Karnataka High Court
Sri. Siddaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9920
WP No. 7514 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 7514 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SIDDAIAH,
S/O LATE JAVARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT CHANNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 107.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.D. PANCHAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REVENUE SECRETARY,
Digitally signed
by JUANITA VIDHANA SOUDHA,
THEJESWINI BANGALORE - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSORE - 570 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HUNSURU DIVISION,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9920
WP No. 7514 of 2024
4. THE TAHASILDAR AND MEMBER
OF THE SECRETARY FOR UNAUTHORIZED
CULTIVATION AND REGULAR COMMITTEE,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 107.
5. SRI. RAMACHANDRAIAH,
S/O KARIYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
6. SRI. CHANDREGOWDA,
S/O ANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
7. SRI. MAHADEVA,
S/O NARASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
8. SRI. RAMAIAH,
S/O LAT HONNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
9. SRI. RANGASWAMY,
S/O LATE KARIYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
10. SRI. KUMAR,
S/O LATE CHALUVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
11. SRI. PRAKASH,
S/O HONNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
12. SRI. C.R. CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9920
WP No. 7514 of 2024
13. SRI. SHIVANNA,
S/O LATE RAJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
14. SRI. RANGAIAH,
S/O LATE KARIYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
15. SRI. NINGEGOWDA,
S/O LATE ANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
16. SRI. C.K. RAJU,
S/O KALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
17. SRI. H.N. GOPALA,
S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
18. RAMACHANDRA,
S/O HULLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
19. SRI. JAGADISHA,
S/O LATE CHALUVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 19 ARE
R/AT CHANNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:9920
WP No. 7514 of 2024
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 27/02/2024, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CH-1), AT BANGALORE, IN REVISION
NO. 19/2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-N, IN SO FAR AS THE ORDER
PERTAINS TO NOT ALLOWING THE IA NO. 1 IS CONCERNED,
AND ALLOW THE IA NO. 1, FILED BY THE PETITIONER, IN
REVISION NO. 19/2024, BEFORE THE KARNATAKA APPELLANTE
TRIBUNAL (CH-1), BANGALORE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Notice to other respondents are not necessary for the following reasons.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the fact that interim orders were not passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, considering I.A.No.1 filed in Revision Petition No.19/2024 challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:9920 WP No. 7514 of 2024
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate draws the attention of this Court to an order dated 22.12.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21884/2021. The petitioner had approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar, Periyapatna Taluk, to consider an application filed in Form No.50 seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation of 2 acres and 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.1 of Channenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk. The learned Additional Government Advocate points out from paragraph No.3 of the order wherein, it has been held by this Court that on the perusal of the RTC produced by the petitioner, it is clear that the land is endowed to Sri.Basavanna Devaru and the temple is in cultivation of the land. Therefore, this Court held that an application in Form No.50 is not maintainable. That being the position, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner are in terms of the observations made by this Court. The learned Additional Government Advocate would therefore submit that it would be impermissible even for the Tribunal to pass any interim orders in favour of the petitioner, having -6- NC: 2024:KHC:9920 WP No. 7514 of 2024 regard to the fact that the petitioner did not challenge the observations made by this Court which has attained finality.
4. There is substance in the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate. When once this Court has held that the petitioner cannot maintain an application in Form No.50 in respect of the land belonging to the temple no authority or tribunal can pass any order over looking observations of this Court.
Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT: BHK