Dismissed

Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2022WP/56389/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court held that the Petitioner-Mutt cannot challenge the review orders as the KAT had set aside the forfeiture, restoring the status quo. The Court observed that if the forfeiture had stood, the Mutt would have no claim as the order is in rem. The petition was dismissed, directing the 5th Respondent not to alter the property's nature.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved to litigate ownership; 5th Respondent directed not to change property nature for four weeks.

Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.56389 OF 2018(LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.RAMALINGESWARA MUTT, HARANAHALLI, SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN–577 416, BRANCH MUTTS AT BANGALORE CITY AND ALL OVER INDIA. BY ITS SARVADHIKARI & MATHADHIPATHY SRI.NEELAKANTA SARANGA, DESIKENDRA MAHASWAMIGALU, REPT. BY HIS GPA HOLDER, V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, S/O SANJEEVA RAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ADINARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

THE SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE – 560 009.

¶14

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE – 560 009.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR,

¶16

¶17

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 064.

¶18

M/S STANDARD BRICKS & TILES COMPANY, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 064. REPT. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.V. SESHU,HCGP FOR R1-R4; R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 31.08.2009 PASSED IN REV.PET.NO.5/2005 & 1/2006 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 17.02.1997 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.118/1996 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY & HON’BLE CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT JUDGE-MEMBER, KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘A’ & ‘B’ AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner-Mutt is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 31.8.2009 made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A whereby the review of the earlier order vide R.P.No.5/2005 & R.P.No.1/2006 have been rejected, as being devoid of merits.

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently

¶27

argues that the property of the Mutt having been forfeited

¶28

to the State under section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 inasmuch as the 5^th Respondent company not being an agriculturist and having income beyond the ceiling limit prescribed, had acquired the subject property in contravention of law i.e., section 79B of

¶29

the 1961 Act. He further submits that when land belongs to his client, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ought not to have entertained the appeal in which challenge was laid to the forfeiture of land and therefore, it ought to have reviewed the said order by allowing the subject review petitions. This having not happened, this court should come to the aid of the Mutt, argues he.

¶30

Learned HCGP appearing for the official

¶31

Respondents oppose the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal contending that the KAT order apparently is inter parte namely between the government and the 5^th Respondent herein; since the forfeiture order has been set-

¶32

¶33

aside by the KAT, at least the private ownership be it of the Mutt or of the 5^th Respondent would remain intact and the dispute in that regard has to be worked out before the Civil Court. He points out the arguable ill-effects of the forfeiture order not being set-aside qua the Mutt if not the 5^th Respondent. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶35

and having perused the Petition Papers, this court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as what the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal earlier had done was that it set at naught the order forfeiting the land to the State under section 83 for violation of section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The question of review of the said judgment at the instance of the Petitioner-Mutt would not arise inasmuch as even the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal order was recalled and review if sought for, the land would have vested in the government by way of forfeiture. In that event, the Petitioner-Mutt would not have laid any claim since that order operates arguably in rem as held by a

¶36

¶37

catena of decisions of this court. In other words, the Petitioner is not aggrieved by the order impugned inasmuch as he can work out his grievance as to the ownership of the property qua the 5^th Respondent company herein elsewhere in accordance with law.

¶38

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the Petitioner to litigate as to the ownership over the subject property elsewhere, in accordance with law and in that connection, all contentions are kept open.

¶39

Costs made easy.

¶40

The 5^th Respondent is directed not to change the nature of property for a period of four weeks from this day.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

cbc

Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Purushotham Vs Deputy Commissioner

Mr. Udayshankar Shenoy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

S Jagadeesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Sannathippaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Rasolasab Vs the State of Karnataka

Halappa Vs the Duputy Commissioner