- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1220 WP No. 101573 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 101573 OF 2023 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN: SHRI. BASAWESHWAR, KALMESHWAR AND BRAMHA DEV-JATRA TRUST, KUDACHI TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI. BASAVANT TUKARAM SAVAKAR AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. BASAVAN KUDACHI TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590016 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. MALLASARJ S/O. DEVENDRA PATIL AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. 319, GANDHI GALLI, BASAVAN KUDACHI TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590016 2. SHRI. TAMMANNA S/O. APPANNA PATIL AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. TANAJI GALLI, BASAVAN KUDACHI TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590016 3. SHRI. ANIL S/O. JAMBU PATIL AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. 432 TANAJI GALLI, BASAVAN KUDACHI Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1220 WP No. 101573 of 2023 TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590016 4. SHRI. RAJKUMAR S/O. DEVENDRA PATIL AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. 146, BASTI GALLI, BASAVAN KUDACHI TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590016 5. SHRI. VAIJU S/O. APPANNA CHOUGULE AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. 421/A, TANAJI GALLI, BASAVAN KUDACHI TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590016 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJAY S.KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, ORDER DATED 01/02/2023 PASSED BY THE IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI ON I.A.NO.2 IN MISC.NO.43/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1220 WP No. 101573 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the IX-Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, by which the impleading application filed by the devotees – respondents herein is allowed. 2. A perusal at the order would indicate that no right of the petitioner being taken away as a matter of fact, the impleading applicants are proper and necessary parties to the petition. In the light of the challenge being to the orders allowing the impleading application and also recognising that the respondents were necessary parties, no prejudices is caused to the petitioner. In that light, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Vnp / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 127