Disposed

Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2024WP/111125/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged survey orders that increased the area of land held by Uttaradi Mutt. The High Court, noting the State's admission that only 14 acres 7 guntas vest in the Mutt and the remaining land is government property, directed the Survey and Revenue departments to conduct a fresh joint survey involving all parties to determine the correct boundaries before modifying records. The court rejected claims of delay and res judicata.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State (Survey and Revenue departments) to conduct a fresh joint survey of the disputed land in the presence of all parties and effect changes in records based on the report.

Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 111125 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT REP.BY ITS PEETADHIPATHI, H H SRI SUBUDHENDRA TEERTHA SWAMIJI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. SRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT MANTRALAYA, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY APTHA KARYADARSHI, S N SUYAMINDRA ACHAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S S BAWAKHAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

¶13

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF LAND RECORDS BELLARY, BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF LAND RECORDS RAICHUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT.

¶17

SRI. UTTARADI MUTT REP.BY ITS PEETADHIPATHI SRI SATYATMA TEERTHA SWAMIJI UTTARADI MUTT BASVANGUDI,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶20

NEAR NATIONAL COLLEGE BANGALORE-560 085.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4., SRI. AMIT KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ANIL KEMBHAVI AND SRI. VINAYAK VAMAN RAO KULKARNI., ADVOATES FOR R-5)

¶23

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AND SURVEY REPORT OF ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF LAND RECORDS RAICHUR DATED 18.04.1974 VIDE ANNEXURE-Z4 AND QUASHING THE ORDER OF SUPERINTENDENT OF LAND RECORDS BELLARY DATED 7/09/1974 VIDE ANNEXURE-Z5.

¶24

THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.05.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶25

ORDER

¶26

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶27

1. Issue writ of certiorari by quashing the survey proceedings and survey report of Assistant Superintendent of land records Raichur bearing No.TCH/MSC/3/7374/192,193 dated 18.04.1974 vide Annexure-Z4 and quashing the order of Superintendent of land records, Bellary bearing No.TCH/MSC/3/74-75 dated 07/09/1974 vide Annexure-Z5.

¶28

2. Declare that the extent of Sy.number 192 of Anegundi village owned by respondent Uttaradimutt is

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶30

limited only to 14 acre 07 guntas and that the un-surveyed land belongs to and vests with the government.

¶31

3. Grant any other relief / reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of Justice and Equity.

¶32

Briefly stated, the facts and contentions put forth by the petitioner in the present petition are as follows:-

¶33

(i) There is an island formed in Tungabadra River which is called as Navabrindavana Gaddi situated at Anegundi Taluk, Koppal District. In the year 1916, Respondent No.5 purchased Sy.No. 239 (New Sy.No. 192) measuring 100 begas equivalent to 75 acres. In the year 1941, the Nizam Samsthan of Anegundi forfeited the entire said land for non-payment of revenue. The then Pontiff of Respondent No.5 gave an application to Raja of Anegundi seeking re-grant of 14 acres 7 guntas in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi Village. In the said application, it is mentioned that a patta land adjacent to Navabrindavana belonging to Vakeel Krishna Rao of Anegundiwas bought by us for Rs.100 (O.S) in 1325 F. Based on the application given by the pontiff of 5^th Respondent, the Village Patvari submitted the report to the Raja of Anegundi for re-grant of land adjoining the Navabrindavanas. In

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶35

the said report, it is specifically mentioned that the Navabrindavanas are situated in Parambok Land and that the pontiffs of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Sri. Vyasaraja Mutt and Sri. Uttaradi Mutt have been performing the Aaradhanas. The Raja of Anegundi based on the report submitted by Village Patvari granted14 acres 7 guntas, which is adjacent to Navabrindavanas with a condition that the grantee shall not obstruct other mutts and visiting devotees from performing Aaradhanas etc.,.

¶36

(ii) In the year 1959, the agent of Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt gave an application to the Tahsildar seeking mutation in the revenue records to show the names of Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Sri. Vyasaraj Mutt as kathedars of Sy.No.192 measuring 14 acres 7 guntas along with Uttaradi Mutt. Accordingly, the mutation was effected by the Tahsildar. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar, the 5^th Respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.65/1959-60 for a declaration of title in the suit land measuring 14 acres 7 guntas and also sought deletion of mutation entry made in favour of Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Sri. Vyasaraj Mutt. The suit after contest came to be decreed in favour of Uttaradi Mutt to an extent of 14 acres 7 guntas and directed to delete the names of Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Sri.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶38

Vyasaraj Mutt from mutation entries. Being aggrieved by the said decree, Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Sri. Vyasaraj Mutt preferred an appeal in R.A.No.45/1968. The said appeal was dismissed with the following observation in para 14 of its judgment there is finding that it is not known whether all the Navabrindavanas are situated in the suit land or outside the suit land. But the suit is in respect of Sy.No. 192 measuring 14 acres 7 guntas. It is also observed in the para 14 that the sale deed shows that plaintiff became owner of the entire land measuring 100 begas. But subsequently under Ex.P-10 the suit land was granted to the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-title, since then, plaintiff and its predecessor are in possession of the suit land.

¶39

(iii) The 5^th Respondent after completion of above mentioned civil proceedings realized that the Navabrindavanas are not within 14 acres and 7 guntas. Therefore, the agent of Respondent No.5 Mutt approached survey authorities to get the extent of Sy.No.192 increased from 14 acres 7 guntas to whatever land available on the island. The agent of 5^th Respondent approached survey authorities seeking correction of wrong entries in the record of rights and survey records regarding the extent of Sy.No.192.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶41

(iv) It is submitted that the agent of Uttaradi Mutt approached survey department seeking correction of revenue records and also survey records. The Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records vide order dated 08.05.1973 rejected the application and directed them to approach revenue authorities and after the records of rights is attested by the revenue authorities, correction in survey records will be carried out. Suppressing the said order, the agent of Uttaradhi Mutt approached Assistant Superintendent of Land Records and gave an application suppressing the order passed by Director of Survey Settlement and Land records and also suppressed application for re-grant and re-grant order, decree passed in O.S.No. 65/1959-60, instead, the correction was sought based on extinct sale deed of the year 1916.

¶42

(v) In view of forfeiture order where under entire land in island is forfeited there was no merit in the claim of Uttaradhi Mutt to seek to enter entire extent of land as per sale deed the Uttaradhi Mutt is only entitled to extent 14 acres 7 guntas by virtue of the conditional re-grant order. It is submitted that on 15.10.1978, the Superintendent of Land Records directed the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records to refer the matter to the revenue

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶44

authorities as it involves correction of wrong entry in the records of rights. Again on 17.11.1973, the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records also orders that no correction in the survey records will be ordered by ASLR without an order by revenue authorities. On 06.12.1973, the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records again instructs ASLR to refrain from making any correction in the survey records till the final orders are received from revenue authorities. The Joint Director of Land Records writes a letter to ASLR seeking a report with respect to Sy.No.192 and thereafter, sends repeated reminder letters to ASLR to submit the report. On 01.03.1974, ASLR writes a letter to JDLR and states that the Department has now nothing to do in this matter. Action to correct the survey records and to issue KJP can be taken up only after orders of assignments are made by the revenue department. The JDLR again exerts pressure on ASLR to submit report as per his previous communications. Buckling under the pressure exerted by JDLR, ASLR prepared the sketch showing Navabrindavanas inside 14 acres 7 guntas and also corrected the extent of Sy.No.192 as 27 acres 30 guntas. Based on the said report, SLR passed the impugned order, wherein, the survey records of Anegundi in respect of Sy.No.192 should be corrected as per

¶45

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶46

sketch i.e.., for the area of 27 acres 30 guntas, which is available on record and also to correct the map of village, Anegundi. It is submitted that the petitioner Mutt is not a party to the abovementioned survey proceedings.

¶47

(vi) It is further submitted that the Sri. Vyasaraj Mutt had challenged the order passed by Superintendent of Land Records dated 07.09.1974 before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and before this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.18017/1987 c/w W.P.No.2329/1982. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and this Hon’ble Court has confirmed the order passed by Superintendent of Land Records dated 07.09.1974. The petitioner-Mutt is not a party before KAT and in above mentioned Writ Petitions. It is submitted that the petitioner has contended that the Respondent No.5 has got the survey records and revenue records corrected by misrepresentation and fraud.

¶48

(vii) The Respondent No.5 in his application dated 25.05.1973 has suppressed the fact that on 08.05.1973, the Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records had rejected the application made by the agent of Respondent No.5-Mutt to correct the entries in survey records unless his records of rights is attested by revenue authorities. The Respondent No.5 mutt has also

¶49

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶50

suppressed the material facts like application for re-grant, re-grant order and decree passed in O.S.No. 65/1959-60.

¶51

(viii) It is submitted that the Superintendent of Land Records, The Deputy Commissioner for Land Records vide communications dated 15.10.1973, 17.11.1973 and 06.12.1973 directed ASLR not to make any correction in the survey records till the final orders are received from the revenue authorities. The said orders were within the knowledge of ASLR and SLR as the above mentioned orders were communicated to both the officials, as it is evident from the records. In the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records dated 07.09.1974, there is no mention of orders dated 08.05.1973, 15.10.1973, 17.11.1973 and 06.12.1973. Instead, the Superintendent of Land Records passed the order based on the application dated 25.05.1973 given by the 5^th Respondent which suppressed all the material facts. The material documents disclose that Respondent No.5 in collusion with survey authorities fraudulently got the extent of Sy.No.192 modified as 27 acres 30 guntas. Therefore, the impugned order was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and without jurisdiction.

¶52

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶53

(ix) It is submitted that the Respondent No.5 should have filed an appeal as per Section 49 (h) of KLR Act, 1964 before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 08.05.1973 passed by the Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records. Instead, the Respondent No.5 approaches ASLR who is a Junior Officer to the Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records. Therefore, the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction.

¶54

The respondents 1 to 4 – State have filed their statement of objections. A perusal of the statement of objections will indicate that the State has admitted the various averments made in the petition and has fully and completely supported the claim of the petitioner and has disputed and denied the allegations and claim of the respondent No.5 – Sri.Uttaradhi Mutt. The said statement of objections filed by the State is as hereunder:-

¶55

1. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the survey proceedings and survey report of Assistant Superintendent of Land Records; Raichur bearing No.TCH/MSC/3/74-75/192-193, dated: 18.04.1974 vide AnnexurepZ4 and quashing the order of superintendent of land records, Bellary bearing No.TCH/MSC/3/74-75 dated:07.09.1974 vide Annexure-Z5 and further sought for declare that the extent of Sy No. 192 of Anegundi Village owned by respondent Uttaradimutt is

¶56

11 -

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶58

limited only to 14 acres 07 acre 07 guntas and that the unsurveyed land belongs to and vests with the government and such other reliefs.

¶59

2. The facts of this case are that predecessor of Uttaradi Mutt, Sri. Satyadhana Thertharu has purchased the land survey NO.192 in a tiny island formed in Thugabhadra river called as “ Navabrundavana Gaddi” of Anegundi village in Gangavati Talu, Koppal District in the year 1916 from one Vakil Krishna Rao. There exists Brundavanas, the Nizama Sansthana of Anegundi forfeited the land Suvey No.192 of Anegundi in favour of Government for nonpayment of the revenue. Later on one pontiff of Uttaradi Mutt made a request during the year 1936 for re-grant of said land. On the basis of report of the Patwari, Raja Anegundi re-granted the land measuring 14 acres 7 guntas situated to the south of Navabrundavana in land Sy No. 192 of Anegundi Village with a condition that the grantee shall not obstruct the passage of devotees through the re-grant land and should not abstract performance of Aradhanas of devotees of other Mutt.

¶60

3. During the year 1959 application was made by power of attorney holders of Sri. Raghavendra swamy Mutt to effect mutation in the revenue records to show the names of Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Uttaradhi and Sri. Vyasaraya Mutt as a joint khara of Sy No.192 measuring 14 acres 7 guntas, Mutation was made by the Tahasildar, aggrieved by the said order Uttaradi Mutt filed the suit in OS No.65/1959-60 for declaration of title in respect of survey No. 192 measuring 14 acres 7 guntas and consequential relief of deleting the name of Sri.

¶61

12 -

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶63

Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Sri. Vyasaraya Mutt. The suit after contest decreed in favour of Uttaradi Muttt, only to an extent of 14 Acres 7 gutnas in land Sy No. 192 of Anegundi village.

¶64

4. Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt filed Appeal No.45/1968 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) Court Raichur. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 02.02.1972.

¶65

5. One K.V.Acharya power of attorney of Uttaradi Mutt made an application to the Director of survey and settlement and land records, Bangalore. On 30.04.1973 for correcting the extent of the land in record of rights of land Sy No. 192. The Director of Survey and settlement and land records in formed the applicant to approach proper revenue authorities. Thereafter power of attorney holder K.C.Acharya made an application on 25.07.1973 to the Assistant Superintendent of land Records, Raichur to correct the extent of land measuring 75 Acres in the Land Sy No. 192 of Anegundi Village. The Assistant superintendent of Land Record, Raichur by his letter dated: 03.06.1973 informed K.V.Acharya to be present at the time of spot inspection ad conducted spot inspection and surveyed. In the said spot inspection report is mentioned that there are no other land holders in Sy No. 192 except the Uttaradhi Mutt, besides piece of land which has been unsurveyed being photo kharab. There is no assessment of the said kharab land.

¶66

6. The Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, Raichur on the basis of the report communicated to the Superintendent of Land Records, Bellary for correction of the extent in said land, for which

¶67

13 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶69

Hanumanthachar Sarjoshi the power of attorney holder of Vyasaraya Mutt wrote a letter on 29.08.1973 objecting to the report to the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, Raichur.

¶70

7. The Deputy commissioner of Land Records, Gulbarga on the basis of objection, wrote a letter to the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, Raichur, submit a detail report on the objection raised by Hanumanthachar Sarjoshi, along with relevant survey records. The superintendent of Land Records, Bellary Communicated by the letter dated: 15.10.1973 to the Assistant superintendent of Land Records, Raichur that the correction of wrong entry in the record of rights concerned with the revenue authorities and the matter may be referred to revenue authorities. The superintendent of Land Records-Bellary holds that the survey authority has no jurisdiction to correct the entries in record of rights. The Assistant superintendent of Land Records, Raichur by letter dated: 28.10.1973 informed the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records, Gulburga that as per the direction of the Superintendent of Land Records, Bellary, he has been directed to refer the matter to the Tahasildar, Gangavati and further action will be taken as per the instructions of the Superintendent of Land Records-Bellary.

¶71

8. The Assistant superintendent of Land Records, Raichur wrote a letter dated: 19.11.1973 to the Tahasildar Gangavati for necessary correction in record of rights as per his report. The Deputy Commissioner of Land Records, Gulbarga, by letter dated: 06.12.1973 informed the Assistant superintendent of Land Records-Raichur to

¶72

14 -

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶74

refrain for making any correction in survey record till the final orders are received from revenue authorities. Further the Deputy Commissioner of land records informed the Superintendent of Land Records-Bellary that the Assistant superintendent of Land Records, Raichur has directed to withhold further action in the matter and also warned that the said instruction should be scrupulously followed and any slackness in this behalf would be viewed seriously.

¶75

9. The K.V.Acharya the power of attorney holder of Uttaradi Mutt Respondent -3 again filed application to the Joint Director of Land Records, Gulburga and the Joint Director of land Records wrote a letter dated: 24.01.1974 to the Assistant Superintendent of land records, Raichur to find out what is the extent of the land available at the spot pertaining to Sy No. 192 of Anegundi and submit his report. The Joint Director of Land Records put pressure on the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, Raichur by letters dated: 15.02.1974 and 26.02.1974 to expedite the matter and submit report immediately. As per the direction of the Joint Director of Land Records, Gulburga, the Assistant superintendent of Land Records Raichur, issued notice to K.V.Acharya power of attorney of Uttaradi mutt and Hanumanthachar Sarjoshi of Vyasaraya Mutt dated:19.03.1974 to be present at the spot on 26.03.1974 for conduct the survey of land Sy No. 192. Accordingly spot inspection and survey was conducted by the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, Raichur and prepared the sketch and depicting the topography for the said land.

¶76

10. As per the direction of the Joint Director of Land Records, Gulburga the Superintendent of land

¶77

15 -

¶78

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶79

Records- Bellary. Directed the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, Raichur to preprate KJP (Kammi Jasti Patrike) under Rule 36 of KCLR in respect of Sy No. 192 of Anegundi and kept ready for approval during his visit to Raichur . As per the direction of the Joint Director for Land Records, Gulburga dated: 07.09.1974. The superintendent of Land Records, Bellary passed an order direction the correction for survey sketch and also to correct the extent of Sy No. 192 as measuring 27 Acres 30 guntas instead of 14 Acres 07 Guntas, though the re grant was made to an extent of 14 Acres 07 Guntas in favour of Uttaradhi Mutt but without her re-grant order for remaining area which was un-assessed Government land was included in the land Sy No. 192 as measuring 27 Acres 30 guntas, by the Superintendent for Land Records – Bellary without any authority of Law. That the said excess land to an extent of 13 acres 23 guntas in un-assessed Government land. That the said excess land to an extent of 13 acres 23 guntas in u-assessed Government land. That the said land has not been re-granted in favour of Uttaradi Mutt not Uttaradi Mutt has purchased this said excess land of 13 acres 23 gutnas in extend of land Sy No. 192 Anegundi is not correct.

¶80

11. That there is no change of course of flow of Thungabhadra River. The sketch prepared during the year 1974 by the Assistant Superintendent of land records. Raichur is not correct, it does not disclose the correct topography of the land.

¶81

Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the Hon’ble court may kindly pass an appropriate order in the interest of justice and equity.

¶82

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶83

The 5^th respondent – Mutt have filed their statement of

¶84

objections disputing and denying the averments made in the petition. It is contended that the present petition preferred after a long lapse of 40 years from the date of the impugned order is barred by inordinate delay and latches and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was further contended that the title and possession of the 5^th respondent – Mutt over the entire extent of land including the visible / available extent of 27 acres 30 guntas stood concluded in the previous litigation in O.S.No.65/1 of 1959-60, to which the petitioner was a party and as such, the present petition was liable to be rejected. It was also contended that the impugned orders ultimately culminated in an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18017/1987 whereby the order of the Joint Director of Land Records and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, were confirmed by this Court in proceedings between the 5^th respondent – Mutt and Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt, in which, identical allegations had been urged by Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt and rejected by the KAT and this Court. It was contended that though

¶85

the petitioner herein was not a party to the said proceedings, having regard to Explanation (iv) to Section 11 CPC, the present

¶86

17 -

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶88

petition was barred by res judicata and the same was liable to be dismissed.

¶89

Heard Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior counsel for the 5^th respondent – Uttaradhi Mutt and learned AGA for respondents 1 to 4 and perused the material on record.

¶90

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would appeal the impugned orders and submit that the same are illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the principles of natural justice and the same are vitiated by fraud and collusion between the 5^th respondent and the authorities and deserves to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

¶91

(i) A.V.Papayya Sastry and others vs. Government of A.P. and others – (2007) 4 SCC 221;

¶92

(ii) The Vyalikaval House Building Co-op. Society by its Secretary vs. V.Chanrappa and others – (2007) 9 SCC 304;

¶93

18 -

¶94

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶95

(iii) Steel Authority of India and others vs. VISL Employees Association by its Secretary, Shimoga and others – ILR 2004 KAR 3005;

¶96

(iv) Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others – (1998) 8 SCC 1;

¶97

(v) Ravindra Nath vs. State Bank of India and others – (2008) 15 SCC 256;

¶98

(vi) Sri.N.Murugesan vs. The Union of India by its Secretary – ILR 2020 KAR 1635;

¶99

(vii) M/s.Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation officer-cum-Assessing Authority & ors. – Civil Appeal No.5393/2010 Dated 01.02.2023;

¶100

(viii) S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath – 1994 (1) SCC 1;

¶101

(ix) K.D.Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & others – (2008) 12 SCC 481;

¶102

(x) Raju Ramsing Vasave vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and others – (2008) 9 SCC 54;

¶103

(xi) Dwaraka Prasad Agarwal and others vs. B.D.Agarwal and others – (2003) 6 SCC 230;

¶104

(xii) Gurnam Singh and others vs. Gurbacha Singh – (2017) 13 SCC 414;

¶105

19 -

¶106

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶107

(xiii) State of Bihar vs. Radha Krishna Singh and

¶108

others – AIR 1983 SC 684;

¶109

Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the 5^th respondent

¶110

would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submit that the petition was barred by delay and latches and the impugned orders having got merged with the order of this Court in W.P.No.18017/1987, the present petition was not maintainable. It was also submitted that the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hand and its claim was barred by waiver and acquiescence. It was further submitted that the claim of the petitioner was barred by the principles of res judicata . It was submitted that there was neither pleading nor proof regarding fraud and collusion and the said claim of the petitioner was baseless and devoid of merit. It was therefore contended there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

¶111

(i) Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others – 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802;

¶112

(ii) Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others – (2013) 2 SCC 398;

¶113

20 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶114

(iii) State of Orissa and another vs. Mamata Mohanty – (2011) 3 SCC 436;

¶115

(iv) B.Gangadhar vs. B.G.Rajalingam – (1995)

¶116

5 SCC 238;

¶117

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶118

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that there are several allegations and counter allegations as well as rival contentions urged by both sides in the present petition. By order dated 20.03.2019, this Court directed the present petition to be disposed of along with RSA No.100446/2015 which was pending before this Court. Accordingly, since the Apex Court issued directions to this Court to dispose of the aforesaid appeal, the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2024. During the course of the said judgment, this Court has referred to certain directions issued by this Court in the present petition. On 08.04.2015, pursuant to which, the Principal Secretary of the State Government has filed his Affidavit dated 27.06.2015.

¶119

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 18.04.1974

¶120

21 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶121

passed by the Assistant Superintendent of land records as well as the order dated 07.09.1974 passed by the Superintendent of land records. It is a matter of record that the said orders were passed in relation to a rectification sought for by the 5^th respondent – Mutt in the extent of land situated in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village, by seeking to rectify the extent from 14 acres 7 guntas to 27 acres 30 guntas. The said proceedings initiated by the 5^th respondent – Mutt were contested by the Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt and culminated in the impugned orders, whereby the extent was changed from 14 acres 7 guntas to 27 acres 30 guntas as standing in the name of the 5^th respondent – Mutt. In pursuance of the impugned orders, the Revenue records in relation to Sy.No.192 have been changed from 14 acres 7 guntas to 27 acres 30 guntas in the name of the 5^th respondent – Mutt.

¶122

It is also a matter of record that aggrieved by the impugned orders, the aforesaid Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt filed an appeal in LRA.1/75-76 which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority – JDLR vide order dated 05.11.1976. So also, the further Appeal No.356/1977 filed by Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt was dismissed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, vide order dated

¶123

22 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶124

18.07.1981. The aforesaid Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt preferred W.P.No.18017/1987 which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.11.1989. It is under these circumstances, that the 5^th respondent-Mutt contends that though the petitioner herein was not a party to the said proceedings, by virtue of the aforesaid orders, the identical / similar claims of the petitioner in the present petition are liable to be rejected.

¶125

In this context, it is relevant to state that during the pendency of the present petition, this Court heard both sides and passed the following order dated 08.04.2015;

¶126

“In the light of the rival contentions urged by Sri. S. Vijayashankar, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri. Harsh Desai, appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri. C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri. S.S. Bawakhan, appearing for the petitioner, and in view of the statement made by the State Government in paragraphs 7, 8, 10 and 11 in the Statement of Objections to the effect that, the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records, Gulburga, on the basis of objection wrote letter to the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, Raichur, to submit a detailed report on the objection raised by Hanumanthachar Sarjoshi, along with relevant survey records. The Superintendent of Land Records, Bellary, communicated by the letter dated 15-10-1973 to the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, Raichur

¶127

23 -

¶128

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶129

that the correction of wrong entry in the record of rights is concerned with the revenue authorities and the matter may be referred to the revenue authorities. The Superintendent of Land Records, Bellary, holds that the survey authority has no jurisdiction to correct the entries in the record of rights. The Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, Raichur, by letter dated 28-10-1973 informed the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records, Gulbarga, that as per the direction of the Superintendent of Land Records, Bellary, he has been directed to refer the matter to the Tahasildar, Gangavathi, for further action.

¶130

2. In para-10 of the Statement of Objections it is stated that Superintendent of Land Records, Bellary, passed an order directing the correction of survey sketch and also to correct the extent of Sy.No.192 of Anegundi measuring 27 acres 30 guntas instead of 14 acres 07 guntas, though the re-grant was made to an extent of 14 acres 07 guntas in favour of Uttaradi Mutt but without her re-grant order for remaining area which was unassessed, Government land was included in the land Sy.No.192 measuring 27 acres 30 guntas, by the Superintendent of Land Records, Bellary, without any authority of law, and also stated the said excess land to an extent of 13 acres 23 guntas is an un-assessed Government land. Therefore, the inclusion of excess land of 13 acres 23 guntas in extent of land Sy.No.192 of Anegundi is not correct.

¶131

24 -

¶132

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶133

3. In view of the aforesaid contentions urged and the specific averments made in the statement of Objections by the Government, this Court feels the following clarifications shall be filed by way of affidavit by the competent authority of not less than the rank of Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department for effective adjudication of the matter between the parties:

¶134

1. What is the action taken by the State Government to protect the Government Land as stated in the Statement of Objections?

¶135

2. What is the action initiated against the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, Raichur, who determined the extent of land i.e. 27 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.192 inspite of refrain order/direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records, Gulbarga Division, dated 6- 12-1973?

¶136

3. What is the basis for the Superintendent of Land Records, Bellary to correct the survey sketch and also to correct the extent of Sy.No.192 measuring 27 acres 30 guntas instead of 14 acres 07 guntas as per regrant order?

¶137

4. What is the correct topography of the land in question as stated by the Government in the Statement of Objections?

¶138

5. Whether the entire extent of land in Sy.No.192 measuring 75 acres situated in Anegundi village was restored to respondent No.5 in view of categorical statement made by Sri. S. Vijayashankar,

¶139

25 -

¶140

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶141

learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 that the entire 75 acres of forfeited land was restored to the respondent No.5?

¶142

6. What is the extent in the original survey sketch at the time of vesting the land in the Government?

¶143

7. What is the land existed in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village as on the date of filing if the present writ petition?

¶144

8. What is the definite stand of the State Government in the present writ petition with regard to whether the land in question belongs to State Government or not, in view of the inconsistent stand taken in the earlier proceedings and in the present writ petition?

¶145

It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the learned Civil Judge to pass orders independently in accordance with law in the pending appeal R.A.No.123/2014 between the very private parties in the present writ petition.

¶146

In pursuance of the same, the Principal Secretary to the

¶147

State Government, Revenue Department filed an Affidavit dated

¶148

27.06.2015 as hereunder:-

¶149

19. Affidavit of Principal Secretary of State Government dated: 27.06.2015;

¶150

26 -

¶151

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶152

“I Dr. B. Basavaraaju S/o Late Basavaiah presently working as Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department do here by state on oath regarding the clarification sought by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench in Writ petition No.111125/2014 as follows:- as per the information furnished by Deputy Commissioner, Koppal & the same has been verified with reference to records.

¶153

1. Since 1959 there has been a litigation between Uttaradimutt and Vyasaraymutt with regard to land Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village situated in Navabrundavan Gaddi, and the litigation are still pending. Both parties claiming their rights over the said property, as such after the final disposal of all the litigations pending in different courts, the state government will take necessary steps to protect its property.

¶154

2. After going through the entire records it is seen that the predecessors of the office of Deputy Commissioner of Land Records, Gulbarga have not taken any action against the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records Raichur who determined the extent of the land i.e. 27 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.192 in spite of refrain order/direction, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records Gulbarga division dated:06-12-1973.

¶155

3. Perusal of the records shows that Superintendent of Land Records Bellary has visited the spot and prepared the sketch on 29-04-1974. In the said sketch, excess land (unsurveyed land) which has been shown by red line which was intended to be included in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi

¶156

27 -

¶157

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶158

village, the said survey sketch and the letter of Joint Director of Land Records Gulbarga dated 28-06-1974 are the basis to correct survey sketch and also to correct the extent of the Sy.No.192 measuring 27 acres 30 guntas instead of 14 acres 7 guntas.

¶159

4. Recently, on 16-05-2015 the entire Brundavana Gaddi was surveyed by surveyors, survey supervisors in the presence of ADLR, DDLR, AC-Koppal and TahsildarGangavathi and prepared the sketch to know the exact topography of the land in question and the sketch is enclosed herewith.

¶160

5. The entire extent of land Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village was forfeited to the government of Sansthan of Anegundi for nonpayment of the land revenue. Thereafter on the application of pontiff of Uttardimutt, the then government, i.e. Anegundi Sansthan, on the basis of the report of the patwari re- granted the land measuring 14 acres 7 guntas only in favour of Respondent No.5 as per the re-grant order.

¶161

6. At the time of vesting the land in the government as per the original pakka book the extent of the land was 14 acres 7 guntas.

¶162

7. As on the date of filing of the present writ petition, 27 acres 30 guntas existed in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village as per the map of the SSLR Bellary.

¶163

8. The definite stand of the state government in the present writ petition is that land Sy.No.192 measuring 14 acres 7 guntas is belongs to Uttaradimutt, the remaining area in the

¶164

28 -

¶165

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶166

said Brundavan Gaddi is belongs to the state government.

¶167

Place:Bengaluru Sd/Date:27-06-2015 Dr. B. Basavaraaju, I.A.S Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department”

¶168

In my considered opinion, the aforesaid subsequent events that have transpired during the pendency of the present petition, viz., the order dated 08.04.2015 passed by this Court and the response of the State Government in its Affidavit dated 27.06.2015 supporting the claim of the petitioner and disputing the claim of the 5^th respondent-Mutt has a direct and substantial / bearing impact on the subject matter of the present petition i.e., the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records and Superintendent of Land Records respectively. In fact, the Affidavit reveals that the State Government has categorically stated that the total extent of land in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village belonging to the 5^th respondent – Mutt measures only 14 acres 7 guntas as per the records maintained by the State Government and that the remaining area in the said Nava Brindavana Gaddi belongs to the State Government and not to the 5^th respondent – Mutt.

¶169

29 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶170

The aforesaid facts and circumstances and rival contentions coupled with the directions issued by this Court and the Affidavit filed by the State Government makes it clear that the said issue / question regarding the total extent of land in Sy.No.192, the extent of land forfeited to the Nizam Government, the extent of land restored / reinstated to the 5^th respondent – Mutt, the location of the Nava Brindavanas etc., have to be necessarily re-examined by the Survey authorities and the Revenue authorities in conjunction / coordination with each other by conducting a fresh joint survey by notifying the petitioner, 5^th respondent and all other interested parties / stake holders. In this context, it is significant to note that while disposing of RSA No.100446/2015 vide Judgment dated 03.07.2024, this Court has left open the said question to be decided in a suit filed by any of the parties seeking comprehensive relief, since the said RSA No.100446/2015 arose out of a suit for bare / permanent injunction simpliciter filed by the 5^th respondent – Mutt without seeking larger / comprehensive relief.

¶171

Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 4 – State comprising of the Survey authorities and

¶172

30 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶173

Revenue authorities to act in co-ordination / conjunction with each other and conduct a fresh / new survey after notifying the petitioner, 5^th respondent and all other interested persons / stake holders and in the presence of all the parties and obtain a report, pursuant to which, the concerned respondents shall proceed to effect changes in the survey records and revenue records in relation to the subject property bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village including its measurements, extent, location, boundaries etc., in accordance with law.

¶174

Insofar as the contention of the 5^th respondent-Mutt that the present petition is hit by delay and latches is concerned, in the light of the specific directions issued by this Court, pursuant to which, an Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government as stated supra, whereby the claim of the 5^th respondent-Mutt has been denied and the claim of the petitionerMutt has been accepted / admitted by the State Government which has passed the impugned orders, the question of delay and latches would not arise for consideration in the peculiar / special facts and circumstances of the instant case. At any rate, since the petitioner was not a party to either the impugned order or the proceedings

¶175

31 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶176

which culminated in W.P.No.18017/1987 before this Court preferred by Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt against the 5^th respondent-Mutt herein, no delay or latches can be attributed to the petitioner especially when the present petition was filed during the pendency of R.A.No.123/2014, which has been assailed in RSA No.100446/2015 by the petitioner and as such, this contention of delay and latches urged in filing the present petition as urged by the 5^th respondent – Mutt cannot be accepted.

¶177

Insofar as the contention of the 5^th respondent that though the petitioner was not a party to the impugned orders and proceedings pursuant thereto, which were between Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt and the 5^th respondent, the same operate as res judicata as against the petitioner is concerned, there is neither valid nor acceptable material placed by the 5^th respondent-Mutt to substantiate this contention; further, the very same contention urged by the 5^th respondent-Mutt was not accepted by this Court in its order passed in RSA No.100446/2015 dated 03.07.2024. Under

¶178

these circumstances, even this contention urged on behalf of the 5^th respondent-Mutt cannot be accepted.

¶179

32 - NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶180

The aforesaid facts and circumstances lead to the sole

¶181

and unmistakable conclusion that the present petition deserves to be disposed of issuing appropriate directions to the Survey Department as well as Revenue department of the State of Karnataka to conduct fresh / new survey and obtain a report and thereafter proceed to effect necessary changes in the survey records and revenue records in relation to Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village, Gangavathi taluk, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all the parties and in accordance with law.

¶182

In the result, I pass the following:

¶183

ORDER

¶184

(i) Petition is hereby disposed of.

¶185

(ii) The respondents 1 to 4 - State and the concerned officials

¶186

of the Survey Department and Revenue department shall coordinate with one another and conduct a joint survey in conjunction with each other of land bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village, Gangavathi taluk, Koppal District, after duly notifying the petitioner, 5^th respondent and all other interested persons / stake holders and in the presence of all the parties and obtain a report, pursuant to which, the concerned respondents shall proceed to effect changes

¶187

NC: 2024:KHC:25166 WP No. 111125 of 2014

¶188

33 -

¶189

in the survey records and revenue records in relation to the subject property bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village including its measurements, extent, location, boundaries etc., after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all parties and in accordance with law.

¶190

(iii) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open

¶191

and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶192

Sd/JUDGE

¶193

Srl.

Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Atikoor Rahaman Vs the State of Karnataka

Sundaram Finance Limited Vs the Authorised Officer

Smt. H. S. Sharavathi Vs M/S. Canara Bank

Sri K R Diwakar Vs M/S Hdfc Bank Limited

Sri. Mariyappa .C. Vs Canara Bank

Mr Nikhil C Pandey Vs Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited