- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47730 WP No. 59592 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 59592 OF 2016 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. C. RUDRAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR., CHENNAPPA, S/O. LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT SARAKKI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 061. 2. SRI. S.K. NATARAJ THE CONVENOR, SREE VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE, SARAKKI, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 061. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-II BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 009. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47730 WP No. 59592 of 2016 3. THE SECRETARY LAND TRIBUNAL & THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU -560 009. 4. SREE VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 009. 5. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. K. NANJUNDAPPA, AGED MAJOR, 6. LINGARAJU S/O. LATE K. NANJUNDAPPA, AGED MAJOR, 7. KEMPANNA S/O. LATE K. NANJUNDAPPA, AGED MAJOR, 8. LINGAMMA D/O. LATE K. NANJUNDAPPA, AGED MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.112, RAMA MANDIRA ROAD, SARAKKI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-R4, SRI. JAGADEESHACHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6 & R8, SRI. B.R. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47730 WP No. 59592 of 2016 ORDER DTD.5.8.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER II, THEREBY GRANTING OCCUPANCY RIGHT IN FAVOR OF R-5 TO 8 IN RESPECT OF 8 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.19 OF SARAKKI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY VIDE ANNEX-A. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV ORDER 1. The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by respondent No.2 - Special Deputy Commissioner in case No. INA/CR/7/2008-09 vide Annexure-A. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the lands in Sy.No.19 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas and Sy.No.48 measuring 14 guntas of Sarakki Village (for brevity 'subject lands') were originally Inam lands granted to Sri Veerabhadreshwara Swamy Temple, a minor Muzrai institution managed by the State Government. The petitioners were appointed as Archak and Convener of the said temple and they were cultivating the subject lands. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal for grant of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47730 WP No. 59592 of 2016 occupancy right in respect of subject lands. However, K.Nanjundappa, the husband of respondent No.5 and the father of respondent Nos.6 to 8, who claims to be the Archak of the said temple, also filed an appeal before the said Tribunal. Both the appeals were clubbed together in Appeal Nos.2650 and 2855/1967. The Tribunal by its order dated 31.07.1968, partly allowed the appeal filed by K.Nanjundappa and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Accordingly, K.Nanjundappa was delivered with possession of subject lands. In the meanwhile, during the year 1967, a final notification was published by the BDA acquiring the subject lands and possession was taken on 01.02.1975. In turn, the BDA allotted to the Temple an extent of 282' + 271/2' X 189' + 222/2' which is equivalent to 1 acre 12 guntas vide resolution dated 24.12.1975, which was communicated to the Temple on 05.10.1976. 3. However, the petitioners and K.Nanjundappa filed Form-7 before the Land Tribunal seeking occupancy right and the Tribunal by its order dated 01.05.1981 partly allowed the application filed by K.Nanjundappa and rejected the claim made by the petitioners - Rudrappa. Aggrieved by this, both the parties once again approached the Land Tribunal in Case - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47730 WP No. 59592 of 2016 No.LRF.1550:79-80. The Land Tribunal vide order dated 03.10.1997 rejected the claim of both the parties. The said order was challenged by K.Nanjundappa before this Court in WP.No.30411/1997 and this Court vide order dated 12.12.2006 has remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration on the ground that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the Religious and Charitable Lands. Accordingly, on remand, vide order dated 05.08.2016, the Special Deputy Commissioner held that since the Competent Authorities had upheld the rights of K.Nanjundappa earlier, he is entitled to grant of occupancy rights and accordingly granted occupancy rights to the legal heirs of K.Nanjundappa i.e., respondents 5 to 8 in respect of 8 guntas in Sy.No.19. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Heard Sri Sharath.S.Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 4, Sri K. Jagadeeshachari, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6 and 8 and Sri B.R.Vishwanath, learned counsel for respondent No.7. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47730 WP No. 59592 of 2016 5. The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that, under Section 1 of the Act, all inam lands vested with the Government. Under Section 6-A of the Act, occupancy rights can be granted only to an Archak who had been in personal cultivation for three years prior to the appointed date i.e., from 1967 to 1970. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 and their predecessor were neither Archaks, nor cultivated the land and had never produced any contemporaneous records in respect of cultivation for the relevant period. 6. He also contended that in view of Archakship of petitioners' father, the petitioners are still in possession and cultivation of 8 guntas of land granted to the temple by the BDA after acquisition of larger extent of the property in Sy.Nos.19 and 48. In such circumstance, the impugned order of the Special Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 submits that the Land Tribunal by its order dated 01.05.1981 granted occupancy rights in favour of K.Nanjundappa observing that he was cultivating the subject lands prior to 01.07.1970. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47730 WP No. 59592 of 2016 Although the Tribunal subsequently rejected the claim of petitioners and K.Nanjundappa vide order dated 03.10.1997, the said order was challenged before this Court in WP.No.30411/1997 and this Court directed the parties to approach the Special Deputy Commissioner being the Competent Authority. The Special Deputy Commissioner, after detailed enquiry, passed the impugned order by granting occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8, the legal heirs of K.Nanjundappa. 8. He further contended that the RTC extracts of the year 1970-71 and 1971-72 clearly depicts the name of K.Nanjundappa in Column No.12(2) i.e. the cultivator's column. Though the entry of the year 1969-70 shown as 'barren land', the said entry was cancelled and the possession was restored in the name of K.Nanjundappa vide order dated 01.05.1981 by the Land Tribunal. 9. He also contended that the survey sketch along with the report as per Annexure-R8 clearly reveals that the father of K.Nanjundappa namely Kempanna was in possession of house constructed in the subject lands. The said aspect was clarified - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47730 WP No. 59592 of 2016 from the photographs as per Annexure-R11. As such, the impugned order does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 4 supports the impugned order and alternatively, submits that the matter may be remanded. 11. As could be gathered from records, it is evident that the subject lands were the religious inam lands attached to the Sri Veerabhadreshwara Swamy Temple. In view of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, the subject lands vested with the government as on 01.07.1970. 12. As per Section 6-A of the Act, the Poojary, Archak, etc., requires to satisfy certain conditions to register him as an occupant. Section 6-A of the Act reads as under: "6-A. Pujari, archak, etc., to be registered as an 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, archak or the holder of a similar office by whatever name called; or - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47730 WP No. 59592 of 2016 (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 is own physical labour or that of the members of his family and enjoying the benefits of any land comprise in the inam of such institution with out 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 27-A be entitled to be registered as an occupant of such land". 13. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the father of K.Nanjundappa namely Kempanna was not cultivating the subject lands three years prior to vesting of the land i.e., 01.07.1970. However, on careful perusal of the RTC entries placed at Annexure-R2, the entries for the period of 1970-71 and 1971-72 depicts the name of K.Nanjundappa. Though it is mentioned as 'barren' land for the year 1969-70, according to the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8, the said entry was cancelled and the name of K.Nanjundappa was restored vide order dated 01.05.1981 by the Land Tribunal. Further, on perusal of Annexure-R1 - Record of Rights extract also depicts that father of K.Nanjundappa namely Kempanna was cultivating - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47730 WP No. 59592 of 2016 the subject lands. After acquisition of 3 acres 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.19 by the BDA, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award and award notice was issued to K.Nanjundappa as per Annexure-R7. Further, the Bill dated 21.01.1977 reveals that the possession was taken on 01.02.1975 in respect of 3 acres 35 guntas leaving 8 guntas. The subsequent document i.e. survey report - Annexure-R8 clearly reveals that the father of K.Nanjundappa namely Kempanna was in possession of house constructed in the subject lands. 14. Even the claim of the petitioners that they are in possession of subject lands was based on Annexure-B i.e. appointment order as Archaks of the temple. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to note that though the BDA allotted 282' + 271/2' X 189' + 222/2' which is equivalent to 1 acre 12 guntas vide resolution dated 24.12.1975, which was communicated to the Temple on 05.10.1976, the subsequent document i.e. spot inspection report clearly reveals that only 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.19 was available. Further, as per the report submitted, and the survey conducted by virtue of the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 19.01.2009 as - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47730 WP No. 59592 of 2016 per Annexure-R8, it is seen that after acquisition of subject lands by the BDA, only 8 guntas was available in Sy.No.19 and in said 8 guntas, K.Nanjundappa was in possession of house constructed in 32.00 sq. mtrs. and it has not revealed the possession of petitioners in the subject lands. As such, the impugned order of the Special Deputy Commissioner is not clear as to what extent the occupancy right was granted earlier by the Competent Authority to said K.Nanjundappa and to what extent, he was in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands as claimed by him. The Special Deputy Commissioner mechanically granted occupancy right in respect of entire 8 guntas of land in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Special Deputy Commissioner shall consider the extent of land allotted by the BDA after acquisition in favour of the Temple and the extent of possession of respondents 5 to 8 and also the possession of petitioners, if any, by providing opportunity to both the parties - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47730 WP No. 59592 of 2016 and thereafter grant occupancy right accordingly. The Special Deputy Commissioner shall consider the matter at the earliest. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45