IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs.6258-6260/2019(LR) BETWEEN SRI R ANJANEYACHAR SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1. SRI A VASUDEV S/O LATE R ANJANEYACHAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SRI A SRIDHARA MURTHY S/O LATE R ANJANEYACHAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3. SRI A RAMESH S/O LATE R ANJANEYACHAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.2429 LAKSHMINARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE ROJIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI LOKESH K, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI LAKSHMINARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI MALLESHAPPA S/O VEERAIAH ROJIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PODAM BLOCK V V TOWER Dr. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE TAHASILDAR DODDABALLAPUR TALUK DODDABALLAPUR BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-561 203 SRI NARAYANAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 4. SMT VENKATAMMA, MAJOR W/O LATE VENKATAPPA ROJIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-561 203 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.99/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 30.11.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND GRANT OCCUPANCY RIGHTS TO THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.8, MEASURING 1 ACRE 12 GUNTAS, INCLUDING 0.01 GUNTAS OF KARAB, SITUATED AT ROJIPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Before issuance of notice to respondent No.4, this matter is heard.
2. Petitioners herein are seeking quashing of the judgment dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure ‘A’ to the petitions) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.99/2016, wherein the said appeal filed by them has been dismissed by confirming the order dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure ‘B’ to the petitions) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in proceedings No.LRF.INM.10/2002-03.
3. Petitioners herein are said to be the legal heirs of Sri R. Anjaneyachar, who along with his relative, Sri Ananthappa, was Archak of respondent No.1 – temple, which is a mujrai temple represented by its Administrative officer.
4. Petitioners’ father, Sri R. Anjaneyachar, filed an application under the provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, on 24.12.1980, certified copy of which is at Annexure ‘G’ to the petitions, seeking occupancy right in respect of land measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 11 / 12 guntas (out of 01 Acre 12 guntas, 0.01 gunta is kharab) in Sy. No.8 situate in Rojipura village, kasaba hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, before the Land Tribunal. It is stated that the said land is a devadaya inam land and it had vested with the Government in the year 1970. The said application was taken up for consideration by the Land Tribunal in proceedings No.LRF.INA.295/80-81. The Land Tribunal after conducting enquiry into the matter, by its order dated 24.06.1982, rejected the claim of petitioners’ father holding that he was not cultivating the said land and resumed the same to the Government.
5. The said order of the Land Tribunal was the subject matter of challenge in W.P. No.20075/1986 before of this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition, Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 came to be amended by which Section 118(1)(A) was introduced. This Court, by its order dated 11.11.1987, transmitted the writ petition to the concerned Appellate Authority for disposal after issuance of notices to all the parties concerned while directing the Registry to send all the records to the Appellate Authority excepting the order sheet in the said petition. After remand of the matter, it was registered in Appeal No.ALRA.1043/1987 before the Appellate Authority.
6. It has come on record that in the meantime, Sri R. Anjaneyachar filed one more application on 07.11.1983 before the Land Tribunal. Similarly, Narayanappa (since deceased and represented by respondent No.4 herein) filed an application seeking tenancy in respect of the very same land on 19.05.1987 before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal had taken up both the applications for enquiry, but at that point of time, since the matter was pending in Appeal No.ALRA.1043/1987 before the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore, and Narayanappa had got impleaded himself in the said proceedings, the land Tribunal dropped the proceedings vide order dated 04.12.1987.
7. It is further stated that subsequently, Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore, was abolished, the appeal No.ALRA.1043/1987 filed before the said authority was converted into writ petition in view of the amendment to Section 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and it was taken up in W.P. No.2299/1995. This Court, by its order dated 29.05.1998 (Annexure ‘J’ to the petitions), allowed the said writ petition and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal, Doddaballapura, for hearing and disposing of the two applications of the rival claimants i.e., Sri R. Anjaneyachar, the father of petitioners herein and Sri Narayanappa.
8. However, the said order dated 29.05.1998 passed by this Court was sought to be recalled in Civil Petition in C.P. No.796/1999 preferred by the first respondent herein – temple along with the State and Land Tribunal before this Court. This Court, by its order dated 20.06.2002, allowed the civil petition in recalling the order dated 29.05.1998 whereby the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal.
9. Meanwhile, Mr. Narayanappa, the rival applicant, filed writ petition in W.P. No.40191/1993 before this Court. In the absence of any appeal filed by Narayanappa before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, this Court vide order dated 21.06.1995, rejected the same as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies as available under law in respect of his application alleged to have been filed before the Land Tribunal, Doddaballapur, if there was any and if he was so advised.
10. It is stated that at the relevant point of time, as per the Government Circular No.RD 90 INM 97 dated 30.08.1997, the powers under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 were vested with the Deputy Commissioner.
11. The Deputy Commissioner in proceedings No.LRF.INM.10/2002-03 vide order dated 18.06.2004 (Annexure ‘K’ to the petitions), held that both Sri R. Anjaneyachar and Sri Narayanappa had failed to demonstrate that they were tenants in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 12 guntas in Sy. No.8 and that they were cultivating the said land during the relevant period as per the provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, rejected their applications seeking occupancy rights in respect of the said land while ordering for restoration of the same to the Government.
12. Aggrieved by the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 18.06.2004, the legal heirs of Sri R. Anjaneyachar including petitioners herein preferred appeal No.700/2004 and Sri Narayanappa preferred appeal No.778/2004, before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the K.A.T.’), Bengaluru, 13. Initially, the K.A.T., by its order dated 12.10.2004, rejected the appeal No.700/2004 filed by the legal heirs of Sri R. Anjaneyachar on the ground that under Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, the said appeal was not tenable. The said order was the subject matter of challenge in W.P. No.44487/2004 (LR) preferred by R. Anjaneyachar. A coordinate Bench of this Court, by its order dated 21.02.2008 (Annexure ‘L’ to the petitions), allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the order dated 12.10.2004 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.700/2004 and remanding the matter to the K.A.T., with direction to dispose of the said appeal on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
14. Thereafter, the K.A.T., took up both the appeals i.e., Appeal Nos.700/2004 and 778/2004 for consideration and by its judgment dated 02.11.2009 (Annexure ‘M’ to the petitions) allowed the said appeals by setting aside the order dated 18.06.2004 passed by the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, in proceedings No.LRF/INM/10/2002-03 and consequently, remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, with direction to receive the file and proceed with enquiry further and permit adversary to cross-examine the deponent, who had filed affidavit evidence and thereafter proceed to pass order in accordance with law.
15. After remand, in proceedings No.LRF.INM.10/2002-03 before the Deputy Commissioner, applicants filed compromise petition under order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said compromise petition was signed by advocate for the applicants along with: Sri A. Vasudev, Sri A. Sridhara Murthy and Sri A. Ramesh, who are petitioners herein; another Sri A. Ramesh (he is said to be the son of Narayanappa, but he is not party either to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner or KAT or this Court); Smt. Venkatamma, who is respondent No.4 in these petitions and Sri R.V. Mallesh, who claimed himself as Secretary of Sri Lakshminarayanaswamy Temple, a mujrai institution, and expressed his no objection for grant of occupancy rights in favour of Sri R. Anjaneyachar.
16. The said applicants sought for grant of occupancy rights in favour of Sri late R. Anjaneyachar since deceased by his legal heirs (petitioners herein) in respect of the land measuring 01 Acre 12 guntas in Sy. No.8 by dismissing the application filed by Sri Narayanappa for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the said land. This Court is unable to understand as to how Secretary of Mujrai temple could give consent for out of Court settlement between two rival claimants regarding tenancy right in respect of a property belonging to the temple.
17. In proceedings No.LRF.INM.10/2002-03, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure ‘B’ to the petitions), rejected the claim of applicant Nos.1(b) to 1(d) therein (petitioners herein) as well as applicant No.2 - Sri Narayanappa since deceased and represented by his legal representatives, Smt. Venkatamma (respondent No.4 herein) and Sri Veeraiah since deceased and represented by his legal representative, Sri R.V. Mallesh, in respect of the land in Sy. No.8 measuring 01 Acre 12 guntas (out of which 0.01 gunta is kharab). Further, Deputy Commissioner has ordered for resumption of the said land to the Government free from all encumbrances by evicting persons, who were in possession of the said land, and to reserve the same for public purpose and in that behalf, directed the Tahasildar, Doddaballapur Taluk, to take necessary action and make necessary entries in the revenue records in the name of the Government.
18. The said order passed by Deputy Commissioner dated 30.11.2015 was the subject matter of challenge in Appeal No.99/2016 preferred by the legal heirs of Sri R. Anjaneyachar, petitioners herein, before the K.A.T. The K.A.T., after considering the contentions of the parties and the material available on record, by its judgment dated 24.01.2018, dismissed the said appeal while confirming the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the second respondent – Deputy Commissioner in proceedings No.LRF.INM.10/2002-03. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicants before the K.A.T., are before this Court.
19. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Perused the orders impugned. On going through the same, it clearly indicates that the land measuring 01 Acre 12 guntas (out of which 0.01 gunta is kharab land) in Sy. No.8 belongs to respondent No.1 – Mujrai temple. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioners’ father Anjaneyachar was tenant and he was in cultivation of the said land during the relevant period prescribed under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. In that view of the matter, his application seeking occupancy right in respect of the said land in his favour is rightly rejected by the competent authorities in proceedings referred supra. However, another person, Sri Narayanappa, since deceased represented by respondent No.4 herein, tried to claim tenancy right in respect of the very same land.
20. In proceedings No.LRF.INM.10/2002-03 before the Deputy Commissioner, where settlement is said to have arrived among the respective legal representatives of rival claimants and one Sri R.V. Mallesh claiming to be the Secretary of respondent No.1 - temple, the said settlement / compromise has been rightly rejected by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 30.11.2015 and the said Authority has ordered for resumption of the land in question to the Government.
21. The said order of Deputy Commissioner was impugned by the legal heirs of Anjaneyachar in Appeal No.99/2018 before the K.A.T. The K.A.T., after considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, has observed that the appellants, who are the legal heirs of Sri Anjaneyachar, failed to prove that their father was cultivating the land in question for more than three years prior to 01.07.1970, the date on which the land in question vested with the Government and that their father was in possession of the said land as tenant as on the relevant date i.e., 01.07.1970, and their claim for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question in their favour could not be considered. The K.A.T., vide judgment dated 24.01.2018, has rightly confirmed the order of Deputy Commissioner. In the fact situation, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the K.A.T.
22. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are rejected.
23. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma