- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3947 WP No. 8560 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.8560 OF 2013 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SWAMY S/O.LATE MARI MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MANIGERE VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571428. 2. SRI SHIVAMALLU S/O.LATE MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MANIGERE VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT -571428. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.B. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR P1; SRI. ARUN K.S., ADVOCATE FOR P2) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3947 WP No. 8560 of 2013 2. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401. 3. SRI SOMESHWARA SWAMY DEVARU AND SRI KADU BASAVESHWARA SWAMY DEVARU, MANIGERE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE TALUK MUZARAI OFFICER THE TAHASILDAR, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA, AGA ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.8.2012, THEREBY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS SEEKING THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS PERTAINING TO THE LANDS IN SY.NOS.18, 190 & 231 OF MANIGERE VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, & THEREBY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO TAKE BACK THE POSSESSION OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED LANDS & TO ENTER THE NAME OF "GOVERNMENT" IN THE REVENUE RECORDS, IN I.N.A.15/2010, VIDE ANNEXURE-M. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3947 WP No. 8560 of 2013 ORAL ORDER Petitioners are assailing the order of respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner who has proceeded to reject the application filed by the petitioners seeking grant occupancy rights under the provisions of the Mysuru (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 ( for short "the Act, 1955"). 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: It is not in dispute that the lands in question are the Inam lands and petitioners are claiming to be the Archaks of Sri Someshwara Swamy Devaru and Sri Kadu Basaveshwara Swamy Devaru. Petitioners' fathers after abolition of the Act, 1955 by asserting that they are the Archaks and cultivating the petition lands filed applications under Section 6A of the Act, 1955. Petitioners asserted that they are cultivating the land in question and therefore, they are entitled for grant of occupancy rights. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3947 WP No. 8560 of 2013 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.15705/1994, the Land Tribunal, Maddur, referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the petitioners' claim for grant of occupancy rights as Archaks of the above said temples. The Deputy Commissioner on an enquiry found that there were no documents to substantiate petitioners' cultivation continuously for a period of three years prior to the vesting of the lands in question and has accordingly rejected their applications. The said order dated 25.8.2012 is questioned by filing this writ petition in 2013. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has placed heavy reliance on the proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar which is confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner evidenced at Annexures-A and B. Citing this order, he would point out that petitioners' status as archaks is substantiated in the order itself. Therefore, he would contend that petitioners are able to substantiate - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3947 WP No. 8560 of 2013 that they were cultivating the lands in question as Archaks and therefore, they are entitled for grant of occupancy rights. 5. In the present case, the petitioners have primarily relied upon certain documents, including revenue records, to establish their claim. However, a crucial aspect that weighs against their claim is the fact that their names were only mutated in the revenue records after the year 1970. The proceedings heavily relied upon by the petitioners also indicate that they were recognized as Archaks only from the year 1970 onwards and continued in that capacity until 1983. This timeline is of significant consequence because, under the provisions of the Act, 1955, particularly Section 6A, an Archak or Poojari claiming tenancy rights in agricultural lands attached to a religious institution must demonstrate that he was personally cultivating the land for a continuous period of not less than three years prior to the date of vesting. The State Government, by exercising its authority under - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3947 WP No. 8560 of 2013 Section 1(4) of the Act, 1955, brought the said Act into force by appointing the date of vesting as 1.7.1970. Thus, for a claim under Section 6A to be considered, the petitioners must provide substantive evidence proving that they had been engaged in personal cultivation of the land prior to 1.7.1970. 6. The statutory requirement under Section 6A is explicit in mandating that the claimant must prove personal cultivation, either through his own physical labor or that of his family members, for a continuous period of three years preceding the date of vesting. In the present case, despite the prolonged pendency of this matter since 2013, the petitioners have been unable to furnish any conclusive documentary evidence that could substantiate their assertion of having cultivated the lands in question prior to 1.7.1970. The absence of such material evidence fundamentally weakens their claim, as the very premise of their entitlement under Section 6A hinges upon the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3947 WP No. 8560 of 2013 establishment of personal cultivation within the stipulated timeframe. 7. The Deputy Commissioner, after examining the petitioners’ claim in light of the statutory requirements, found that they had failed to meet the fundamental condition stipulated under Section 6A. Given that the petitioners had not been able to produce any concrete evidence to demonstrate their continuous cultivation of the land prior to the date of vesting, the Deputy Commissioner was left with no option but to reject their claim. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner aligns with the express conditions set forth under Section 6A, which unequivocally require proof of personal cultivation for the requisite period. The rejection of the petitioners' application is thus in strict compliance with the statutory mandate and cannot be faulted. 8. Furthermore, the additional documents that have now been placed on record by the petitioners do not aid their case in any manner. A thorough examination of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3947 WP No. 8560 of 2013 these documents reveals that none of them provide any proof of the petitioners cultivating the lands in question as Archaks continuously for a period of three years prior to the date of vesting. In the absence of such crucial evidence, the claim made by the petitioners under Section 6A remains unsubstantiated. Mere assertions or post- vesting records are insufficient to fulfill the statutory requirement. Since the petitioners have failed to establish their tenancy rights as required under the law, the rejection of their application by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner stands justified and does not warrant interference. 9. No grounds are made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2