Sri Puthige Mutt Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI PUTHIGE MUTT THIRTHAHALLI REPRESENTED BY A ARAVINDA NEKKAR MANAGER OF PETITIONER MUTT AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT SRI PUTHIGE MUTT, KURUVALLI NEAR GOVT PRIMARY SCHOOL THIRTHAHALLI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT 577 432

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. MANMOHAN P.N, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE M.S BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶18

THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001

¶19

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SHIMOGA-577432

¶23

ASSISTASNT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVIOSN SHIVAMOGA-577 432

¶24

TAHASILDAR THEERTHAHALLI TALUK THEERTHAHALLI-577 432

¶25

TOWN PANCHAYATH THEERTHAHALLI TALUK THEERTHAHALLI-577 432

¶26

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT KURUVALLI HORTICULTURE AREA THEERTHAHALLI-577 432

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1, R3, R5 & R7 SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R6 - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE REPORT DATED 31/05/2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE BARING NO.COMPT/UPLOK/BD-415/2008/ARE-6 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶36

The petitioner in this Writ Petition has sought the

¶37

following relief:

¶38

"i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the report dated 31.05.2017 passed by respondent No.2 in case bearing No. Compt/Uplok/BD-415/2008/ARE-6 (produced as 'Annexure-E');

¶39

ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the 4th defendant in Case number L.N.D. No.94/17-18 (produced as 'AnnexureF'); and

¶40

iii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent in case number R.A. No.11/2020 (produced as 'Annexure-G'); and

¶41

iv) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the notice bearing No.L.N.D.C.R:44/03-04 dated 02.09.2022 issued by the 5th

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

respondent (produced as 'Annexure-M'); and

¶45

v) Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶46

It is the case of the petitioner that the erstwhile Government of Mysore granted land bearing Sy.No.79, Melinakuruvalli Village in favour of petitioner - Mutt i.e. Sri Puttige Mutt, Thirthahalli vide order dated 16.02.1956 bearing No. R7-18265-68-MUZ.238-54-8. The same was published in the gazette of the Government of Mysore in February, 1956. Thereafter, in the year 1979, the Government of Karnataka through the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga and the Land Acquisition Officer, Shivamogga acquired 28.6 acres of land in Sy.No.79 of Melinakuruvalli Village belonging to the petitioner - Mutt for expansion of Areca Research Station by Horticuture Department. In respect of said acquisition, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga passed a

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

draft award for Rs.78,477/- in favour of petitioner - Mutt vide reference No.6/81/81-82 dated 08.05.1981. Additionally, the petitioner - Mutt had gifted 35 guntas of land in favour of Melinakuruvalli Gram Panchayat for establishment of Village Panchayat Office. So also, based

¶50

on the request of Tahsildar, Thirthahalli Taluk, the petitioner - Mutt had sold 7.23 acres of land for the purpose of formation of layout and grant sites for site less persons in Thirthahalli under Ashraya Scheme. The petitioner - Mutt had also sold some portion of the land for Community Hall and for formation of house sites etc.

¶51

In the meantime, one D.V.Manjappa of the said village raised objection before the Tahsildar, Thirthahalli, in respect of change of katha in Sy.No.79 measuring 15.4 acres in the name of petitioner - Mutt after akarband durasti. The said dispute was decided by the Tahsildar in Case No.45/2002-03 on 02.07.2003 by passing an order to enter the name of the petitioner - Mutt in the RTC with respect to the aforesaid land.

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Things stood thus, one Mr. Leo Aroja s/o John lodged a complaint in the year 2008 against the Tahsildar of Thirthahalli alleging that the Tahsildar had committed misconduct by illegally entering the revenue entries pertaining to the forest land bearing Sy.No.79 measuring 15.4 acres of Melinakuruvalli village in the name of petitioner - Mutt and also alleging that the petitioner - Mutt had sold 7.23 acres of land to Taluk Panchayath/Government for formation of a layout under Ashraya Scheme and received sale consideration.

¶55

Based on the said complaint, an investigation was taken up by the Lokayukta and filed a report on 31.05.2017 under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for brevity “ the Act ”) by recommending the Competent Authority to cancel the revenue entries and collect the sale consideration paid to the petitioner - Mutt and to correct the RTC by showing an extent of 15 Acres in the name of forest department and

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

remaining portion as government ‘B’ kharab by removing all other entries.

¶59

Subsequently, on 07.03.2020, the Assistant

¶60

Commissioner, Shivamogga in Case No.LND.94/17-18 cancelled the mutation entries made in the name of petitioner - Mutt in respect of the aforesaid lands and also ordered to recover the compensation received for land acquisition by the petitioner-Mutt from Horticulture Department.

¶61

The order of the Assistant Commissioner had been challenged by the petitioner - Mutt before the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga in R.A No.11/2020. However, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide order dated 03.01.2022. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Town Panchayat Officers and the Assistant Director of Horticulture Department issued notice to the petitioner - Mutt to deposit the sale consideration and compensation received by the petitioner - Mutt.

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Subsequently, the respondents started to interfere with the petitioner - Mutt property. As such, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.880/2022 seeking a writ of mandamus for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner - Mutt from land bearing Sy.No.79 measuring 6.1 Acres and for other reliefs. The learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order of status-quo on 18.01.2022 with regard to possession of the property in question. However, on 02.09.2022 the Tahsildar, Thirthahalli issued notice in L.N.D.C.R 44/03-04 dated 02.09.2022 by calling upon the petitioner - Mutt to refund the award amount for land acquisition within 10.09.2022. Hence, the petitioner - Mutt preferred this writ petition challenging the report dated 31.05.2017 of the Lokayukta.

¶65

We have heard Sri. Manmohan P.N., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.N Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 3, 5 and 7

¶66

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

¶69

Sri. Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner Mutt primarily contended that the Lokayukta has traversed beyond the powers vested in it under Sections 8, 9 and 12 of Act and prepared the report by keeping the petitioner - Mutt in dark. According to him, the impugned report is clearly in violation of Section 8(2)(d) of the Act which specifically bars the Lokayukta from investigating into an action after expiry of 5 years. In the instant case, the investigation was conducted after 5 decades from the grant. He also contended that the unilateral conclusion of the Lokayukta by deciding the right, title and interest of the petitioner’s Mutt in the land in question is totally beyond the power of Lokayukta and the subsequent orders by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are totally illegal and unsustainable under law. Accordingly, he prays to quash the report and subsequent orders.

¶70

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Refuting the above submissions of the petitioner – Mutt, Sri. Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for Lokayukta vehemently contended that the Lokayukta has submitted the report under Section 12(1) of the Act to the concerned authorities well within its power vested under the Act and after meticulously examining the facts and circumstances so also the entire records, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended that the subsequent orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, which are based on the report submitted by the Lokayukta, are also well within the legal parameters. According to the learned counsel, there is no such bar to challenge the illegal acquisition of the property by any person at any time by bringing the same to the knowledge of Lokayukta.

¶73

In the instant case, the land in question was not granted in favour of the petitioner - Mutt and the Government has only leased the property in question in

¶74

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

favour of petitioner - Mutt for a period of 30 years and thereafter, the revenue entries were illegally entered in the name of petitioner - Mutt and by virtue of the same, the petitioner - Mutt had sold and gifted the properties to third parties without any right, title or interest over the land in question. He also contended that the land in question belongs to the forest department, which was granted by the government vide order dated 22.08.1933. Though the name of the forest department was entered in the concerned revenue records, its phodi and durasti have not been carried out. In such circumstance, the report of Lokayukta is legally sound and sustainable under law. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶77

Sri Sudev Hegde, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 3, 5 and 7 by adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for Lokayukta, has placed the original grant record of the land in question before the Court. He also contended that the land in question was not granted in favour of the petitioner

¶78

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

Mutt and was only leased for a period of 30 years. As such, the report of the Lokayukta is sustainable under law. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶81

We have given our anxious consideration both on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also the original records placed before us.

¶82

As could be gathered from records, the land in question was granted in favour of the petitioner - Mutt by the erstwhile Government of Mysore vide order dated 16.02.1956 bearing No. R7-18265-68-MUZ.238-54-8. In the original record, the same discloses as under:

¶83

"UËgÀßªÉÄAmï DgïqÀgï £ÀA: R7-18265-68/MUZ 238-54-8 dated 16-02-56²æÃ¥ÀÄwÛUÉ ªÀÄoÀPÉÆÌÃ¸ÀÌgÀ ªÉÄÃ°£À PÀÄgÀÄªÀ½î ¸À.£ÀA:79 JPÀgÉ 1 PÉÌ 0-40 DuÉ QªÀÄäwÛ£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ 30 ªÀµÀðzÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ dªÀiÁ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄoÀzÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÉ".

¶84

On the plain reading of the above, it could be gathered that the land in question was granted in the

¶85

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

name of petitioner - Mutt by receiving 30 years revenue assessment at the rate of Rs.0-4-0 Aane (erstwhile Indian currency) .

¶88

Thus, we find no force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the Lokayuktha and the learned AGA that the land in question was not granted in favour of the petitioner - Mutt and only leased for a period of 30 years. It is noticed that in the grant order, it is nowhere stated that the subject land was leased in favour of the petitioner - Mutt for a period of 30 years, instead, it is categorically stated by receiving 30 years revenue assessment the land in question was granted in favour of the petitioner - Mutt. To further substantiate the said aspect, the said grant was published in the gazette of Government of Mysore in February, 1956.

¶89

On perusal of subsequent events, it is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer, Shivamogga, acquired 28.6 Acres out of land in question belongs to the petitioner - Mutt for Horticulture Department and the award was passed for a

¶90

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

sum of Rs.78,477/- in favour of the petitioner - Mutt vide reference No.6/81-82 dated 08.05.1981. Further, it could be seen from the records that the petitioner - Mutt had gifted 35 guntas of land in favour of Gram Panchayat and sold 7.23 acres of land for the purpose of formation of layout for site less persons and also for construction of Community Hall. The Land Acquisition Officer while passing an award for acquisition of land of the petitioner - Mutt in the year 1981, nowhere whispered that the petitioner - Mutt was not the owner of the land in question. The mutation entries also uninterruptedly stood in the name of petitioner - Mutt till the year 2002-2003 in respect of remaining portion of land in question.

¶93

Further Section 8(2)(d) of the Act reads as under:

¶94

"8. Matters not subject to investigation.-

¶95

(2) The Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall not investigate,-

¶96

(a) xxxx (b) xxxx (c) xxxx,

¶97

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

(d) any complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place."

¶100

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner – Mutt, on plain reading of Section 8(2)(d) of the Act, there is a clear bar to the Lokayukta from investigating into any action after expiry of 5 years. As discussed supra, the complaint has been filed by one Mr. Leo Aroja s/o John against the Tahsildar of Thirthahalli in the year 2008 initially, that too after five decades from the date of grant. As such, the Lokayukta is not empowered to conduct any investigation in view of the clear bar under Section 8(2)(d) of the Act. Further, on perusal of the impugned report of Lokayukta, the Lokayukta has unilaterally without issuing any notice to the petitioner - Mutt came to the conclusion that the petitioner - Mutt has acquired the forest land and that the same was leased only for a period of 30 years, as such, it has to handover the possession and also to cancel the revenue entries

¶101

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

standing in the name of petitioner - Mutt. These findings of the Lokayukta are not only barred under law, but also violative of principles of natural justice. Further, in our considered view, the Lokayukta is not empowered to decide the right, title and interest of the parties in respect

¶104

of any property, which has to be decided in a civil lis. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the report of the Lokayukta is untenable and the subsequent actions of the Authorities based on the report are also liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶105

ORDER

¶106

i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶107

ii) A writ of certiorari is issued and the report dated 31.05.2017 by respondent No.2 - Lokayukta in case bearing No. Compt/Uplok/BD415/2008/ARE-6 at Annexure-E is quashed.

¶108

NC: 2025:KHC:42256-DB WP No. 21283 of 2022

¶109

17 -

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

iii) Consequently, the order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the 4^th respondent in Case No.L.N.D.No.94/17-18 at Annexure-F and the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the 3^rd respondent in case number R.A.No.11/2020 at

¶112

Annexure-G are quashed.

¶113

iv) The notice bearing No.L.N.D.C.R:44/03-04 dated 02.09.2022 issued by the 5^th respondent vide Annexure-M is also quashed.

¶114

SD/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶115

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶116

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

¶117

PKS

Sri Puthige Mutt v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Puthige Mutt v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Ramaiah, Vs the Managing Director

Kannan. N Vs the Managing Director

Sri T H Manjunath Vs Sri G N Malleshappa

Smt. Rukkamma Vs the State of Karnataka

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri. Suresh. M

The Director Services and Business Development Vs Mariya. R