Sri Ramakrishna Prasad v. The Deputy Commissioner

( , ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(27 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026(

PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MRS.(JUSTICE(ANU(SIVARAMAN( AND(( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(SACHIN(SHANKAR(MAGADUM( REVIEW(PETITION(NO.(745(OF(2022(( BETWEEN:(( (

1., SRI,RAMAKRISHNA,PRASAD, SON,OF,LATE,RAMACHANDRA,PRASAD,, AGED,ABOUT,80,YEARS,, RESIDING,AT,THAMBIHALLI,VILLAGE, HUTTURU,HOBLI,,KOLAR,TALUK,&,DISTRICT,-,563,103., ,

2., SRI,T,R,VISHWANATH, SON,OF,LATE,RAMACHANDRA,PRASAD,, AGED,ABOUT,78,YEARS,, RESIDING,AT,THAMBIHALLI,VILLAGE, HUTTURU,HOBLI,,KOLAR,TALUK,&,DISTRICT,-,563,103., ,

3., SRI,R,SOMASUNDARA,PRASAD, Digitallytisignedtiby SON,OF,LATE,RAMACHANDRA,PRASAD,, CHAITHRA0A Location:0HIGH AGED,ABOUT,66,YEARS,, COURT0OF KARNATAKA RESIDING,AT,THAMBIHALLI,VILLAGE, HUTTURU,HOBLI, KOLAR,TALUK,&,DISTRICT,-,563,103., ,

4., SRI,T,R,ANANTHARAM,PRASAD, SON,OF,LATE,RAMACHANDRA,PRASAD,, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS,, RESIDING,AT,THAMBIHALLI,VILLAGE, HUTTURU,HOBLI, KOLAR,TALUK,&,DISTRICT,-,563,103., …PETITIONERS, , (BY,SRI.,T,N,VISWANATHA.,,ADVOCATE), ( , ( ( AND:( (

1., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER, KOLAR,DISTRICT, KOLAR,-,563,103., ,

2., SRI,GOPALASWAMY,DEVASTHANA, THAMBIHALLI,VILLAGE, REPTD.,BY,ITS,TAHASILDAR, KOLAR,TALUK,&,DISTRICT,563,103., , , (RESPONDENTS,NO.3,TO,8,DELETED, AS,PER,HON'BLE,COURT,ORDER,DATED,24.02.2026), , , SMT.,JAYAMMA, SINCE,DEAD,BY,LRs, ,

9., SMT,KRISHNAVENAMMA, WIFE,OF,LATE,T,R,NARASIMHA,MURTHY,, SINCE,DEAD,BY,LRs, (RESPONDENT,NO.,10,TO,15, ALREADY,ON,RECORD), ,

10., SRI,RAGHAVENDRA,T,N, SON,OF,LATE,T,R,NARASIMHA,MURTHY,, AGED,ABOUT,57,YEARS, STRESIDING,AT,NO.,1172,,1 ,CROSS,, OPP.,TO,RAMAKRISHNA,FLOOR,MILLS,, SHARADA,TALKIES,ROAD,, KOLAR,-,563,102., ,

11., SRI,SUDHEENDRA,RAO,T,N, SON,OF,LATE,T,R,NARASIMHA,MURTHY,, AGED,ABOUT,55,YEARS, STRESIDING,AT,NO,1172,,1 ,CROSS,, OPP.,TO,RAMAKRISHNA,FLOOR,MILLS,, SHARADA,TALKIES,ROAD,, KOLAR,-,563,102., ,

12., SRI,VIJAYENDRA,RAO,T,N, SON,OF,LATE,T,R,NARASIMHA,MURTHY,, ( , ( ( AGED,ABOUT,52,YEARS, STRESIDING,AT,NO,1172,,1 ,CROSS,, OPP.,TO,RAMAKRISHNA,FLOOR,MILLS, SHARADA,TALKIES,ROAD,, KOLAR,-,563,102., ,

13., SRI,T,N,ANIL,KUMAR, SON,OF,LATE,T,R,NARASIMHA,MURTHY,, AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS, STRESIDING,AT,NO,1172,,1 ,CROSS,, OPP.,TO,RAMAKRISHNA,FLOOR,MILLS,, SHARADA,TALKIES,ROAD,, KOLAR,-,563,102., ,

14., SRI,MADHUSUDAN,T,N, SON,OF,LATE,T,R,NARASIMHA,MURTHY,, AGED,ABOUT,46,YEARS, STRESIDING,AT,NO,1172,,1 ,CROSS,, OPP.,TO,RAMAKRISHNA,FLOOR,MILLS,, SHARADA,TALKIES,ROAD,, KOLAR,-,563,102., ,

15., SMT.,SUDHA, D/O,LATE,T,R,NARASIMHA,MURTHY,, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS, RESIDING,BEHIND,ST.ANN'S,SCHOOL,, P,C,LAYOUT,,, KOLAR,-,563,101., , [CAUSE,TITLE,AMENDED,AS,PER,COURT,ORDER], , …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.,RADHA,RAMASWAMY,,AGA,FOR,R1;, ,,,,,,SRI.,ABHINAY,Y,T,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R10,-,R14;, ,,,,,,V/O,DATED,24.02.2026,NOTICE,TO,R-2,IS,D/W;, ,,,,,,V/O,DT.,24.2.2026,R3-R8,ARE,PERMITTED,TO,, ,,,,,,BE,DELETED;, ,,,,,,V/O,DT.,24.2.2026,R10-R15,ARE,TREATED,AS,, ,,,,,,LRS,OF,DECEASED,R9), , , ( , ( ( , THIS,RP,IS,FILED,UNDER,ORDER,XLVII,RULE,1,OF,THE, CODE,OF,CIVIL,PROCEDURE,,1908,PRAYING,TO,REVIEW,THE, ORDER, DATED, 12.08.2021, PASSED, IN, WRIT, APPEAL., NO., 534/2021, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THIS, HON'BLE, COURT, IN, THE, INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY., , , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, REPORTING, SETTLEMENT,,THIS,DAY,,JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN, AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MRS.,JUSTICE,ANU,SIVARAMAN, AND,, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,SACHIN,SHANKAR,MAGADUM, , ORAL(JUDGMENT( (PER:,HON'BLE,MRS.,JUSTICE,ANU,SIVARAMAN)( , , Heard,the,learned,counsel,for,the,review,petitioners, and, the, learned, counsel, appearing, for, the, party/respondents., We, have, also, heard, the, learned, Government,Advocate., , 2., It, is, submitted, by, the, learned, counsel, appearing, for, the, parties, that, the, dispute, between, the,

parties has been amicably settled. The private respondents have agreed to withdraw the claim of tenancy that had been set up by their paternal grandmother, Jayamma. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submits that the application filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was under the provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for short "Act, 1955") and therefore the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner was in accordance with law. It is contended that, in that view of the matter, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration was unwarranted. Learned counsel further submits that this aspect had been specifically urged before the Division Bench but was not considered.

¶3On perusal of the records, the application filed by the grandmother of private respondents is in respect of lands attached to Sri.Venugopalaswamy temple and therefore, it presupposes that the claim is one made under

the provisions of the Act, 1955. The Scheme of the said enactment clearly indicates that on abolition of the Act, 1955, all questions relating to determination of land, the identification of Inamdar and the rights of the persons claiming occupancy or tenancy in respect of such lands are required to be adjudicated by the statutory authority constituted under the Act. In particular, Section 7 of the Act, 1955, provides for registration of occupants and contemplates an enquiry by a Special Deputy Commissioner to determine whether the applicant is entitled to be registered as an occupant. Thus, the statute vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Special Deputy Commissioner to examine the rival claims relating to Inamdarship as well as tenancy in respect of Inam lands. In the present case, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents admits that the respondents' claim is traceable to the provisions of the Act, 1955. Once the respondents themselves assert a right under the enactment, the necessary consequence is that the

adjudication of such claim must be undertaken by the authority designated under the statute namely the Special Deputy Commissioner.

¶4Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that it is not in dispute that the claim for tenancy rights by Jayamma was made under the provisions of the Act, 1955. The respondents have also admitted the said factual position. In such circumstances, the Special Deputy Commissioner was the competent authority to examine the claim. The Special Deputy Commissioner, upon consideration of the material on record, came to the conclusion that Jayamma had no valid claim for tenancy and accordingly rejected the application filed by her. In view of the admitted factual position and the statutory framework governing the claim, we find merit in the review petition. Consequently, the judgment under review passed by the Division Bench is recalled.

Writ appeal is restored to file.

The review petition is accordingly, allowed.

Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1