- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9066 WP No. 47818 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 47818 OF 2014 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT G BHAGYAMMA W/O SRI ANANTHA PADMANABHACHAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O BALIGANAHALLI, LAKKURU HOBLI, MALUR TALUK …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAKSHITHA.V.N., FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 3. SRI.VENUGOPALSWAMY DEVASTHANA NAGAPURA MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101, REP BY ITS TAHSILDHAR 4. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs., 4(a) VINODA, D/O LATE LAKSHMIDEVAMMA., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 4(b) KRISHNAVENI, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9066 WP No. 47818 of 2014 D/O LATE LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 4(c) PREMA, D/O LATE LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R-4(a) TO 4(c) ARE R/O NAGAPURA VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; R-3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2024, NOTICE TO R-4(a) TO R-4(c) IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEX-B DTD.27.5.2014 AND ALLOW THIS W.P., ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner, who has conferred occupancy rights in favour of Lakshmidevamma, the deceased 4th respondent. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9066 WP No. 47818 of 2014 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the lands in question were endowed to Sri Venugopalaswamy Temple to which her ancestors were archaks. It is her case that after her father passed away, she was doing archakship of the temple. 3. It appears that the Land Tribunal has passed an order on 25.08.1981 granting occupancy rights in favour of B.S.Krishna Murthy who was the paternal uncle of the petitioner i.e., her father’s brother. 4. However, this order was challenged by M.K.Krishna Murthy in W.P.No.28293/1981 and this Court set aside the order passed in favour of B.S.Krishna Murthy and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 5. On remand, it was noticed that M.K.Krishna Murthy was no more and steps were not taken to bring his legal representatives on record and consequently, the proceedings that he had initiated stood abated. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9066 WP No. 47818 of 2014 6. During the pendency of said proceedings, the petitioner herein had also made an application for conferment of occupancy rights on 06.06.1991. It was one of the contentions of the petitioners that her uncle B.S.Krishna Murthy was unmarried and therefore, the claim of the 4th respondent – Lakshmidevamma could not be entertained. 7. The Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order has not considered this aspect of the matter and has merely gone on to state that there was nothing produced to show that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that if Lakshmidevamma was not the wife of B.S.Krishna Murthy, then by virtue of succession the petitioner would have to succeed to the property and not Lakshmidevamma. 9. In my view, this is an argument which ought to have been considered by the Deputy Commissioner before - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9066 WP No. 47818 of 2014 it passed the impugned order. It is noticed that the question as to whether Lakshmidevamma was the wife of B.S.Krishna Murthy and whether she was entitled to succeed to the interest of B.S.Krishna Murthy was also called in question by the petitioner and since the petitioner was claiming to be the daughter of B.S.Krishna Murthy’s brother, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have considered the same before passing the order. Since the said exercise has not been done, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh and shall also consider as to whether Lakshmidevamma is the legal representative of B.S.Krishna Murthy. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61