Allowed

Trikuteshwar Devasthana, v. Ramachandra Karishnaji Patil

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2024WP/65345/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the Land Tribunal's order granting occupancy rights to the legal representatives of a deceased applicant. The High Court held the Tribunal failed to address the issue of whether the applicant filed documents as a Trust Chairman or individually. The writ is allowed, and the matter is remitted for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Impugned order of Land Tribunal dated 23.11.2010 set aside; Tribunal directed to reconsider matter afresh within six months.

Trikuteshwar Devasthana, Vs Ramachandra Karishnaji Patil — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.65345/2011(LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

TRIKUTESHWAR DEVASTHANA, REP. BY ITS TRUSTEES.

¶9

SHRI ANANT KRISHNAJI PATIL, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOOLI, TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

SHRI GOVIND NARAYAN PATIL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOOLI,TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶11

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

GANESHL SHRINIVAS PATIL, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOOLI,TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶13

SHRI RAMANAND BALASI KULKARNI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOOLI,TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

RAMACHANDRA KARISHNAJI PATIL, (NOW DECEASED BY HIS LR’S).

¶18

1A. SMT. VAISHALI RAMACHANDRA PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HOOLI, TALUK: SAUNDATTI.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶21

DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶22

1B. KRISHANAJI RAMACHANDRA PATIL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOOLI, TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶23

1C. SHRI CHANDRASHEKAR RAMCHANDRA PATIL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOOLI,TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶24

1D. SHRI VINAYAK RAMACHANDRA PATIL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOOLI,TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.

¶26

THE LAND TRIBUNAL SAUNDATTI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO 1(D); SRI M. KEHSAVA REDDY, AAG AND SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R2 AND R3)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BE ISSUED BY QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL SAUNDATTI IN NUMBER CYA/SDT/64/58+59+8+33 DATED:23/11/2010 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE (AT ANNEXURE-D) AND ETC.,

¶30

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

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petitioner Sri Trikuteshwar Devasthan Trust

¶34

represented by its Trustees, is seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.11.2010, produced as pr Annexure-D passed by the Land Tribunal, Saundatti (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶35

Heard Sri Shrikant T.Patil learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.M.Dharigond learned counsel for respondent No.1(A) to (1D) and Sri.M.Keshava Reddy, Additional Advocate General for Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the Temple Trust represented by its trustees. Husband of respondent No.1(a) had filed Form No.1 as per Annexure-A describing himself as the Chairman of the petitioner-Trust but not in his individual capacity. He died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. Ignoring the fact that

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶38

respondent No.1 had filed Form No.1 in his capacity as a Chairman of the petitioner-Trust, his wife and children were brought on record as his legal representatives. In fact, the legal representatives of the original applicant were not having any manner of right title or interest over the property. However, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the legal representatives of the applicant and passed the order on 14.08.2001, conferring occupancy right in favour of the temple trust. Respondent No.1 challenged the said order before this Court by filing W.P.No.32845/2001. The

¶39

said writ petition was came to be allowed, specifically holding that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the request of the parties for grant of occupancy right, wherein Form No.1 has been filed and it is only the competent authority i.e., Special Deputy Commissioner or the Authorized Officer of the Government is authorized to consider Form No.1 filed by the parties. Accordingly, the

¶40

writ petition was allowed directing the Special Deputy Commissioner/Authorized Officer of the Government to consider Form No.1 and the impugned order was set aside,

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶42

directing the Tribunal to transmit the entire records with respect to the application, to the Special Deputy Commissioner (Inam), within four weeks. In-spite of that the Tribunal assumed jurisdiction in itself and passed the impugned order as per Annexure-D. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have never sought for any clarification by this Court while assuming jurisdiction on the basis of the letter corresponds made by the Government and proceeded to pass the order, which is perverse and illegal and hence the same is liable to be set aside.

¶44

Learned counsel Sri H.M.Dharigond for respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) submits that these respondents are the legal representatives of the applicant before the Tribunal and they have produced all the materials for consideration. The Tribunal has passed a speaking order considering the contentions taken by both

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶46

the parties. There are no reasons to quash the said order or to remit the matter once again to the Land Tribunal.

¶47

Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have tampered Form No.1 by subsequently inserting the word “Chairman” below the name of the applicant. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that, Form No.1 was filed by Late Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil, was in his capacity as Chairperson of the petitioner-Trust, cannot be accepted. The Tribunal considered all these aspects of the matter and proceeded to pass the order, which is in accordance with law. There are no reasons to interfere with the same and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶48

Learned counsel further submitted that the question as to whether late Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil had filed Form No.1 in his individual capacity or as chairperson of the Temple Trust was never an issue for consideration before the Tribunal. It is for the first time before this Court, the said question was raised by the

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶50

petitioner and hence, it does not hold any water. Accordingly, it is to be rejected. This is the third round of litigation that is being fought against these respondents. Unless there are strong reasons for quashing the impugned order the petition cannot be allowed. Since no such grounds are made out in the writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶51

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent Nos.2 and 3 opposing the petition submitted that the post of the Special Deputy Commissioner/Authorized Officer referred to by this Court in Annexure-B is not in existence. The Government of Karnataka by its letter dated 19.12.2002, that is after disposal of W.P.No.32845/2001, clarified the issue regarding withdrawal of the cases pertaining to grant of occupancy right to inamdhars, coming under various Inam Abolition Act before the Tribunal and authorized the

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶53

Tribunal to take up the matter in writ appeal or in review petition.

¶54

Learned counsel submits that, since the post of Special Deputy Commissioner was not in existence and since all such matters were entrusted to the Tribunal by

¶55

the order of the Government, the Tribunal was right in considering the contentions of the parties and pass the impugned order.

¶56

Learned Additional Advocate General submitted

¶57

that the Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 was introduced to bring certain amendments to Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act 1954 and to Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. The said amendment was not in respect of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. The Karnataka amendment referred to above, i.e., Karnataka Act 26 of 1979 makes this position very clear. Even this amendment brought to the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Aboliton Act, 1954 and the Mysore

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶59

(Religious & Charitable) Inam Abolition Act, 1955 was

¶60

struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sri

¶61

Kudali Shringeri Mahasamstanam Vs. State of

¶62

Karnataka¹ .

¶63

Learned counsel further submitted that since

¶64

there was confusion in the mind of the authorities discharging their duties under the enactments, the Under Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue issued a clarification dated 19.12.2002 making it clear that

¶65

the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, was not amended to withdraw the powers of the Tribunal for the purpose granting occupancy right and delegating the same to the Deputy Commissioners. The said letter finds a reference in the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. Therefore it is clear that the Tribunal after making all enquiries and after being satisfied that there was no amendment to Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition

¶66

1 ILR 1992 KAR 1827

¶67

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶68

Act, 1977, proceeded to reconsider the application and passed the impugned order.

¶69

Learned Additional Advocate General submitted

¶70

that, the petitioner herein was served with the notice to appear before the Tribunal and they were represented by their Advocate. The order sheet of the Tribunal dated 02.11.2010 discloses that respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein were represented by their advocate and matter was posted to 09.11.2010. But on 09.11.2010 it is only the advocate representing the applicant was present, but the advocate representing the respondents was absent for the reasons best know to him. Therefore it is clear that the respondents therein, who are the petitioners herein have

¶71

not availed the opportunity to put forth their defence before the Tribunal. Now there are no reasons to quash the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter once again to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Therefore, he prays

¶72

for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶73

Perused the material on record.

¶74

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶75

Form No.1 as per Annexure-A was filed by Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil as Chairman of Trikuteshwar Devasthan Trust Committee. The Tribunal at the first instance as per Annexure-F rejected the claim on the ground that the applicant Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil filed Form No.1 in his capacity as Chairperson of the Trust and after his death, his legal representatives cannot be brought on record, as he had never claimed occupancy right in his individual capacity.

¶76

The said Annexure-F was challenged by the legal representative of Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil in W.P.No.32845/2001 and the same was allowed. The matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. The Tribunal on fresh consideration of the contentions passed the impugned order as per Annexure-D.

¶77

Prima facie Form No.1 as per Annexure-A was filed by Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil as Chairman of Trikuteshwar Devasthan Trust Committee. At the first instance, the Tribunal granted occupancy right jointly in

¶78

12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶79

the name of Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil as Chairman of Trikuteshwar Devasthan Trust Committee and also in the name of the archak of the Temple, as per order dated 14.09.1981. However, Temple Committee was not a party in the said proceedings and therefore, the committee filed W.P.No.14630/1989 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed and the order granting the occupancy right jointly was set aside. The matter was remanded back to give opportunity to the Temple Trust and to consider Form No.1 afresh. It is thereafter, the Tribunal passed the order as per Annexure-F on 14.08.2001.

¶80

It is pertinent to note that in the order dated 23.11.2010 Annexure-C, the Tribunal has discussed at length as to whether Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil had submitted Form No.1 in his individual capacity or in his capacity as the Chairman of the Temple Trust. It has come to the conclusion that the Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil was not cultivating land as tenant personally and rejected the claim of his legal representatives, conferring the

¶81

13 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶82

occupancy rights in favour of the Temple Trust. When the said order was challenged by the legal representatives of Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil before this Court by filing W.P.No.32845/2001, this Court remanded the matter by allowing the writ petition vide order dated 07.04.2003 directing the Tribunal to transmit the papers to the Special Deputy Commissioner.

¶83

It is to be noticed that the amendment referred to in the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32845/2001 was only in respect of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act 1954 and to Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. The said amendment was not in respect of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. This fact is not disputed either by the petitioner or the respondents. When there was no amendment to the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, apparently, the order directing the Tribunal hand over records to the Special Deputy Commissioner in W.P.No.32845/2001 was under

¶84

14 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶85

misconception. When the said fact is clarified, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the Tribunal in spite of the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, could not have proceeded to consider the claim of the applicants, cannot be accepted. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal had the authority to consider Form No.1 filed by Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil under the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act.

¶86

Now, the question arises as to whether the order impugned passed by the Tribunal after remanding the matter by this Court in W.P.No.32845/2001 is liable to be confirmed or whether the same is to be set aside. Prima facie, Form No.1 was filed by Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil describing himself as Chairman of Trikuteshwar Devasthan Trust Committee. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No.1(a) to 1(d), there is manipulation of Form No.1 by the petitioners. But no such defence appears to have been taken before the

¶87

15 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶88

Tribunal, when it had considered the Form No.1 filed by the applicants on earlier occasions. But in the impugned order there is no discussion about the same. When the Tribunal decided Form No.1 and passed order rejecting the claim of the Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil with the specific finding that he had filed Form No.1 in his capacity as Chairman and not in his individual capacity, it should have considered the said question while passing the impugned order. When the impugned order is taken into consideration, the Tribunal has never bestowed its consideration to the said fact, but proceeded to confer the occupancy rights in favour of the legal representatives of Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil.

¶89

The issue as to whether the applicant had submitted Form No.1 in his capacity as Chairman of the Temple Trust or in his individual capacity or whether there was manipulation of Form No.1, as contended by respondent No.1(a) to 1(d) is a serious issue and the same is to be considered by the Tribunal before passing

¶90

16 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶91

the order either conferring the occupancy rights in favour of the legal representatives of the applicant or with the Temple Trust or rejecting the claim. No such exercise appears to have been done by the Tribunal. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is to be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in a time bound manner. The Land Tribunal, Saundatti acting under the provisions of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, is required to consider the Form No.1 submitted by Late Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil and to decide as to whether the same was filed by him in his individual capacity or as Chairman of Trikuteshwar Devasthan Trust Committee or whether there was manipulation of the said Form No.1. Whether the applicants are entitled for occupancy right or not. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

a) Writ petition is allowed.

¶94

17 -

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6133 WP No. 65345 of 2011

¶96

b) Impugned order dated 23.11.2010 produced as per Annexure-D, passed by the Land Tribunal, Saundatti, is set aside.

¶97

c) The Land Tribunal, Saundathi, is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the discussion held above and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶98

d) It is made clear that the discussions held above regarding Form No.1 submitted before the Land Tribunal is only to dispose off this petition. The contentions of both the parties are kept open, to be considered by the Land Tribunal, in accordance with law.

¶99

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

¶100

SD/-

¶101

JUDGE

¶102

AC/CT-ASC

Trikuteshwar Devasthana, v. Ramachandra Karishnaji Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trikuteshwar Devasthana, v. Ramachandra Karishnaji Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnaraj S/O Srinivasrao Punaji, Vs the Assistant Director of Land Record

Venkatesh S/O.Raghavendra Gudi Vs Inspector-General of Registration

Smt. Dundavva W/O. Sadashiv Gotadaki Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Vinod Shankar Muchandi @ Ganji Vs Sri. Shankar Rukmanna Muchandi @ Genji

Shri.Ashish S/O. Ratnakar Hattangadi Vs Smt.Vinata W/O. Ashish Hattangadi

Smt.Laxmibai W/O Shivappa Golappagol Vs Smt.Sunanda W/O Ramappa Dyavannavar @ Devinnanavar