IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 19th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NOs. 4-6 OF 2015 (LR) BETWEEN:
1. SREE RANGANATHA SWAMY DEVARU TEMPLE 2. SREE HANUMANTHA DEVARU TEMPLE 3. SREE NARASIMHA SWAMY DEVARU TEMPLE APPEALLANTS NO.1 TO 3 DETIEIS ARE SITUATED AT GOLENAHALLI @ GOLLENAHALLI, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 219 REPRESENTED BY .
4. GOVINDAIAH SON OF NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
5. G.T GANGADHARAIAH SON OF THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
6. JAYARAMA , SON OF VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
7. CHANDRASHEKHAR SON OF NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
8. RANGASWAMAIAH SON OF GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
9. BOREGOWDA SON OF JOGAJJA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
10. SURESHA SON OF HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
11. SHIVALINGAIAH SON OF BORALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
12. NARSIMHEGOWDA SON OF THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
APPELLANTS 4 TO 12 ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND HEREDITARY ARCHAKS OF APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 RESIDING AT GOLENAHALLI @ GOLLENAHALLI, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 219.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, GUBBI TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TAHSILDAR, GUBBI TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 216.
3. MUZARAI OFFICER AND TAHSILDAR GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 216.
KARIGIRAIAH @ KARIGIRIYAPPA SON OF LATE THIMMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 4. K. PUTTASWAMAIAH SON OF LATE KARIGIRAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 5. SREENIVASAMURTHY SON OF LATE KARIGIRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
6. K. SATHYANARAYANA SON OF LATE KARIGIRAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
7. K. KRISHNAIAH SON OF LATE KARIGIRAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
8. K. VITTALA SON OF LATE KARIGIRAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
9. K. SREEDHARA SON OF MADHUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO 4 TO 9 ARE RESIDENTS OF YADAVANAHALLI KOPPA POST, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 572219 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M. ANITHA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3, RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 9 ARE SERVED) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.36537-39 OF 2014 DATED 5/11/2014.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 05.11.2014 passed in Writ Petition Nos.36537- 39 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed these appeals.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petitions. That the question of delay is not fatal to the case of the appellants. That the land stood in the name of the temple. Therefore, the villagers are interested in the properties of the temple. Secondly, the finding of the learned Single Judge that they have no locus standi is incorrect. Further, the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that there is a delay of 32 years in filing the writ petitions, is also misconceived. The appellants were not aware of passing of the impugned order. It is only when the respondents attempted to interfere with the possession in the year 2014, they came to know that the impugned order has been passed. It is further pleaded that the land Tribunal’s order being bereft of any reasons, interference is called for.
3. The learned High Court Government Pleader defends the impugned order. She contends that there is no error committed by the Tribunal, that calls for interference.
4. Respondent Nos.4 to 9 are served and unrepresented.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
6. The first ground on which the writ petitions were dismissed was that the petitioners have no locus standi to question the impugned order. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the temples namely, Sree Ranganatha Swamy Devaru, Sree Hanumantha Devaru and Sree Narasimha Swamy Devaru. Respondent Nos.4 to 9 are the villagers. The Archakas are managing the properties of the temple. Respondent Nos.4 to 9 being the villagers are necessarily interested persons to protect the properties of the temple. The temple as such has always been represented by the villagers. The temple by itself cannot contest the litigation. Therefore, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the villagers have no locus standi to question the impugned order may not be correct.
7. The second ground is that there is delay of 32 years in challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal. The reasons assigned for the delay could be seen from paragraph 8 of the writ petitions, wherein it is stated that the petitioners and other villagers were not aware of the order passed by the land Tribunal. That in the year 2014, when respondent No.4 and his sons asserted their right over the title of the properties, they came to know that the impugned order was passed. The learned Single Judge found it difficult to accept the said reasoning. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on delay.
8. On considering the reasons assigned, we are of the view that the dismissal of the writ petitions on the ground of delay is improper. The writ petitions could not be considered on delay alone, but in the facts and circumstances involved, the petition being dismissed only on the ground of delay perse would necessarily affect the legal rights of the parties.
9. The order of the land Tribunal does not indicate any application of mind. The order of the land Tribunal states that the applicant was present. That there were no other applications. That the pahani appears in his name. Consequently, the Members agreed. We do not find the manner in which the land Tribunal has passed the order is proper. There is no reference as to whether the respondent – temple was properly served or not. Insofar as the pahani is concerned, the same is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. Therefore, it appears that with regard to the entries in the name of the tenants therein, there is no reference as to whether the tenants have been examined and any of their statements are recorded. There is no reference at all whether the respondents objected to the same. One of the pahanis would indicate that the land in question was transferred in the name of the original tenant having purchased the same, which entry is notified in the year 1983-84. The order of the land Tribunal is dated 4.3.1982. If the original tenant has purchased the land in the year 1982, the question of purchasing the property subsequently, would not arise for consideration.
10. Therefore, we are of the view that these issues ought to have been determined by the land Tribunal. The land Tribunal has failed to do so and has passed an unreasoned order, which is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal would have to hold a necessary enquiry and thereafter determine the rights of the parties therein. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the aforesaid issues, but for the facts and the materials on record are concerned, it is suffice to hold that the order of the land Tribunal being perfunctory requires to be set-aside.
11. In these circumstances, in view of the non- speaking order being passed by the land Tribunal, the question of delay would fade into insignificance. For the reasons assigned, the writ appeals are allowed. The order dated 5.11.2014 passed in Writ Petition Nos.36537-39 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The impugned order of the land Tribunal dated 4.3.1982 passed in L.R.M.INA (KA) No.307, 306/79-80 and 877-80-
81 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. All contentions kept open.
12. The petitioners shall appear before the land Tribunal on 13.05.2019 without any further notice. If the Tribunal does not exist, the parties to appear before the concerned Tahsildar, to proceed further in the matter. The land Tribunal shall thereafter issue notice to the interested persons and proceed to hear the matter on merits.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA