RAMANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the Judgment of our learned Brother Judge Justice Swami, rendered in Writ Petition No. 15249 of 1987, dated 2nd of November, 1988.

(2.) The facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows.- The lands forming the subject matter of this writ appeal bear Survey Nos. 174 and 320 of Tyloor village. They measure 1 acre 10 guntas and 2 acres 08 guntas respectively. These are inam lands covered by the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act of 1955. Originally it was known as Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act of 1955. This will be referred to as the 'Act'.

(3.) Consequent to a notification issued under Section 3 of the said Act, the inam came to be abolished. The appellant herein made an application for registering him as a tenant under the provisions of the Act. Similarly, the Tahsildar who is the Muzrai Officer in-charge of the temple also filed an application for registering the lands in the name of the deity. The Archak of the deity also made an application for registering him as an occupant. The Tribunal by its order dated 25th June, 1982 granted the occupancy rights in favour of the appellant, in respect of the lands in question. Accordingly, it rejected the applications filed by the Archak and the Tahsildar. While the matter stood thus, the devotees of the deity Sri Anjaneyaswamy, Tyloor, Maddur Taluk, preferred the writ petition after 5 1/2 years, stating that no notice had been issued to the Tahsildar, nor again was there any public notice issued. Where therefore such a curious procedure was adopted, the order was bad in law and is consequently liable to be set aside. The delay of 5 1/2 years in approaching this Court should not be weighed against the writ petitioners. Though the appellant opposed this stand stating, if notice has not been issued to the Tahsildar, it was for the Tahsildar to make out a grievance and not for the so called devotees to take up cudgels on behalf of the Tahsildar, the learned Judge ultimately held the order was bad in law as having been passed without notice to the Tahsildar and accordingly he remitted the matter to the Tribunal. Thus, the writ appeal.