- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6714 WP No. 76062 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 76062 OF 2013 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PARATEWWA D/O. NINGAYYA BHAVI @ PUJARI, AGE: 60 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & H/W, R/O: PALBHAVI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM-590001. 2. BASUPRABHU S/O. NINGAYYA BHAVI @ PUJARI, AGE: 55 YRS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: PALBHAVI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM-590001. 3. MAGAYYA S/O. NINGAYYA BHAVI @ PUJARI, AGE: 45 YRS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: PALBHAVI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM-590001. 4. PARAYYA S/O. ALLAYYA PUJARI, AGE: 56 YRS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: PALBHAVI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM-590001. 5. MAGAYYA S/O. ALLAYYA PUJARI, AGE: 51 YRS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: PALBHAVI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM-590001 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6714 WP No. 76062 of 2013 REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-01. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL RAIBAG BY ITS CHAIRMAN BELGAUM-590001 DIST: BELGAUM. 3. PRABHUSWAMI MATH TERDAL TERDAL, TAL: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. PARAYYA S/O. ISWARAYYA PUJARI @ BHAVI AGE: 61 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PALBHAVI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM-590001. 5. PARAYYA S/O. GURULINGAYYA PUJARI @ MELMANI AGE: 66 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PALBHAVI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM-590001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. B. S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; R3- SERVED) ------ THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/01/2013 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN TSC/SR/14+15+16+17+18+19 PALBHAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6714 WP No. 76062 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by respondent No.2-the Land Tribunal, Raibagh, produced as per Annexure G. 2. Heard Sri Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri. B.S. Kamate, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Respondent No.3 though served, he has remained unrepresented. Perused the materials on record. 3. The claim of the petitioners is in respect of Sy.No.159 measuring 19 acres 29 guntas, situated at Palbhavi village of Raibag Taluk, which is admittedly an Inam land. It is stated that, in all, 8 applicants have applied for grant of different portions of the lands under Inam Abolition Act. The Land Tribunal, held an enquiry and passed the order impugned, produced as per Annexure-G holding that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6714 WP No. 76062 of 2013 applicant No.1 i.e. Magayya Channaya Pujari is entitled for 1/4th share, and applicant No.2-Dundayya Basaparayya Pujari is also entitled for 1/4th share and granting 1/4th share each to them. These facts are not in dispute. 4. The Land Tribunal granted 1/8th share in favour of applicant No.3-Ningayya Basprayya Pujari i.e. the father of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 against his claim of 1/4th share. It has granted 1 acre 26 guntas of land in favour of Parayya Allayya Pujari and Magayya Allayya Pujari, who are petitioner Nos.4 and 5 before this Court, against their claim for 1/4th share. The said portion of the order passed by the Land Tribunal is disputed by the petitioners, as there was no basis for rejecting the claim for grant of 1/4th share each. 5. Petitioners are also disputing grant of 1/8th share in favour of Parayya Ishwarappa Pujari-respondent No.4, who was applicant No.7, and 3 acres 11 guntas of land in favour of Parayya Gurulingayya Pujari-respondent No.5, who was applicant No.8. It is the contention of the petitioners that applicant Nos.7 and 8, who are respondent Nos.4 and 5 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6714 WP No. 76062 of 2013 herein are strangers to the land in question, and they were not entitled for any share. However, applicant No.7 claimed 1/8th share and the same was granted by the Land Tribunal without any basis. It is further contended that applicant No.8, who is also a stranger to the land in question, claimed 2 annas 8 paise share in the land. But, the Land Tribunal proceeded to grant 3 acres 11 guntas of land without there being any basis. Hence, prays for allowing the petition and to quash the impugned order. 6. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that, all the applicant Nos.1 to 8 were performing pooja of Allama Prabhu Temple, situated at Palbhavi village, but they were not cultivating the agricultural lands situated at various villages including Palbhavi Village. There was a suit in O.S.No.86/1953, and the said suit came to be decreed in terms of compromise petition filed by the parties. As per the compromise decree, various properties were allotted to different sharers. The Tribunal has taken into consideration this compromise decree to grant the land in question. Moreover, the parties have - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6714 WP No. 76062 of 2013 filed statements dated 29.02.1988, agreeing for grant of various portions of the lands in favour of various applicants, or their legal representatives. Under such circumstances, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that, the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be found fault with. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. On perusal of the materials on record, the Tribunal has based its findings mainly on the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.86/1953. The copy of the decree passed on the basis of the compromise petition is produced by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. Unfortunately, there is no reference to Sy.No.159 measuring 19.29 acres or any agricultural lands situated at Palbhavi village, Raibagh in the decree. Of course, there is reference to Allama Prabhu temple situated at Palbhavi village and the property pertaining to the same. By looking at the compromise decree in O.S.No.86/1953, it cannot be said that the property in Sy.No.159 measuring 19 acres 29 guntas was partitioned amongst the parties under the compromise petition. Under such circumstances, I find considerable force - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6714 WP No. 76062 of 2013 in the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the order of the Land Tribunal which heavily based on the compromise decree, is not sustainable. Moreover, applicant No.8 who is respondent No.5 herein claimed only 2 annas 8 paisa share in the land in question, but the Tribunal had granted 3 acres 11 guntas of land, however, no reasons are assigned for the same. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the right to worship in the temple is different from cultivating the land as holder which is the prerequisite for grant of land after Inam Abolition Act. 9. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents refers to the statements of the parties dated 29.02.1988 referred to in the impugned order. But, it is the contention of the petitioners that, none of them have signed so called statement. Therefore, the same cannot be the basis for passing the impugned order. However, the said statement is not produced before this Court. I do find considerable force in the said contention taken by the learned counsel for the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6714 WP No. 76062 of 2013 petitioners. However, the Land Tribunal before which the compromise decree was produced and the statement dated 29.02.1988 was filed, was in a better position to appreciate the contentions of the parties. However, the order impugned is not in accordance with the decree referred to therein. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is required to be quashed and the matter is to be remanded back to the Tribunal once again for fresh consideration, in accordance with law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 17.01.2013 passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Raibag in T.S.C/SR/14+15+16+17+18+19 Palbhavi vide Annexure-G, is set aside. (iii) The matter is remanded back to the Land Tribunal, Raibagh, for fresh consideration in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6714 WP No. 76062 of 2013 the light of the observations made above, in accordance with law. (iv) The parties are directed to appear before the Land Tribunal, Raibag forthwith, on 28.05.2025, without waiting for fresh notice. (v) The Land Tribunal shall make every endeavor to dispose off the matter expeditiously. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1