Allowed

Venkataramanappa v. Sri Gopalaswamy Seva Trust

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2021WA/521/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Court allowed an intra-court appeal against the Land Tribunal's order. It held that the Tribunal lacked reasons for registration and remitted the matter for adjudication, directing the Tribunal to consider prior occupancy rights granted to the Temple Trust.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Land Tribunal dated 03.02.1989 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal to adjudicate the claim within six months.

Venkataramanappa Vs Sri Gopalaswamy Seva Trust — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

W.A. NO.521 OF 2014 (LR) IN

¶9

W.P.No.3030/2012 (LR)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

1 . VENKATARAMANAPPA

¶12

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

¶13

(a). SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O SRI. VENKATARAMANAPP.

¶14

(b). G.V. MANJUNATH

¶15

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶16

SON OF SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA.

¶17

(c). SRI. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS SON OF SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA.

¶18

ALL ARE RESIDING AT A. GUTTAHALLI VILLAGE AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI, CHANDRAHALLI POST CHINTHAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563125.

¶19

... APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. B.R. VISWANATH, ADV.,)

¶21

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI. GOPALASWAMY SEVA TRUST A. GUTTAHALLI VILLAGE AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI, CHANDRAHALLI POST CHINTHAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563125 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. G.T. NAGESH.

¶24

2 . THE LAND TRIBUNAL CHINTHAMANI CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563125 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶25

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.

¶26

4 . THE TAHSILDAR CHINTHAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563125.

¶27

... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. CHANDAN, ADV., FOR R1 R2, R3 & R4 SERVED)

¶29

¶30

THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.3030/2012 DATED 17.07.2013.

¶31

THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

In this intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the

¶34

¶35

learned Single Judge by which order dated 03.02.1989 passed by the Land Tribunal has been set aside and the matter has been remitted to the Land Tribunal to decide the claim of the appellant in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.40 and 41 of Guttahalli Village, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur.

¶36

Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondent is a Trust which has been constituted to maintain and manage Sri Gopalaswamy Temple which is a Mujarai Institution. The lands bearing Sy.No.41 measuring 2 acre 26 guntas and Sy.No.48 measuring 7 guntas were inam lands and are attached to Sri Gopalaswamy Temple. After coming into force of Karnataka Inams (Religious and Charitable) Abolition Act, 1954, three persons namely K.Padmakumar, K.R.Krishnappa and the Tahsildar, Chintamani Taluk on behalf of Sri Gopalaswamy Temple, filed application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid lands bearing Sy.Nos.41 and 48. The Land Tribunal, by an order dated 22.03.1982, registered Sri Gopalaswamy Temple and the Tahsildar as occupants in

¶37

¶38

respect of the aforesaid lands. Subsequently, deceased Narayanappa, father of late Venkataramanappa filed an application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.41 and 48 and another extent of 7 guntas in Sy.No.48 of Guttahalli Village, Chintamani Taluk. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 29.07.1988, inter alia, held that the occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.41, having already been granted by order dated 22.03.1982, claim in respect of grant of occupancy rights cannot be entertained. The Land Tribunal further proceeded to conduct enquiry in respect of Sy.No.40. The aforesaid order was challenged in a writ petition before the learned Single Judge which was decided by order dated 17.07.2013 and the order passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal to adjudicate the occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.40 and 41. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Trust is not recognized by the Mujarai Department and

¶40

¶41

therefore, it cannot claim any right in respect of the property in question. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Trust submitted that the application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.41 could not have been remitted as the same was already granted in favour of the Temple by an order dated 22.03.1982. It is also submitted that the appellants have not filed any application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.40.

¶42

We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The relevant extract of the order dated 03.02.1989 reads as under:

¶43

"On perusal of records of rights, tenancy & pahani extract (R.T.C.) Sri.K.R.Krishnappa's name is found. He has stated before the land tribunal that he has no objection to register the said lands in the name of Narayanappa i.e. Venkataravanappa.

¶44

Under these circumstances Venkataravanappa is registered as beneficiary of Sy.No.40, 41 of Guttahalli Village."

¶45

¶46

From perusal of the aforesaid order, it is evident that the order is cryptic in nature and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind inasmuch as no reasons have been assigned by the Tribunal for directing registration of the appellant herein as beneficiary in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.40 and 41 of Guttahalli Village. The Tribunal is a quasi judicial authority and is required to assign reasons in support of its conclusion. (See: ‘ S.N. MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA’ , (1990) 4 SCC 594). The order passed by the Land Tribunal therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, we concur with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the order is to be set aside. However, it is directed that the Land Tribunal, while deciding the claim for grant of occupancy right in Sy.Nos.40 and 41 shall bear in mind that the application in respect of land comprised in Sy.No.41 has already been granted in favour of the temple Trust by an order dated 22.03.1982. The Land Tribunal shall also verify whether any application has been filed on behalf of the appellant for grant of occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.40. The Tribunal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, shall adjudicate

¶47

¶48

the claim within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed today.

¶49