IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL R.P.No.128/2017 IN WP.Nos.48509-512/2016 BETWEEN SRI HULIYAMMA DEVASTHAN, KYATHMARENAHALLI MYSURU - 570019 BY ITS PRESIDENT. ... PETITIONER (By Sri PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADV.) AND 1. SMT.PREMKUMARI W/O SRI M.LOKEH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.1595/1, NEW NO.N-10, BEHIND HULIYAMA TEMPLE, KYATHAMARANAHALLI, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU-570 019.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AMBEDKAR VEEDHI M S BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU – 570 023 4. THE TAHSILDAR MYSURU TALUK MYSURU – 570 023. ... RESPONDENTS This Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, praying this Hon'ble Court to review the order dated:08/12/2016 passed in WP Nos. 48509-512/2016(KLR- RES), on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for review petitioner.
2. Order dated 08.12.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.48509-48512/2016 is sought for being reviewed.
3. Review Petitioner – temple claims that land in question which totally measures 6 guntas and was described as ‘nala kharab’ situated in between the lands bearing Sy.Nos.1, 3 and 35 in Kyathamaranahalli Village, Mysuru Taluk was granted in favour of review petitioner – temple and that by misrepresenting the fact and suppressing the right and interest of the review petitioner, the said land was granted in favour of vendors of writ petitioner and certain others. Therefore, review petitioner contends that the temple moved the authorities for cancellation of grant made in favour of writ petitioner; pursuant to the same, the grant made in favour of writ petitioner was cancelled on 25.01.1991 by passing the order impugned in the writ petition; however, without disclosing the interest of the review petitioner – temple, the writ petitioner had challenged the order of cancellation of grant and at her instance only after hearing the parties, this Court has set aside the cancellation order hence, review petitioner is entitled to seek review of the order, so that the temple could be afforded an opportunity to justify the order canceling the grant made in favour of writ petitioner.
4. On 20.06.2017, when this matter was listed, review petitioner was directed to place on record the order of grant granting the land in question in favour of temple.
5. Learned counsel for review petitioner submits that there is no such formal grant made in favour of the temple, however, the temple was permitted to occupy the land and carry on the religious activities therein. He, therefore, submits that having due regard to the interest that review petitioner has in the matter, order passed in the writ petition may be set aside and the writ petition may be restored to file providing an opportunity to the review petitioner – temple to come on record and resist the prayer made in the writ petition.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for review petitioner, I find that in the absence of any order of grant made in favour of review petitioner – temple and having regard to the findings recorded in the order under review that names of the vendor of writ petitioner and thereafter, the writ petitioner, who has purchased the property were continued in the revenue records though the order of cancellation was passed as back as in the year 1991, question of setting aside the order under review at the instance of the review petitioner does not arise. It is also necessary to notice that while setting aside the order canceling the grant, this Court has made it clear in paragraph 8 of the order that liberty was reserved to respondent – authorities to initiate action in accordance with law, if they so desired and that it would be open for the writ petitioner to defend her rights. This being the position, it is neither just, nor proper for this Court to entertain the review petition at the instance of the review petitioner – temple. Hence, this review petition is dismissed.
As the matter is dismissed on merits, question of condoning the delay of 53 days in filing the petition does not arise and therefore, I.A.1/2017 is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS