AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—In these writ petitions the Petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.01.2009 passed by Respondent No. 2 as per Annexure A and katha extract dated 18.02.2009 as per Annexure B.
The subject matter of these writ petitions is 4 acres 21 guntas of land in survey No. 7 of Mattikere village now situated within the territorial limits of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short ''the Mahanagara Palike'').
It is not in dispute that the land in question was an inam land dedicated to Hanumantha Devari'' temple. The Archak of the temple by name Sri Anantaiab applied for grant of occupancy rights to the Special Deputy Commissioner and the same was granted to him a per order dated 01.02.1959 - Annexure F to the writ petition. After the demise of Archak Ananthaiah, his wife and children by name Smt. Venkatalakshmamma and others approached the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the very same lands in question. The Land Tribunal vide order dated 03.03.1989 as per Annexure J granted occupancy rights in favour of Smt. Venkatalakshmamma and her children. One M.S. Ramaiah questioned the order of the Land Tribunal at Annexure J before this Court in W.P. No. 39293/1992. This Court vide order dated 10.1.2.2004 set aside the order of the Land Tribunal at Annexure J and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Against this order in W.P. No. 39293/1992 the children of M.S. Ramaiah filed an appeal in W.A. No. 2421/2005 and the same is pending.
M.S. Ramaiah claiming to be in occupation of the lands in question as tenant under an agreement with Archak Ananthaiah approached the Special Deputy Commissioner for re-grant of lands. On 12.04.1977 the Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order as per Annexure R-1 allowing the claim of M.S. Ramaiah. Aggrieved by this order at Annexure R-1, the wife and children of Archak Ananthaiah filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. 264/2002 and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.06.2008. Against this order of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the legal representatives of Archak Ananthaiah have approached this Court in W.P. No. 10104/2008 and the same is pending adjudication.
When the matter stood at that stage the Petitioners herein claiming to be one branch of Archak Ananthaiah, on the strength of settlement deed in their family, approached the Mahanagara Palike for transfer of katha of a portion of the lands in question to their name. The Revenue Officer of the Mahanagara Palike by his order dated 25.07.2005 transferred katha of the lands in question in favour of the Petitioners herein as per Annexure P and Annexure Q is the katha certificate.
The children of M.S. Ramaiah contend that they formed Respondent No. 4 Educational Foundation Trust and included the property in question in the said trust. Consequently Respondent No. 4, being aggrieved party, filed an application before Respondent No. 2 for transfer of katha of the lands in question to their name and to cancel Inn name of Petitioners. Respondent No. 2, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned order as per Annexure A canceling the Katha in the name of Petitioners and ordered to enter the name of the Respondent No. 4 as Kathedar. Hence, this writ petition.
Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.
It is seen from the recori that the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition by his endorsement dated 01.02.1959 regranted the lands in favour of Archak Ananthaiah. Subsequently, one M.S. Ramaiah claiming to be a tenant under Archak Ananthaiah approached the Special Deputy Commissioner for grant of occupancy rights and the same was granted in his favour vide order dated 10.06.2007. Now the legal representatives of Archak Ananthaiah are before this Court in W.P. No. 10141/2008 questioning the regrant order in favour of M.S. Ramaiah. This Court rejected the prayer of legal representatives of Archak Ananthaiah for gram of interim order. Now the Supreme Court has granted interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the construction on the lands in question. In view of this development and pendency of proceedings, it is not proper and appropriate on the part of the Revenue Officer of Mahanagara Palike 10 transfer the katha of the lands in question in favour of the Petitioners on the basis of a settlement deed between the family members. Respondent No. 2, under the impugned order, has rightly set aside the order transferring the katha of the lands in question in favour of Petitioners. Therefore I find no justifiable reason to interfere with the same.
The order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of Venkatalakshmamma and others on 03.03.1989 came to be set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 39293/1992 vide order dated 10.12.2004 as per Annexure M. Therefore there is no order in favour of Venkutalakshmamma and other legal representatives of Archak Ananthaiah. In the absence of any such order, the Petitioners do not derive any title in the lands in question even if there is any settlement among family members. Therefore the order transferring the katha of the lands in favour of the Petitioners is rightly set aside under the impugned order by the Respondent No. 2. Therefore the impugned order is in accordance with law and do not call for any interference.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contend that there is no evidence to show as to how Respondent No. 4 acquired rights in the lands in question from the legal representatives of M.S. Ramaiah or from late M.S. Ramaiah. It is further contended that when a prayer for transfer of katha to their names is not made and without paying the developmental charges, the katha cannot be transferred in favour of Respondent No. 4. The material on record discloses that the legal representatives of the original re-grantee M.S. Ramaiah have constituted Respondent No. 4 Trust. Therefore Respondent No. 4 Trust is an interested party and rightly approached Respondent No. 2 questioning the transfer of katha in favour of Petitioners. The fact that despondent No. 4 requested for canceling the katha in favour of the Petitioners necessarily implies that katha is to be made in their name. If for any reason Respondent No. 4 has not paid the development charges, then the Mahanagara Palike is entitled to recover the same in accordance with law.
Accordingly the writ petitions are hereby rejected. Any observations made in the impugned orders and in this order will not come in the way of any Court deciding the rights of the parties independently.