we 18192/2007
1
IN THE HIGH. COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22% DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010;
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTECE a.s.pAT1Lf:: 1.: V'
W.P.No.18192/200?"fLR}. '_ V' V'
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Ramaiah,
S/o Halappa,
Aged about 72 years.
2. Sri Hanumanthaiah.
S/0 Halappa, V
Since dead by
(3.) Siddarnma','~.rl I'
W/0, late Haf1Vu4n1elTltl1ai'ali,
Aged3._55'-Yearéfll'-..,,Tll
[bl PLIttamina," _ _ 1
W /V 0 late J ay_aram,
Aged 60 years; y V
. (c}VLak9h1mnya1*ayana,
' _ S/o_la11e Jayarama,
" ._ Aged 23" years,"
_ {:1} Ciaandrae-llekara,
S/0 ~~Jatr:r Jayarama.
.. Aged 25 years.
. l(e}llMaI:1galamn1a.
'SW/0 late Paramesha,
M --fAged 35 years,
[I] Keshavamurthy.
S/0 late Pararnesha,
Aged 19 years,
3, viq'oai";.h}i{¢d.v;
2
{g} '1".Rajar1.
S/0 late Hamzmamhaiah,
Aged 42 years.
[h) Bhagyamma,
W/0 late Krishna.
Aged 33 years.
(i) Narayana, -
W/0 late Hamzmanthaiah,
Aged 35 years,
All are R/at Garden Road,
Maruthi Circle, Tumkur.
{By Sri T.A.!{arumbaiah. Adm)
AND:
1. State of Karna1'ial{a;:-.
Revenue _I)epar1fiier1}.',VV
1\/i.S.Bu:Z1ding",iA D5r:B.F{.A.*n33e.dkar
Barxgalmje, ;rep,b'y A Seyc'1"ejt:arjy.' -
2. The Land "I'i'i4l:)unal';-- S V
Turnkur Taliik, 'l'u.rriE.:ur*._Disirict,
' s /0 :Kaji" Abdiil _¥<ah1m.,
Aged 67"yea1js,f'~""
Nazarbad, Ch_ik'pet,
V 'I'uIIi¥:ur.V\__i' '
" " ~:«'(;3y"'S;iyR.I{zun«1;ar. I-ICGP for R1 8: R2.
S;fi..Ch'anz(1an S.Rao. Adv. for R3}
WP l8l92/2007
. . . RESPONDENTS
. _ This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
{3ei'1stit'u€ior1 of India. praying to quash Ar1nexure--D the order
ad daled 28.11.2006 passed by the R2 and allow the applications
filed by the peiit'.i0ne1*s.
wp E8192/2007
3
This petition Coming on for preliminary hearingAB group
this day. the Court made the following:
ORDER
I. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and the-
Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and a1soV_”‘the:.l.lear11ed”l
Government Pleader submit by referring C1i’Arct_zjla.r,tf1’atV§:p_cl’:’
30012006usualbythesuuethwenhnauthata§theehhfiV,
made by the writ petitioners waslluinder the._pro:tl1sioiisl of the
Karnataka [Religious anfl” lnarns Abolition Act,
1955, it is the Deputy Comlrnissiovnerl, who is having
the power and _i.urisC”_1ictio;n lithe case and the
Tribunal Ejias_ entertain the matter. They
further invite_ the atter:Vtiofi”*o;f”:{he Court to the fact that the
Circular; has been _is”s’1′,1edV’ based on the decision rendered by
7_this .CV’t:sttrt*t”i1~. salt: Kept: SRINGERI MAHA SAMSTHANAM vs
s9i:ai*1t;;- — ILR 1992 KAR 1827 and that of
M.B.RA;i&AcxzA_Nj31§AN vs GO 8: 0125. ~– 11.11 2005 KAR
1, ;- 4.29-.29.
, _pIn”A_v’iew of the submission made by the learned Counsel
..__for the parties and in the light”. of the Circular dated 30.01.2006
placed before this Court. which is issued pursuant to the law
laid down by the Apex Court. I tun of the ttonsiderecl View that.
wp 18192/2007
5
‘i’n’bunal. This is so, because in the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case Of M.B.RAMACHANDRAN VS GOWRAMMA & –
{LR 2005 KAR 2929. at paragraph 9 while interfering
order passed by this Court in the case of SHRI KUDQ
MAHA SAMSTHANAM vs STATE or KAaNAm1m}_}~ 1_i;R-‘:;9s2» A
1827. it is made clear that the dec1ara1£,i0n_A_’n’rade”l;;y
declaring the provisions of the»Ar12endrr1’ent as ” A
invalid shall only be confined tt)_…l:V1%l€.’€’§<ff[,q€11t'\'j'\[t/i1lIl¢£ld€d the
Mysore [Religious and Act, 1955.
This apparently means t.ha;t”tiie:’poWers on the Land
Tribunal by tilde. out as per
Amendrnent Act, V l§T@..AhiaVi1ag”‘beer1 upheld, the jurisdiction as
was vested “‘:yith.V Cornmissioner prior to the
_Vamend”n_1enteA has beenlrestored and therefore, the Land Tribunal
V’?_could_not .il11av_eA”exercised the power and it was the Deputy
Colfnni-issioizeir.”whowas competent to decide the claim.
In Viczfif oi’; the above, 1 do not find any need for further
~ ~ ‘A J,”C18,ufifieation”i.n the order dated 22.11.2010.
Sd/-3
JUDGE