Karnataka High Court
Badada Raghavendrachar And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 April, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 200817 OF 2022 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
1. BADADA RAGHAVENDRACHAR
S/O BADADA NARASIMHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
OCC : HEREDITARY ARCHAKA
2. BADADA RAMACHAR
DEAD BY LR'S
2A) SMT. B. VIJAYA W/O BADADHA RAMACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: JAPADAKATTE, BICHALI VILLAGE,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT: RAICHUR.
Digitally signed
by SACHIN 2B) SMT SHYLAVI W/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO,
Location: HIGH AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA VILLA NO.11, NAPLE TOWN,
BANDLAGUDA JAGIR, HYDERABAD,
TELNGANA STATE.
2C) SMT GAUTAMI W/O RAMESH JAYARAM,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
PLOT NO.143, SRINIVASA HILLS COLONY,
PARVATHAPUR, UPPAL, HYDERABAD.
2D) SMT VAISHNAVI W/O PRADEEP KUMAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
FLAT NO.5302, VIDAVATHI BLOCK,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
NANDI ENCLAVE, BANASHANKARI
IV STAGE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA.
2E) BICHALI PAVAN KUMAR
S/O BADADHA RAMACHAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HEREDITARY ARCHAKA,
JAPADAKATTE, BICHALI VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DIST. RAICHUR.
3. BADADA KRISHNACHAR
S/O BADADA NARASIMHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC : HEREDITARY ARCHAKA,
4. BADADA SHAMACHAR
S/O BADADA NARASIMHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC : HEREDITARY ARCHAKA,
PETITIONER NO.1, 3 AND 4 ARE
R/O H.NO.1 TO 7,
JAPADAKATTE BICHALLI,
POST. BICHALI,
RAICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANANT MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SHIVASHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (LAND GRANT-3),
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR DISTRICT,
RAICHUR-584101.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR CIRCLE,
RAICHUR-584101.
4. TAHSILDAR,
RAICHUR TALUK,
RAICHUR-584101.
5. SHREE RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT
NANJANGUD, DISTRICT MYSORE,
MANTHARALAYA CAMP
ANDHARA PRADESH
REPRESENTED BY ITS PONTIFF
SRI SUBHUDENDRA
THEERTHA SWAMIJI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AAG AND SRI MALHARA RAO,
AAG A/W SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4,
SRI J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE
APPROPRIATE WRIT, MORE SO IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
AND MANDAMUS AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS :
I) QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO.RD.20/LGR
21, BENGALURU DATED 24.02.2022 COPY OF WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-J; II) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 TO
CONSIDER, IMMEDIATELY THE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONERS DATED 24.06.2006 COPY OF WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-B FOR GRANTING THE LAND SY.NO.35 MEASURING
1 ACRE 2 GUNTAS AND SY.NO.37 MEASURING 1 ACRE 31
GUNTAS, BOTH SITUATED AT VILLAGE BICHALI, HOBLI
GILLESUGUR, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR, IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN IN VIEW OF THE POSSESSION AND
OCCUPATION OF THESE LANDS BY THE PETITIONERS FROM A
LONG TIME; III) QUASH THE ORDER BEARING C.NO.24928,
DCRAI-LND0MISC/48/2021RAI, DATED 28.03.2022 PASSED BY
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022HC-KAR
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L; AND IV) ISSUE
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS
THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 23.03.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CAV ORDER
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India is filed seeking for the following
reliefs:
(i) Quash the Government order bearing
No.RD.20/LGR 21, Bengaluru dated 24.02.2022
copy of which is at Annexure-J;
(ii) Direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider,
immediately the application of the petitioners
dated 24.06.2006 copy of which is at Annexure-B
for granting the land Sy.No.35 measuring 1 acre 2
guntas and Sy.No.37 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas,
both situated at village Bichali, Hobli Gillesugur,
Tq. and Dist. Raichur, in favour of the petitioners
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022HC-KAR
herein in view of the possession and occupation of
these lands by the petitioners from a long time;
(iii) Quash the order bearing C.No.24928, DCRAI-
LND0MISC/48/2021RAI, dated 28.03.2022 passed
by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-L; and
(iv) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction
as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
3. Petitioners claim that, the land bearing
Sy.Nos.35 and 37 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas and 1 acre
31 guntas respectively, situated at Bichali village, Raichur
taluka and district, has been in possession and enjoyment
by the forefathers of the petitioners who according to
them had developed the property and constructed
Brindavana in the memorial of Shree Raghavendra Swamy
and have been performing the religious rituals. The
property is now known as “Shree Kshetra Bichali”. The
petitioners claim that, they have filed an application on
24.06.2006 before the Assistant Commissioner, Raichur
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
with a copy to the Tahasildar, Raichur with a prayer to
regularize their unauthorized occupation of the land in
question. It appears that, the 5th respondent-Mutt had also
filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner,
Raichur, with a prayer to grant the aforesaid land under
Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1969’). The Deputy
Commissioner after verifying the credentials of 5th
respondent had submitted a proposal seeking approval of
the State Government to allot the aforesaid land in favour
of the 5th respondent. The State Government vide order at
Annexure-K dated 24.02.2022 has accorded permission to
grant the aforesaid land in favour of the 5th respondent
after collecting 50% of the guideline value of the property
and other applicable fees. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the
petition submits that, the State Government as well as the
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
Deputy Commissioner have flouted all the applicable
statutory provisions while passing the impugned order. He
submits that, 5th respondent is a “Mutt” and therefore,
cannot be considered as a Charitable Institution for the
purpose of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969. The beneficiary
should be a Religious and Charitable Institution. He
submits that, the petitioners had made a rival claim in
support of the lands in question and therefore, the Deputy
Commissioner was under the obligation to consider the
petitioners claim along with the claim of the 5th
respondent. He submits that, the material on record would
go to show that, the petitioners and their forefathers have
been in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question
for time immemorial. The impugned order has been
passed at the instance of the then Revenue Minister and
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Minister. He
submits that, the petitioners claim under Rule 108-C of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 has not been
considered till date and therefore, a prayer is also made to
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned
authorities to consider the petitioners claim at Annexure-
D. He submits that, though the petitioners are in
possession and enjoyment of the lands in question without
taking any action to vacate them, the impugned order at
Annexure-K has been passed. In support of his arguments,
he has placed reliance on the following Judgments:
(a) Krishne Gowda Vs. Lobo – ILR 1992 Kar. 1382;
(b) Radha Bhai Vs. Shashikala and ors. – ILR 1998
Kar. 302;
(c) Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M.
Kamalia and ors. – (2004) 2 SCC 65;
(d) Sri. Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt Vs.
State of Karnataka and ors. – 2024 (4) KarLJ
259;
(e) The St. Annes Education Society and another
Vs. State of Karnataka by Commissioner and
Secretary, Department of Revenue – ILR 2002
KAR 4096;
(f) Sri Sri Sri Madhusudanandapuri Swamiji,
Matadhipathi and Peetadhikari Omkar Ashram
Vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue
and ors. – MANU/KA/0189/2009 : WP
No.11506/2008 dated 03.07.2009;
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
(g) Raghavendra Swami Mutt Vs. Board of
Commissioners, Hindu Religious Endowments –
AIR 1957 AP 150.
(h) S.P.Kapoor and others vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh and others – AIR 1981 SC 2181;
(i) Arjunappa and others vs. State of Karnataka
and others – MANU/KA/3255/2022 : 2022 KHC
22810;
(j) U.M.Ramesh Rao and othes vs. Union Bank of
India and others – ILR 2021 KAR 2196
5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing
on behalf of the respondents/State submits that
petitioners have no locus to maintain this writ petition.
She submits that petitioners have challenged the order at
Annexure-K dated 24.02.2022 which is a prior approval
granted by the State in compliance of the requirement of
Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969. The Deputy Commissioner
has subsequently passed an order granting the land in
question in favour of the 5th respondent on 28.03.2022
which is produced as Anneuxre-R19 in the statement of
objections filed on behalf of the State. She submits that
petitioners have not questioned the said order passed by
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 21 of the Rules of
1969. She submits that petitioners have not filed any
application under Rule 21 of Karnataka Land Grant Rules,
1969 and it is only the trust which was formed by
petitioner Nos.2 and 4 herein had filed an application for
grant of lands in question. She submits that application of
the said trust and the application of the 5th respondent
was jointly considered and based on the report of the
concerned authorities, Deputy Commissioner after prior
approval of the State has rightly granted the land to the
5th respondent. She submits that there is a inter se dispute
between the petitioners with regard to performing of pooja
at the Brindavana which exists in the land in question.
Petitioners are only Archaks. Petitioners at best would be
considered as Archaks, performing pooja at the
Brindavana of Shree Raghavendra Swamy existing in the
lands in question. Petitioners claim is under Section 94-A
of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 read with Rule 108-C of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 which provides
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
for regularization of the unauthorised occupation.
Application at Annexure-D filed by the petitioners is not in
the prescribed form. Petitioners, who have claimed rights
of performing pooja in the suit in O.S.No.113/2016 filed by
them cannot be considered as unauthorised occupants of
the lands in question.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 having
adopted the arguments addressed by learned Additional
Advocate General submits that the competent authority
after considering all the reports from the concerned
authorities with the prior approval of the State has passed
an order on 28.03.2022 granting the land in dispute in
favour of the 5th respondent and the said order has not
been questioned. He submits that petitioners application at
Annexure-D is claiming regularization of only Sy.No.37,
whereas the grant is in respect of Sy.No.35/*/* and
Sy.No.37/*/* of Bichali village, Raichur Taluk. Petitioners
also had filed a suit claiming adverse possession of the
lands in question against the State and its instrumentality,
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
which was subsequently withdrawn. The claim of
petitioners is not consistent and therefore prays to dismiss
the petition.
7. Perusal of the material on record would go to
show that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 had formed a trust
known as Shree Thirtha Kshethra Bichali Japadakatti
Development and Welfare Trust which was registered on
15.12.2012 and petitioner Nos.2 and 4 had formed a trust
known as Japadakatti Bichali Appannacharya Seva Trust
(R), Shree Theertha Kshetra Bikshalaya which was
registered on 08.03.2013. It appears that the trust formed
by petitioner Nos.2 and 4 and the 5th respondent-Mutt are
the applicants under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Grant
Rules, 1969. The Deputy Commissioner, after considering
those two applications, had called for reports from the
concerned revenue authorities and based on the said
report, appears to have forwarded a proposal to the State
Government for according prior approval to grant the
lands in question in favour of the 5th respondent.
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
Considering the said proposal and all the other relevant
documents which were forwarded by the Deputy
Commissioner, the State Government vide the order
impugned at Annexure-K dated 24.02.2022 has accorded
prior approval for granting the aforesaid two lands in
favour of the 5th respondent. Pursuant to the order at
Annexure-K, passed by the State Government, the Deputy
Commissioner has passed an order on 28.03.2022 at
Annexure-R19, granting the lands in question infavour of
5th respondent. Undisputedly, the said order has not been
questioned by the petitioners or anybody else till date.
8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has
strenuously contended that the authority concerned has
erred in considering the application of the 5th respondent
without clubbing the petitioners application.
9. Perusal of the material on record would go to
show that petitioners have filed an application seeking
regularisation of their unauthorised occupation of one of
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
the items of the land which is subject matter of the order
impugned. The application of the petitioners is as provided
under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act
1964 and Rule 108-CCC of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Rules, 1966. Application of the 5th respondent is for grant
the lands in question as provided under Rule 21 of the
Rules of 1969. The competent authority to consider the
application of the petitioners and to consider the
application of the 5th respondent are different. For the
purpose of considering an application under Rule 21 of the
Rules of 1969, the Deputy Commissioner is the competent
authority and for the purpose of considering an application
under Section 94-A read with Rule 108-CCC of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, the Committee
constituted under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 is the competent authority.
10. Under the circumstances, there was no occasion
for the 2nd respondent – Deputy Commissioner to club the
application of the petitioners along with the application of
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
5th respondent which was filed before him. Therefore, the
judgment in the case of Krishne Gowda vs. Lobo
reported in ILR 1992 KAR 1382 and in the case of
Radha Bai vs. Shashikala and others reported in ILR
1998 KAR 302 on which reliance has been placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be made
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
11. Claim of the petitioners is for regularization of
their unauthorised occupation of one of the items of the
land which is subject matter of the order impugned.
According to the petitioners their claim for regularisation
of the unauthorised occupation of the land question is as
provided under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 and Rule 108-C of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Rules, 1966 which is found in Chapter XIII-A of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Rule 108-F of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 provides for
eligibility for grant. The same reads as follows :
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022HC-KAR
“108-F. Eligibility for Grant. – No person shall be
eligible for grant of land under this Chapter,
unless.-
(i) he has attained the age of eighteen years;
and
(ii) xxxx.
(iii) he is a permanent resident within the limits of
the Taluk in which the land is situated or in
the adjacent Taluk; and
(iv) he is a bona fide agriculturist cultivating the
land personally and is not prohibited from
holding or acquiring land under the provisions
of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961; and
(v) he is in authorized occupation of land for at
least a continuous period of not less than
three years prior to the Fourteenth day of
April, 1990:
Provided that in the case of persons
belonging to scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, such period shall be not less than one
year.
(vi) Applicant is in unauthorized occupation of
Land applied, for at least a continuous period
of not less than three years prior to the first
day of January, 2005.”
12. Rule 108-F sub-rule (iv) clearly states that only
a person who is a bona fide agriculturist cultivating the
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
land personally is eligible for grant of land under Chapter
XIII-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.
13. Material on record would go to show that in the
lands in question no agricultural activities are carried on
and on the other hand the said land are developed and
number of buildings are in existence. Even according to
the petitioners, in the lands in question, the Brindavana of
late Shree Raghavendra Swamy is in existence and pooja
and other religious rituals are being performed in the said
land. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are
carrying on agricultural activities in the land in question
and therefore their claim for regularization of their
unauthorised occupation in respect of the lands in question
is not maintainable.
14. It is relevant to note here that petitioners had
filed O.S.No.59/2022 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at
Raichur against the respondent/State and its
instrumentality with a prayer for declaration of their title
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
by adverse possession. In the said suit, petitioners have
described the lands in question as religious and tourist
spot which consists of goshala, kirana shop, kitchens,
toilets, resting rooms, two anna dasoha kendras in
addition to the Brindavana of late Shree Raghavendra
Swamy and temple of Narasimha Swamy.
15. O.S.No.113/2016 was filed before the
jurisdictional Civil Court at Raichur by petitioners No.1 and
3 herein against petitioner Nos.2 and 4. In the said suit,
petitioner Nos.2 and 4 have filed a written statement and
in paragraph Nos.6 to 9 of the written statement filed in
the said suit by petitioner Nos.2 and 4 herein, it is stated
as follows :
“6. The defendants humbly submit that the
plaintiff No:1 was a Research Officer in ICRISAT,
Hyderabad and the Plaintiff No: 2 was working as a
regional sales officer for RAPTAKOS-BRETT
[Pharmaceuticals], Hyderabad, and both having
retired from the jobs do not have you any
productive work, as such taking advantage of the
Def No:1’s accident and his paraplegia [confined to
a wheelchair] during first week of September 2012
came to Bichali Village & started sitting near the
Japada Katte by DONNING THE ATTIRE OF A POIUS
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022HC-KAR
BRAMHIN BY WEARING SILK MADI VASTRA &
PUTTING GOPI CHANDAN MUDRAS, STARTED
THUGGING UNWARY DEVOTEES BY COLLECTING
DONATIONS IN NAME OF TEMPLE & GODS AT
JAPADAKATTE.
7. The defendants, humbly submit that, the
entire Japadakatte was washed away in the River
Tungabhadra floods of 2009 and the defendants
were seeking the help of local villagers and
devotees to reconstruct the entire setup by seeking
for small donations from the duties, but in the
meanwhile taking advantage of the Flash floods,
the plaintiffs approached the Thasildhar, Raichur
and filed an application on a COMPUTERISED
DOCTORED/FAKE LATER PAD, wherein the Plaintiff
No: 2 illegally claimed to be secretary and the
Plaintiff No: 1 cleaning as the President of a
FICTITIOUS ORGANISATION “SHREE THIRTHA
KSHETRA JAPADA KATTE BICHALI” got sanctioned
the compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/- out of
which they got released Rs.3,00,000/- and
SIPHONED OFF THE GOVERNMENT MONEY,
however with the intervention of the defendants the
government stopped the further disbursal of
Rs.3,00,000/- flood compensation amount and the
defendants have produced the documents
pertaining to same for the perusal of the
honourable court.
8. The defendants humbly submit that they
intended to file criminal case against the plaintiffs,
but their sisters and other family members desisted
them from doing so, because ultimately the revered
name of the late father and the ancestors would be
affected.
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022HC-KAR
9. The defendants humbly submit that, the
plaintiffs did not stop at that and INSPITE OF NOT
AT ALL BEING AT THE HELM OF AFFAIRS NOR
CONNECTED TO ANY OF THE DIVINE ACTIVITIES
BEING EXCLUSIVELY UNDERTAKEN BY THE
DEFENDANTS herein and ONLY WITH THE SOLE &
VILE INTENTION OF MAKING ILLEGAL MONEY BY
THUGGING NAIVE DEVOTEES, the plaintiffs illegally
got registered a Trust Deed consisting of only their
family members totally excluding the defendants
and other family members and then got printed
receipts and again DONNING THE ATTIRE OF A
POIUS BRAMHIN BY WEARING SILK MADI VASTRA
& PUTTING GOPI CHANDAN MUDRAS, STARTED
THUGGING UNWARY DEVOTEES BY COLLECTING
DONATIONS IN NAME OF THE TRUST.”
16. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that
petitioners inter se have a dispute with regard to
performing of pooja and other religious rituals at the
Brindavana and at the temple existing in the property in
question. As stated earlier, two separate trusts have been
formed by the petitioners herein and it appears that they
have inter se dispute. One of the trust formed by
petitioner Nos.2 and 4 by name Japadakatti Bichali
Appannacharya Seva Trust (R), Shree Theertha Kshetra
Bikshalaya which was registered on 08.03.2013 has filed
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
an application before the Deputy Commissioner for grant
of the land. However, the said trust is not before this
Court challenging the order impugned and in the absence
of the trust, the petitioners independently are not entitled
to maintain this writ petition challenging the order
impugned more so when they have not even filed an
appropriate application before the Deputy Commissioner
for grant of lands in question. In addition to the same,
since the application of petitioners for regularisation of
their unauthorized occupation of the lands in question
itself is not maintainable, it is not necessary for this court
to delve into the merits of the case, more so where the
order of grant at Annexure-R19 has been not at all
challenged by the petitioners.
17. The judgment in the case of St.Annes
Education Society and others vs. The State of
Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2002 KAR 4096
on which reliance has been placed by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, cannot be made
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present
case. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good
ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 101