SHIVANAGOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to quash the order at Annexure-B, dtd. 6/7/2007 bearing No.BADAS.K.H.-De-SR-2+11+108, issued by respondent No.2 and further to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to confer occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner in respect of the lands in question.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.12 to 15; and also the learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(3.) Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this writ petition narrated briefly are, agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.6/2 measuring 1 gunta; Sy.No.7/2 measuring 22 guntas; Sy.No.7/3 measuring 20 guntas; Sy.No.7/4 measuring 22 guntas; Sy.No.6/3 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas; Sy.No.6/5 measuring 34 guntas; Sy.No.7/5 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas; and Sy.No.6A/3 measuring 2 guntas situated in Badas K.H. Village, Belagavi Taluka are Inam lands belonging to Kalameshwar Temple. Applications under Sec. 11 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (for short "Act, 1977") in Form No.1 was filed claiming occupancy rights of these lands by one Shri Basanagouda Rudragouda Patil and by the petitioner herein along with three others. While the application filed by the petitioner and others was pending consideration, the Land Tribunal by order dtd. 6/8/1981 had granted the occupancy rights of the lands in question in favour of Shri Basanagouda Rudragouda Patil. The said order was challenged before this Court by the petitioner and others in W.P. No.17120/1987, which was allowed by this Court on 23/2/1988 and the order dtd. 6/8/1981 passed by the Tribunal was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal has once again considered the claim made by both the parties and vide the impugned order dtd. 6/7/2007 has granted the occupancy rights of the lands in question in favour of Shri Basanagouda Rudragouda Patil. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.