AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh
The petitioner has sought to issue a writ of certiorari, by quashing the order dated 14.06.2010, passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings
No. LRM(A)(I) 50-3/83-84 in favour of the 4th respondent at Annexure - ''A'' and to dismiss the application filed by the father of the 4th
respondent under Rule 7(4) of Mysore (Religious & Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and its Rules 1966, dated 26.04.1983 or in the
alternative, to remit the matter for considering the impleading application filed by the petitioner (dated 31.05.2010) before the lst respondent.
According to the petitioner, who is said to be the grandson of Smt. Puttaparvathammanni W/o Late Chikka Papaiah, Smt. Puttaparvathammanni
has donated the property in question bearing Sy. Nos. 36/1 measuring 38 guntas, Sy. No. 36/3 measuring 01 acre 36 guntas and Sy.No. 44
measuring 02 acres 36 guntas situate at Maganahalli Village, Kasaba Hoblik Chikkaballapura Taluk and District, for the benefit of 2nd respondent
-Sri. Lakshminaryanaswainy Temple. On an application filed by the father of the 4th respondent, the Land Tribunal in the final round of litigation,
conferred occupancy rights in favour of the 4th respondent, Initially, the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the 4th respondent''s father and
subsequently, after remand by this Court in writ petition, the Land Tribunal considered the case of the 4th respondent and granted occupancy
rights.
The land in question is a devadaya inam land. The father of the 4th respondent also filed an application under Rule - 7(4) of the Mysore
(Religious & Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for short, the ''Act'') against the 2nd respondent, which was presented on 26.04.1983. The
Land Tribunal, in the first round of litigation, rejected the claim of the 4th respondent. It appears that against the said order, the petitioner has
preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 34957/1993 and this Court while disposing of the writ petition, noticing non-consideration
of the material evidence on record by the Tribunal, straightaway issued a direction to the Tribunal to confer occupancy rights in favour of the 4th
respondent while remanding the matter to the Tribunal. It appears that the petitioner challenged the order of the single Judge by filing a writ appeal
in W.a. No. 2891/2010. However, the said appeal has been dismissed as having become infructuous. Since by that time, the Land Tribunal
pursuant to the order of the single Judge, had conferred the occupancy rights in favour of the 4th respondent. It appears that the petitioner reserved
the right to file a writ petition to challenge the very order of the Land Tribunal on two grounds, one is in respect of the jurisdiction and another in
respect of illegality and also that the order of the Land Tribunal does not survive as the said order is not signed by all the members except the
Chairman and also raise other grounds.
According to the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.4, the order passed by the Land Tribunal is pursuant to the direction by this Court in the
writ petition, conferring occupancy rights in favour of the 4th respondent and hence, there is no illegality in the said order. At the earliest point of
time, the petitioner has not raised any objection nor he was party before the Land Tribunal. With regard to several contentions raised by him and
even on the point of jurisdiction which he has raised at a belated state, the impugned order of the Land Tribunal cannot be called in question and
also submitted that the petitioner is also litigating in Civil Court and unless his right is determined in the Civil Court, the petitioner cannot maintain
the writ petition. Accordingly, he relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Dhobi Ramaiah Vs. Dhobi Abbiga and Others, and contended
that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Land Tribunal. As such, the Land Tribunal can exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to the direction
issued by this Court and at this belated stage, jurisdiction point does not arise for consideration.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent also submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the very order of the Land
Tribunal and moreover, the order of the Land Tribunal is only pursuant to the direction of this Court, it cannot be called in question at this point of
time.
In reply, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, against the order of the single Judge, when he filed a writ appeal and an application
to come on record and to contest the matter, since already the Land Tribunal had disposed of the matter pursuant to the direction of the learned
single Judge, writ appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous. He submitted that, he has exercised his right independently questioning the
illegality of the order of the Land Tribunal on two aspects, i.e., on the point of jurisdiction and also on the point of locus standi and order of the
Land Tribunal is not sustainable. To contend that the writ petition is maintainable in respect of the nature of the land in question is concerned, he
relied upon the judgment of this Court in 2991(1) Kr.L.J. 509 (Yejman Eregowda and others -vs- State of Karnataka and others). It is held,
referring to Section 6A of the Act that grant of occupancy rights to archaks of temples which are non-muzrai institutions there being no public
notice issued to the villagers, such grant is unsustainable.
It is also the contention of the Learned Counsel Tot the petitioner that in the said judgment, it is also held that the Tahaildar has arrogated himself
the power to represent he temples which are not Muzrai institutions. The Tahsildar is not a representative of the temples but is only a representative
of the Government, which does not have any sway over these temples for the reason that they are not Muzrai institutions. The necessary parties are
atleast the senior members of the village community to whom these temples belong.
Further on the point of jurisdiction, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in M.B.
Ramachandran Vs. Gowramma and Others, , that the Notification issued by the State Government conferring occupancy rights on the competent
Authority Deputy Commissioner and not the Land Tribunal is an nonest order and on such Notification being issued, all those pending matters
ought to have been transferred to the competent authority and also the matter ought to have been adjudicated by the competent authority, if it is not
brought to the notice of this Court by the 4th respondent regarding the maintainability of the litigation before the Land Tribunal subsequent to the
judgment of the Apex Court and Notification issued thereto. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner being a villager and whose grandfather
has donated the land to the temple as it is a private temple and without considering the relevant issues, the Land Tribunal exercised the jurisdiction
and moreover, the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be held valid as the order has not been signed by majority of the members. Accordingly, he
has sought to quash the order passed by the Land Tribunal.
In so far as the illegality in not signing the order is concerned, it appears that the order-sheet maintained as on the date of pronouncement of the
order is signed by the members as well as the Chairman.
Writ Appeal has not been disposed of on merits. Pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court regarding the exercise of jurisdiction, the State of
Karnataka has issued a Circular on 30,01.2006. While disposing of the matter, the Apex Court observed that the jurisdiction in respect of nature
of the lands in question stood vested with the competent authority viz., Deputy Commissioner and not the Land Tribunal. Pursuant to the same,
Notification has been issued.
At an undisputed point of time, the Land Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction, but by filing the writ petition before this Court, the legal position
was brought to the notice of this Court by both the respondents. In that view of the matter, this Court has disposed of the matter directing the Land
Tribunal which conferred occupancy rights straightaway in favour of the 4th respondent. It appears that the Apex Court has held that the Land
Tribunal has no jurisdiction and the order passed by this Court due to oversight in the direction issued in the earlier writ petition may be for want of
knowledge of jurisdiction or without there being knowledge of jurisdiction vesting with the Deputy Commissioner. In the circumstances, though the
order is passed by the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in favour of both the respondents, in that context, the order is to be treated as an
nonest one as it has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. The Notification is issued by the State of Karnataka pursuant to the judgment of the
Apex Court way back on 30.01.2006. At the relevant point of time, the Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction at all to deal with the matter. Might be
that initially the Land Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction but on verification, the Apex Court has specifically held that the Land Tribunal has no
jurisdiction but it is the Deputy Commissioner who has power to exercise such jurisdiction. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the order
passed by the Land Tribunal is a nullity.
Accordingly petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is set aside / quashed. The matter is remitted to the
competent authority / Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the case in accordance with law. However, since already this Court has held in its
judgment reported in 1991(1) Kar, L.J. 509 that the necessary parties are atleast the senior members of the village community to whom the
temples belong and they have to be notified in respect of the private temples and not the Tahsildar, it is for the competent authority to pass an
appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner as well as the 4th respondent to appear before the competent authority viz., Special
Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura District on 28.05.2012 who shall consider the application of the 4th respondent as well as the contention
of the petitioner herein. If the competent authority feels that notice is required u/s 6(A) of Mysore (Religious & Charitable) Inams Abolition Act,
1955 and its Rules 1966, notice to the public has to be issued. He may do so and dispose of the matter expeditiously from the date of their
appearance thereafter, within six months, i.e., from the date of receipt of this order.