ‘order
dated 02.07.2009 passed by ,.–the 1S’A;re’sV;o.ondenyt as pet*v._Ana§exure —
2. The s.ubjec.t_ is 6 Acres 06
Guntas of land Neytr__S–y_.N;.)’.if1V3 s_ituated at Konganahatti
Viltage, Chinth_arnani_-Iaiiuis, –Fj3:hi«E'<v§__<aba'!tapura District. The original
owners of th'e__ta'nd inyouestiioéri-.S"r'i«.Doddamunéyappa and his family
gifted thesame favour'of.Sré.\ienugopaia Swamy Tempte under a
r'egiste"tbrgd gift deed on i2f0'ti.1928. The registered gift deed though
in _theV'natT1e"oJfi i'\reha_'t.< Late Narayanachar, the gift was in favour of
2 the temple. fteitjntpiithe date of gift in the year 1926, till 1997. the
iii"'.,..i<'h.atha oi 'thefliand in question was in the name of the temple. For
.A__ti::e' tirst"~«_time in the year 1997, the legai representatives of the
V"-..__"o'rigiVr?a¥ Archak Narayanachar approached the 3" respondent
u"T.ahsHdar for transfer of the khatha of the land in question to their
.7'"'~""""
5 w. [‘.2–L(i77/()0
4. it is not in dispute that in the registered gift deed dated
12.01.1926, the land in question was donated for the purpos»e:’of_
Conducting religious functions of Srivenogopala Swamy__fi'”e’rn–pi_~e’.: _
is further stated in the gift deed at Annexure — A of”
the temple Narayanachar shall continue inIposs,ession_ ‘oerfor’mi’ngg_
till 1997, the khatha of the land in wasV’ir:_th’e-Vnarne of the
temple. It is for the first tirriefiin th_ef”treVarr1:.’.i E1}\§’?_,g.resp–ovn’deVnts No.6
and 7 claiming to be the legal irepresenta:~i.\res.’.:’of_”original Archak
made a claim for transfer ofigiheg l~<.vl'xwA¢gitlia'"otj'~.the_"lands in Question to
their name,.~The.,réS;p'on'd§ea*1ts"–tiirithou'tc'onsi'dering the contents of the
registered deed and the earlier revenue entries
in the name olfgthett te'rr1_pVie._cor;rf'mitted an error in transferring the
khatha.» lands' i'n–.qu_est.ion in favour of respondents No.8 & 7.
A'*Tvh»ere'f-o_re, _Ivl1€.'lfT]:F)'U.g'fled order passed by the respondents are liable
to AVquashe:d'_"_and~i,t'hVe khatha of the lands in question is required to
be §esto'red"-toltitel name of the temple as it was prior to 1997.
it Further; it is seen from the record, the father of the 6"'
___'r'espondent Sheshacha; claiming to be the tenant in respect of the
in oguestion filed Form No?' before the Land Tribunal at
glxxt–'Jk
pooia in the temple. Further, it is not in dispotethat right 1192.81
6 \&'.l'.34fi77/ll')
Chinthamani Taluk for grant of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal
vide order dated 28.01.1982 as per Annexure — D rejected the claim
of Sheshachar and directed to enter the name of the temple and__the
Tahsitdar as §<hathedars in respect of the lands in question"..:'¥h§'s.vv
order of the Land Tribunal had become final. The
without considering the order of the i_ar%_d….Tribuna'l"'comi'nittetdv"an
error in entering the name of respondents N._o.€=_f& as..l_<hattied'a:rt3__o'ii;_*
the land in question. On this ground also, the._%'rr.pugr':e'd crdyers
liable to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel ‘T t_o’r .:’petitio’ner” contends that,
respondents N_o,AGA’3.’._–7 _a_r3e.pnctjcolnducting the pooja of the temple in
question and’theyarew.not–..i’n pos_ses’sion of the lands in question. On
the other .,hand.’4″iearried counsel for the respondents No.6 & 7
icontends:’that right tromthieivbeginning, they are doing weekly pooja
oi’they..te’mpl’e.Lirtaaqueistion and even today, they are continuing and
theyiliaye dasthak from the Mujrahi Department. 1 do not
i’–.._propose to _gc’;= into these disputed facts. However, the parties are at
tojwork out their remedy in accordance with law.
V 7. For the reasons stated above, the following:
0\;\…,sk..
7 \v. §>. 24077/0.1
ORQER
i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.
Fl) The impugned orders passed by the 4″‘
20.09.2001 as per Annexu:’e”m–“”J__the
21.00.2004 passed by thebitsrditjexspcndent.35it
Annexure M M and theVorde~~:_pdated 02;0:{.2_00s:{‘p’s’assfed
by the TS’ respondent asp-pierhiéxnnoxore QN;-.areVEhereby
quashed.
ill) The responhdentgs are”heree.y’:.’directed to restore the
khe1:th’a§_..ofAV -.ijeind_s in question in the name of
A’€3ri _\/en ugoipsita bSW_E:i.n1y”Temp|e.
‘ ” Qrdevredi§§iC0ord’i’ng|i/.
Sd/~
JUDGE