- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1543-DB WA No. 100555 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100554 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100555 OF 2023 (LR) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 100554 OF 2023 IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 100555 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI GURUPUTRA S/O. HANMANT GASTI, AGE:44 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234. 2. SHRI. DADASO S/O. SAVANT GADAGE, AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234. 3. SHRI. RAJENDRA S/O. SIDAPPA GADAGE, AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234. 4. SHRI. UTTAM S/O. CHANDAR BHAGAT, AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234. 5. SHRI. KAKASAB S/O. APPASAB KABADAGI, AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1543-DB WA No. 100555 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100554 of 2023 6. SHRI. SACHIN S/O. VILAS KHULE, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234. 7. SHRI. ASHOK S/O. RADHA KAMBALE, AGE:42 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ. S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI RAJARAM S/O. RAMU KOKANE, SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LRS, SMT THANUBAI W/O RAJAERAM KOKANE, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LRS 1 TO 6 1B. SMT ANJANA W/O. SUKUMAR TAHLLEKAR SMT. ANJANA W/O. SUKUMAR THALLEKAR, AGE: 49 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O MAISHAL 406 409, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: DANGALI, MAHARASHTRA. 2. SMT. NANDA W/O. BHALASE KHONDRE, AGE: 49 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O MAISHAL 406 409, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: DANGALI, MAHARASHTRA. 3. SMT. SUNITA D/O. KADAYYA KAMBI, AGE: 43 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O MAISHAL 406 409, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: DANGALI, MAHARASHTRA. 4. SMT. ASHA W/O. UDAY KANDALE, AGE: 37 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O MAISHAL 406 409, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1543-DB WA No. 100555 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100554 of 2023 TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: DANGALI, MAHARASHTRA. 5. SMT.AMOL S/O. RAJARAM KOKANE, AGE: 33 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O MAISHAL 406 409, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: DANGALI MAHARASHTRA. 6. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ATHANI, TQ:ATHANI, DIST:BELAGAVI-591304 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT. VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 8. THE CHAIRMAN, SHRI. VENKATESH AND MARUTI DEVASHAN COMMITTEE, LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ: NOW KAGAWAD(EARLIER IN ATTHANI TALUK), DIST: BELAGAVI-591234 9. SHIVRAJ RAMU KOKANE, AGE:64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MAISHAL-406409, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST:SANGALI MAHARASHTRA. 10. TANAJI RAMI KOKANE, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MAISHAL-406409, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGALI MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNSWAMY. B. HIREMATH,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5, R9 AND R10 SRI. PRAVEEN. K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R6 AND R7 SRI. SANJAY. S. KATAGERI, ADV FOR R8) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1543-DB WA No. 100555 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100554 of 2023 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WP NO.81057/2013 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC. WRIT APPEAL NO. 100554 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI GURUPUTRA S/O. HANMANT GASTI AGE:44 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234 2. SHRI. DADASO S/O. SAVANT GADAGE, AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234 3. SHRI. RAJENDRA S/O. SIDAPPA GADAGE, AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234 4. SHRI. UTTAM S/O. CHANDAR BHAGAT, AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234 5. SHRI. KAKASAB S/O. APPASAB KABADAGI, AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234 6. SHRI. SACHIN S/O. VILAS KHULE, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1543-DB WA No. 100555 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100554 of 2023 7. SHRI. ASHOK S/O. RADHA KAMBALE, AGE:42 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O LOKUR VILLAGE, TQ:KAGAWAD, DSIT :BEALGAVI-591234 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ. S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVAJI RAMU KOKANE, AGE:68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MAISHAL-406409, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST:SANGALI MAHARASHTRA 2. TANAJI RAMU KOKANE, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MAISHAL-406409, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGALI MAHARASHTRA 3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ATHANI, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DIST:BELAGAVI-591304 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BUILDING, BANGLORE-1 5. THE CHAIRMAN SHRI VENKATESH AND MARUTI DEVASTHAN COMMITTEE, LOKUR-591234, TQ:ATHANI, DIST:BELGAUM. SHRI RAJARAM S/O. RAMU KOKANE, CLAIMING HIMSELF TO BE LR OF DECEASED, GOVIND KESHAV KULKARNI AGE:70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LOKUR-591234, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R. SMT. THANUBAI W/O RAJARAM KOKANE, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS. RESPONDENTS - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1543-DB WA No. 100555 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100554 of 2023 NO. 6 TO 10. 6. SMT. ANJANA W/O. SUKUMAR THALLEKAR, AGE: 49 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O MAISHAL 406 409, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: DANGALI MAHARASHTRA. 7. SMT. NANDA W/O. BHALASE KHONDRE, AGE: 49 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O MAISHAL 406 409, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: DANGALI MAHARASHTRA. 8. SMT. SUNITA D/O. KADAYYA KAMBI, AGE: 43 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O MAISHAL 406 409, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: DANGALI MAHARASHTRA. 9. SMT. ASHA W/O. UDAY KANDALE, AGE: 37 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O MAISHAL 406 409, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: DANGALI MAHARASHTRA. 10. SMT.AMOL S/O. RAJARAM KOKANE, AGE: 33 YEARS OCC:HOUSEWIFE, NOW RESIDING AAT HAISHAL 406409, TAL:MIRAJ, DIST: SANGALI, MAHARASHTRA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN. K. UPPAR. AGA FOR R3 AND R4; SRI. SANJAY. S. KATAGERI ADVOCATE FOR R5; NOTICE SERVED WITH R1, R2, R6, R8. R9 AND R10) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/12/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2, ETC. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1543-DB WA No. 100555 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100554 of 2023 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The appellants, who are residents of Lokur village, Kagawad Taluk, Belagavi District, have filed these intra Court appeals calling in question the writ Court’s order dated 01.12.2022 in WP Nos.76031/2013 and 81057/2013. The appellants, who are not parties to the proceedings, have applied for leave to prosecute the appeals. The appellants have also applied for condoning the delay and to stay the writ Court’s common order dated 01.12.2022. The question of interfering with the writ Court’s order dated 01.12.2022 is examined in the light of the following facts without considering the question of delay as it may not be germane if this Court opines that the appellants will have to avail appropriate - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1543-DB WA No. 100555 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100554 of 2023 remedy if indeed they can establish locus to call in question the writ Court’s order. 2. The private respondents are a Temple and tenants who have rival claims over about 80 acres of land in RS Nos.101, 102 and 142 of Lokur village of Athani Taluk, Belagavi District. The land Tribunal has granted the Occupancy Rights in these lands to the Temple, and the Tenants have called in question such order in their respective writ petitions in WP Nos.76031/2013 and 81057/2013. 3. In the writ proceedings, the Temple and the Tenants have filed a compromise which is accepted by the writ Court. The compromise is that the Temple is declared as the occupant of three [3] parcels of land, and these three parcels are: [i] land measuring 25 acres 10 guntas in RS No.101, [ii] land measuring 26 acres 37 guntas in RS No.102, and [iii] land measuring 8 acres 10 guntas in RS No.142. The Tenants are declared as the occupants of 18 acres in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1543-DB WA No. 100555 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100554 of 2023 Sy. No.101, and they have also donated a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for renovation of the temple. 4. Sri. Shivaraj S. Ballolli, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants are devotees, and hence, they have locus to call in question the settlement. The learned counsel submits that the settled law is that a deity will be a minor in perpetuity and therefore no compromise which is adverse to the deity’s interest can be accepted. The learned counsel asserts that the present settlement is not in the deity’s interest while espousing that because the Temple is a notified Temple, only a committee duly constituted under the relevant Act can concur with the settlement. 5. However, this Court is of the considered view that any error in jurisdiction in accepting the compromise can be examined if the appellants are able to establish their locus and the facts to opine that there is any error in jurisdiction. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1543-DB WA No. 100555 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100554 of 2023 The circumstances in these regards are canvassed for the first time in the present appeals. The Apex Court in Shivdeo Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others1 has held that errors in an order in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be corrected in a separate writ petition where a person is not a party to such proceedings. The Apex Court’s decision in paragraph 8 reads as under: “The other contention of Mr.Gopal Singh pertains to the second order of Khosla, J., which in effect, reviews his prior order. Learned counsel contends that Art. 226 of the Constitution does not confer any power on the High Court to review its own order and, therefore, the second order of Khosla, J., was without jurisdiction. It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Here the previous order of Khosla, J., affected the interests of persons who 1 AIR 1963 SC 1909 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1543-DB WA No. 100555 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100554 of 2023 were not made parties to the proceeding before him. It was at their instance and for giving them a hearing that Khosla’ J. entertained the second petition. In doing so, he merely did what the principles of natural justice required him to do. It is said that the respondents before us had no right to apply for review because they were not parties to the previous proceedings. As we have already pointed out, it is precisely because they were not made parties to the previous proceedings, though their interests were sought to be affected by the decision of the High Court, that the second application was entertained by Khosla, J." Hence, the appeal stands disposed of with liberty to the appellants to avail remedy subject to all just exceptions. Consequentially, all the pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PJ LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30