- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 563 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI SWAMY S/O. LATE MARI MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDENT OF MANIGERE VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 422 REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER MAHADEVASWAMY …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V.B. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA 571 401 3. SRI SOMESHWARA SWAMY DEVARU Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 AND SRI KADU BASAVESHWARA SWAMY DEVARU MANIGERE, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRCT REPRESENTED BY THE TALUK MUZARAI OFFICER THE TAHASILDAR MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 422 4. SRI. SHIVAMALLU S/O LATE MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MANIGERE VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 422 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28/01/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.8560/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8560/2013, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that: The father of the appellant one Mari Madappa and father of respondent No.4 one Madappa were claiming to be the Archaks of Sri Someshwara Swamy Devaru and Sri Kadu Basaveshwara Swamy Devaru i.e. respondent No.3- temple. After enactment of Mysuru (Religious and Charitable) Inams abolition Act, 1955 (for brevity "the Act"), the aforesaid Mari Madappa and Madappa filed an application under Section 6A of the amended Act seeking occupancy rights pertaining to the lands in Sy. No.18 measuring 4 acres 25 guntas, Sy. No.190 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and Sy. No. 231 measuring 19 guntas, all situated in Manigere Village, Maddur Taluk (for brevity - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 "subject Land"), which were all Inam Lands, by asserting that they were the Archaks and cultivating the subject lands. 3. Earlier there were disputes with respect to the hereditary right as Archak of respondent No.3-temple and also a share in the tasdik amount between Mari Madappa and Madappa. They both had several rounds of litigations between them for the said reliefs. With respect to the said disputes, the Tahsildar had passed an Order dated 02.03.1984 declaring that both Mari Madappa and Madappa are entitled to perform pooja six months each in a year. Aggrieved by the same, Madappa preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.08.1984. Once again in the year 1984, Madappa, being aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal order preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, which was allowed by the Special Deputy Commissioner by declaring that Madappa alone is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 entitled to perform the pooja in respondent No.3-temple vide order dated 21.01.1986. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 21.01.1986, Mari Madappa preferred a Revision Petition before the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments in Karnataka, Bengaluru, which came to be dismissed and thereby confirmed the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 13.07.1987. Being aggrieved by the same, Mari Madappa preferred a Second Revision Petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, "the KAT") in Revision Petition No.141/1987, which was also dismissed on 07.08.1992 by confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the Special Deputy Commissioner and set aside the portion of the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner with respect to its finding that Madappa alone is entitled to perform the pooja in respondent No.3-temple. 5. Challenging the aforesaid order of the KAT, Mari Madappa preferred W.P.No.16831/1993. During the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 pendency of said writ petition, on 27.05.1993 based on the averments and the evidence, both oral and documentary evidence, the Land Tribunal, Maddur Taluk had passed order granting the occupancy rights to Mari Madappa and Madappa over the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, Madappa has filed W.P.No.15705/1994. 6. Thereafter, the aforesaid W.P.No.16831/1993 filed by Madappa challenging the order of KAT was allowed on 08.03.2000 by quashing the order passed by the KAT and also directed the legal heirs of the Mari Madappa to make necessary application before the Muzarai Officer. As such, the legal heirs of Mari Madappa have made necessary application before the Muzarai Officer. Subsequently, the Tahsildar, as per the direction of the Assistant Commissioner with respect to the said application, after perusing the records and statements of witnesses submitted reported dated 15.11.2001 to the Assistant Commissioner opining that legal heir of Mari - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 Madappa i.e. the appellant and Madappa are conducting Pooja of respondent No.3-temple. 7. Later, on 24.10.2002 the aforesaid W.P.No.15705/1994 filed by Madappa challenging the order dated 27.05.1993 passed by the Land Tribunal was allowed by quashing the order passed by the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Land Tribunal with a direction to transfer the application filed by Madappa and Mari Madappa to the Deputy Commissioner to pass appropriate order on their applications. 8. Thereafter, the legal heirs of Mari Madappa filed a petition against Madappa before the Assistant Commissioner. In the said case, both the parties have settled their disputes with respect to doing pooja as well as obtaining of the tasdik amount by filing Compromise Petition dated 22.07.2008. As per the compromise petition, Assistant Commissioner passed the order dated 28.07.2008 directing the Tahsildar to release the tasdik amount as per the pooja being performed by the parties. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 9. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in aforementioned W.P.15705/1994, the Land Tribunal, Maddur, referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the claim of appellant and respondent No.4 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 that appellant and respondent No.4 were in cultivation continuously for a period of three years prior to the vesting of the subject land and has accordingly rejected their applications vide order dated 25.08.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant and respondent No.4 has filed W.P No.8560/2013, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Challenging the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 10. We have heard Sri. V.B. Ravishankar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri. M.N Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 11. The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has erred while dismissing the writ petition without ascertaining the revenue records and other documents, which have established their claim on the subject land. According, to the counsel, the appellant's name was mutated in the revenue records way back in the year 1970, until the year 1983. That itself demonstrates that the appellant was in possession and cultivation of the subject land. As such, he being the Archaka of respondent No.3-temple claimed the tenancy right over the agricultural land attached to the temple prior to 01.07.1970. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the Deputy Commissioner and the learned Single Judge after meticulously examining the materials placed before them, held that the appellant failed to prove that he was in possession and cultivation of the subject land prior to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 01.07.1970 as stipulated under Section 6A of the amended Act. As such, the appellant's application was rightly rejected. According to the learned Additional Government Advocate to prove a claim under Section 6A of the amended Act, the claimant is duty bound to place sufficient evidence either documentary or oral before the Authority. In the instant case, the appellant has failed to produce the same, as such, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to peruse Section 6A of the amended Act, which reads as under: "6A. Pujari, Archak, etc., to be registered as occupant on certain conditions-- (1) Where the inamdar is an institution of religious worship, a person-- (i) rendering religious service in or maintaining the institution as a pujari, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 archak or the holder of a similar office by whatever name called ; or (ii) rendering any service in such institution and personally cultivating for a continuous period of not less than three years prior to the date of vesting by contributing his own physical labour or that of the members of his family and enjoying the benefits of any land comprised in the inam of such institution without paying rent as such in money or kind to that institution in respect of such land, shall with effect from and on the date of vesting and subject to the provisions of Section 27A be entitled to be registered as an occupant of such land." 14. On careful reading of the above provision, for a claim under Section 6A of the amended Act, the claimant must provide substantive evidence proving that he/she had been engaged in personal cultivation of the land prior to 01.07.1970 for continuous period of 3 years preceding to the date of vesting i.e. 01.07.1970. Admittedly, the appellant has unable to produce any conclusive - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 documentary evidence to prove that he was cultivating the subject land prior to 01.07.1970. In the absence of such evidence, the claim made by the appellant under Section 6A of the amended Act is unsustainable. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has held in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 as under: "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 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 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 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. 15. The above finding of the learned Single Judge is clearly in consonance with the mandatory requirement contemplated under Section 6A of the amended Act. Thus, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42884-DB WA No. 563 of 2025 we find that the learned Single Judge has correctly considered the materials on record and passed the impugned judgment and order, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9