Allowed

Dr Rajani Pai v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2021WP/34265/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an eviction order passed by the Deputy Commissioner against a temple and its occupants. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order due to the lack of hearing before the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.06.2017 set aside. Case remitted to Respondent No.2 to hear petitioners and pass appropriate orders.

Dr Rajani Pai Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.34265 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

DR. RAJANI PAI W/O LATE DR. K.A. ASHOK PAI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶7

PREETHI PAI D/O LATE DR. K.A. ASHOK PAI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶8

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF 'GANGA' NEAR MANASA NURSING HOME J.P.N. ROAD, 1^ST CROSS SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. P.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶14

¶15

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUBDIVISION SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶16

TAHASILDHAR SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶17

SREE SOKKE VENKATARAMANA TEMPLE REP.BY SREE SRINGERI MUTT HARAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577 201.

¶18

(IMPLEAED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED:28.08.2017)

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.S. SACHIN FOR R5)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER-CUM-DIRECTION OF THE R-2 DATED:02.06.2017 IN PROCEEDING AT ANNEX-F AWARD THE COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED:02.06.2017 IN PROCEEDING AT ANNEX-F TO THIS W.P. TILL DISPOSAL OF THIS W.P.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Respondent No.2 bearing No.DVS(3)CR-211/2012-13(4941), by which they were ordered to be evicted from 17 guntas of land already belonging to the Respondent No.5.

¶26

The petitioners claim that the husband of Petitioner No.1 had purchased a site measuring 80' x 20' bearing No.37, Municipal Khatha 512-37 situate at 25^th Ward, Arakere Extension, Shimoga from Ansar and family, in terms of a Sale deed dated 19.08.2011. They claimed that Mr.Ansar had purchased it from Syed Ibrahim and his family in terms of a Sale deed dated 23.09.2009. They claimed that this site was granted to Syed Ibrahim by the Gajanur Mandal Panchayat on 10.03.1989. The petitioners claimed that they were in possession and that their names were entered in the Municipal records. They claimed that the property was gifted to Petitioner No.1 on 27.01.2014.

¶27

¶28

Respondent No.5 is a Muzarai Institution and was allegedly endowed with 01 acre 06 guntas of land in Harakere village, Shivamogga Taluk. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments addressed a letter dated 28.10.2016 requesting the Respondent No.2 to safeguard the property endowed to Respondent No.5 as illegal documents were created in respect of the said property. The Respondent No.2 obtained a report from the Respondent No.3 who stated in his letter dated 20.04.2014 and 07.03.2017 that the predecessor of the petitioner had encroached into 17 guntas of land endowed to Respondent No.5. The Respondent No.2 passed an order dated 02.06.2017 without hearing the petitioners as well as Respondent No.5 and directed eviction of the predecessor of the petitioners from 17 guntas of land. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not encroachers into the land belonging to the Respondent No.5 and the Respondent No.2 had passed the impugned order without hearing them.

¶29

¶30

Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 also submits that Respondent No.2 did not hear Respondent No.5 while passing the impugned order. Learned Government Advocate was not able to demonstrate whether the petitioners were heard in the matter before passing the impugned order.

¶31

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.06.2017 passed by Respondent No.2 is set aside. The case is remitted back to the Respondent No.2 who shall hear out the petitioners on any date convenient to them and pass appropriate orders. All contentions are left open.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

bnv*

Dr Rajani Pai v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Rajani Pai v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ramanjanappa Vs Shri Hanumappa

B. Narayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary

Kulla Linga Gowda Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Smt. Siddamma

Sri. S. Nanjappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. G Nagaveni Vs State of Karnataka

Marappa Vs State of Karnataka