RAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal is against the Order of the learned single judge allowing writ petition No. 5744 of 1987 filed by the 7th respondent, whereby the Order of the 2nd respondent the special deputy commissioner, tumkur, dated 28-4-1977, and the Order of the 6th respondent land tribunal, were quashed.

(2.) the brief facts are as follows: one Smt. Laxmidevamma, ancestor of the 7th respondent on 23-1-1909 gifted the land measuring 3 acres 13 guntas in amanikere, tumkur taluk, in favour of the 4th respondent deity Sri Lakshminarasimhaswamy temple and a gift deed was .executed by her agnate on 20-11-1916. The appellant, claiming occupancy rights under Section 6(a) of the Karnataka (religious and charitable) inams abolition Act, 1955, applied to the second respondent for registration as an occupant, contending that he is a tenant in occupation of the land by virtue of panchsal (five years) gutha. The claim of the appellant was accepted and the 2nd respondent by an Order dated 28-4-1977 in annexure-g registered the appellant as an occupant, while rejecting the claim of the 4th respondent temple. The said Order was confirmed by the land tribunal. Certain persons claiming to be the dharmadarshis of the temple questioned the orders of respondents 2 and 6 in writ petition No. 41351 of 1982. The 7th respondent got herself impleaded as a party respondent 6 in the said writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed holding that the petitioners therein had failed to establish that they are the dharmadarshis of the temple and also on the ground that the impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity. The 7th respondent thereafter called in question the Order of the learned single judge in writ appeal No. 499 of 1987. She later filed a memo for permission to withdraw the appeal as she has been advised to challenge the impugned orders in appropriate proceedings. Thereupon the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 10-4-1987. Thereafter the 7th respondent filed the present writ petition challenging the very same orders of respondents 2 and 6.

(3.) Sri Subbanna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant firstly contended that the matter is concluded by the earlier judgment in writ petition No. 41351 of 1982. Hence by virtue of the principles of res judicata the impugned orders which were upheld in the earlier writ petition cannot be challenged once again. He further submitted that even on merits, the learned single judge was in error in allowing the writ petition, as occupancy rights were rightly granted to the appellant as he was a lessee in occupation of the land in question even as on the date of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which came into force on 2-10-1965.