SOMANNA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have called into question the second respondent - Land Tribunal's order, dated 19.12.1981 (Annexure-A) granting the occupancy rights. Sri. H. Subramanya Jois, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. K.C. Shanthakumar for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. The impugned order is non-est in law and has no legal efficacy. Under the provisions of the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1965, the Land Tribunal is not clothed with the power to grant the occupancy rights.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel submits that the void order remains void, even if no challenge is raised to the same. He submits that the technicalities should not come in the way of doing substantial justice to the parties. Mere passage of time could not have the effect of validating the void order, so submits the learned Senior Counsel. He states that the petitioners are all the devotees of the deities in question and that it is a part of their pious obligation to protect the temple properties.

(3.) Sri. Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 7, 9 to 17, 25, 26, 28 to 34 and 36 to 43 submits that on the same cause of action, five persons had earlier filed W.P. Nos. 47869-47877/2011. On learned Single Judge raising the issue of maintainability of the said petitions, the said five persons withdrew the writ petitions. Immediately thereafter these petitions are filed.