Karnataka HC Sends Son’s Claim to Belagavi Temple Land Back to Tribunal to Decide Whether His Father Was Tenant or Mortgagee

The Land Tribunal, Belagavi, allowed respondent No. 2’s claim to occupancy rights over 1 acre 12 guntas in Sy. No. 135, an inam land belonging to Kalmeshwar Temple, Vadagaon

Respondent No. 2 claimed through his father, Nanasaheb Ramagoda Patil.

In 1976, the father had filed W.P. No. 6779/1976, which was remanded to the Tribunal to determine whether his occupation was as a mortgagee or tenant; no further proceedings were pursued after the remand.

Respondent No. 2 later filed an application in Form No. 1A under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977.

The Tribunal granted his claim without determining the question identified in the earlier remand.

The petitioners challenged that order.

The Court stated that, under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, a mortgagee does not acquire a vested right to claim occupancy rights in respect of vested land, and a mortgagee cannot be equated with a tenant for the purposes of the Act.

The Tribunal’s order referred to Sections 5(2), 11 and 12(2) of the Act, but the High Court did not determine their application; it directed the Tribunal to consider the factual and maintainability questions on remand.

Respondent No. 2 asserted rights through his father, whose status as mortgagee or tenant remained unresolved after the 1980 remand.

Because the distinction is legally material—mortgagees do not obtain occupancy rights under the Act—the Tribunal could not grant respondent No. 2’s claim without first deciding the father’s status.

The impugned order did not address that question, and the Court also considered it necessary for the Tribunal to examine whether the Form No. 1A application was maintainable.

The matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal, Belagavi, to determine the father’s status, respondent No. 2’s entitlement to claim through him, the maintainability of the Form No. 1A application, and any other questions raised by the parties.

The Tribunal was directed to pass an appropriate order within two months of receiving a certified copy of the High Court’s order; status quo was to be maintained until then.