Karnataka High Court
Sri Sha Bra Vishwaradhya Sahivacharya ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2024
Author: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.58487 OF 2015 (LR)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No. 5993 OF 2020 (LR)
WRIT PETITION No. 9549 OF 2017 (LR)
WRIT PETITION No.14332 OF 2020 (LR)
IN W.P. No.58487/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. H. RAMAKRISHNAPPA
S/O. LATE DODDAHANUMAAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT SUBEDARPALYA VILLAGE,
JARAKABANDE KAVAL,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 097.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN/
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
UNDER THE LAND REFORMS ACT,
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 64.
3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.
4. H BYLAPPA
SINCE DEASED BY HIS LRS:
4(A) SRI B RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE H BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT SUBEDHARPALYA
JARAKABANDEKAVAL, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
4(B) SRI S B HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
S/O LATE H BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT SUBEDHARPALYA
JARAKABANDEKAVAL
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
4(C) SRI S B BALAJI
S/O LATE H BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT SUBEDHARPALYA
JARAKABANDEKAVAL
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
3
4(D) SMT. B SHESHAMMA
D/O H BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.348, 7TH CROSS
ATTUR LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 064.
4(E) SMT VASANTHA
D/O LATE BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT T DASARAHALLI
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 058
5. SMT. HUCHAMMA
@ PADMAVATHAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS:
5(A) SMT. RAMA
W/O VASUDEVAN
D/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.1562, 2ND CROSS
SUGAPPA LAYOUT
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
5(B) SMT. UMA
W/O SRINATH
D/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.43, RAILWAY COLONY
R M V EXTENSION 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 094
5(C) SMT. GEETHAMMA
W/O K N GOPALAKRISHNA
D/O LATE HUCHAMMA
4
@ PADMAVATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO.848
THINDLU MAIN ROAD
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
KODIGEHALLI
BENGALURU-560 092
5(D) SMT REKHA
W/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.848,
THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 092
5(E) SMT SHOBHA
W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.848,
THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 092
5(F) SRI G MOHAN
S/O K N GOPALAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO. 848,
THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE,
SAHAKARANAGARA POST,
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 092
5
6. R VENKATARAMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
6(A) SMT VENKATALAKSHMAMMA,
@ RAJALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE R. VENKATARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.115
NEAR SRI VENUGOPALA SWAMY TEMPLE
BESTHARA STREET, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064
6(B) SRI. V VINAYAKA
S/O LATE R. VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.115,
NEAR SRI VENUGOPALA SWAMY TEMPLE
BESTHARA STREET, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
6(C) SMT. V. SHANTHALA
D/O LATE R VENKATARAMAIAH
W/O R VASUDEV
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.107-F, 29TH A CROSS
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 082.
6(D) SMT V SURYAKALA
D/O LATE R VENKATARAMAIAH
W/O Y V RAVINDRA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.107-F, 29TH A CROSS
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 082.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADV. FOR R4 (A TO E);
6
PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VINAYAK B., ADVOCATE FOR R5 (A, B, D, E AND F)
AND R6 (A TO D);
R5(C) IS SERVED]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
(A) QUASH ANNEXURE F1 THE DATED 09.02.2012 MADE BY
THE R-2 LAND TRIBUNAL IN PROCEEDIGNS L.R.F NOS.945,
1187, 1418/74-75 ON ITS FILE;
(B) DIRECT THE R2 LAND TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE
APPLICATION ANNEXURE-F FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE
10(2) CPC, 1908, DATED 12-01-2012 ON ITS MERITS IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
IN W.P. No.5993/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI DURGAMBA EDUCATIONAL TRUST (R),
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING TRUSTEE
SMT. SHANTHA DURGADEVI
MARALENAHALLI - SIRA ROAD
TUMAKURU - 572 106.
2. SRI SRIDEVI CHARITABLE TRUST (R)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING TRUSTEE
SRI M.R. HULINAYKAR, "SHIVADEEPTI",
3RD CROSS, S.S. PURAM
TUMAKURU - 572 102.
3. SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST (R),
REPRESENTED BY ITS
7
MANAGING TRUSTEE
SRI RAMAN M.H.,
SIRA ROAD,
TUMAKURU - 572 106.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK (ADDL.,)
BENGALURU
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064.
4. SMT. HUCHAMMA @ PADMAVATHAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER L.RS:
4(A) SMT. RAMA
W/O VASUDEVAN
D/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O NO.1562, 2ND CROSS
SUGAPPA LAYOUT, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
4(B) SMT. UMA
W/O SRINATH
8
D/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O NO.43, RAILWAY COLONY
R M V EXTENSION 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU
4(C) SMT. GEETHAMMA
W/O K N GOPALAKRISHNA
D/O LATE HUCHAMMA
@ PARVATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/O THINDLU MAIN ROAD
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
KODIGEHALLI
BENGALURU-560 092
4(D) SMT REKHA
W/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 092
4(E) SMT SHOBHA
W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 092
4(F) G MOHAN
S/O K N GOPALAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
9
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE,
SAHAKARANAGARA POST,
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 092
RESPONDENT NOS.4(D), 4(E) AND 4(F) ARE
TREATED THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.4(C)
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.03.2022.
5. SRI R VENKATARAMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
5(A) SMT VENKATALAKSHMAMMA,
@ RAJALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE R. VENKATARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.115
NEAR SRI VENUGOPALA SWAMY TEMPLE
BESTHARA STREET, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064
5(B) SRI. V. V. VINAYAKA
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.115,
NEAR SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE
BESTHARA STREET, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 063
5(C) SMT. V. SHANTHALA
D/O LATE R VENKATARAMAIAH
W/O R VASUDEV
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.107-F, 29TH A CROSS
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 082.
10
5(D) SMT V SURYAKALA
D/O LATE R VENKATARAMAIAH
W/O Y V RAVINDRA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O NO.58, FORT STREET,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
6. H. BYLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
6(A) B. RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE H. BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O SUBEDHARPALYA
JARAKABANDEKAVAL
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 064.
6(B) SMT. B SHESHAMMA
D/O H BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O NO.348, 7TH CROSS
ATTUR LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 064.
6(C) SMT VASANTHA
D/O LATE BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/O T DASARAHALLI
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 058
6(D) SRI S.B. BALAJI
S/O LATE H. BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/O SUBEDHARPALYA
JARAKABANDEKAVAL,
YELAHANKA HOBLI
11
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 064.
6(E) S.B. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
S/O LATE H. BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O SUBEDHARPALYA
JARAKABANDEKAVAL,
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 064.
7. SRI SHA BRA VISHWARADHYA
SAHIVACHARYA SWAMIGALU
MATHADHIPATHI OF
SRI RAMALINGESHWARA MUTT
SITUATED AT HARANAHALLI VILLAGE
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE AND
SRI SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (A, B, D, E & F)
AND R5 (A TO D);
R4 (D, E & F) ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED
R4 (C) VIDE ORDER DATED 15.03.2022;
SRI SOMASHEKAR G.V., ADVOCATE FOR R6 (A TO E);
SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI T.S. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R7]
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
(A) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2016 PASSED BY
THE R2 LAND TRIBUNAL IN CASE NOS.LRF 945, 1187 AND
1418/1974-75 AS PER ANNEXURE-W;
12
(B) CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATIONS FILED IN
FORM NO.7 BY THE ORIGINAL APPLICANTS VIZ., HUCHAMMA
@ PADMAVATHAMMA NOW REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT
NOS.4(A) TO (F) AND R. VENKATARAMAIAH NOW
REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NOS.5(A) TO (D) AS PER
ANNEXURES-J & J1 AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO.9549/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI SHA BRA VISHWARADHYA
SAHIVACHARYA SWAMIGALU
MATHADHIPATHI OF
SRI RAMALINGESHWARA MUTT
SITUATED AT HARANAHALLI VILLAGE
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI T.S. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN/
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
UNDER THE LAND REFORMS ACT
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK (ADDL.,)
BENGALURU
3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK,
13
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064.
4. SMT. HUCHAMMA @
PADMAVATHAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS:
4(A) SMT. RAMA
W/O VASUDEVAN
AGED 58 YEARS
D/O LATE RATHNAMMA
R/AT NO.1562, 2ND CROSS
SUGAPPA LAYOUT
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
4(B) SMT. UMA
W/O SRINATH
AGED 58 YEARS
D/O LATE RATHNAMMA
R/AT NO.43, RAILWAY COLONY
R M V EXTENSION 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU
4(C) SMT. GEETHAMMA
D/O LATE HUCHAMMA
@ PARVATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/O K N GOPALAKRISHNA
THINDLU MAIN ROAD
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
KODIGEHALLI
BENGALURU-560 092
4(D) SMT REKHA
W/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
14
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 092
4(E) SMT SHOBHA
W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 092
4(F) G MOHAN
S/O K N GOPALAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE,
SAHAKARANAGARA POST,
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 092
5. R. VENKATARAMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
5(A) SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
@ RAJALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
W/O LATE R. VENKATARAMAIAH
R/AT NO.115,
NEAR SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE
BESTHARA STREET, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560 064.
5(B) SRI. V V. VINAYAKA
S/O LATE R. VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.115,
15
NEAR SRI VENUGOPALA SWAMY TEMPLE
BESTHARA STREET, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 063
5(C) SMT. V. SHANTHALA
D/O LATE R VENKATARAMAIAH
W/O R VASIDEV
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.107-F, 29TH A CROSS
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 082.
5(D) SMT V SURYAKALA
D/O LATE R VENKATARAMAIAH
W/O SRI Y V RAVINDRA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NO.58, FORT STREET,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
SRI H. BYLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
6(A) B. RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE H. BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O SUBEDHARPALYA
JARAKABANDEKAVAL
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 064.
6(B) SMT. B SHESHAMMA
D/O H BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.348, 7TH CROSS
ATTUR LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 064.
16
6(C) SMT VASANTHA
D/O LATE BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT T DASARAHALLI
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 058
6(D) S.B. BALAJI
S/O LATE H. BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/O SUBEDHARPALYA
JARAKABANDEKAVAL,
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 064.
6(E) S.B. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
S/O LATE H. BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O SUBEDHARPALYA
JARAKABANDEKAVAL,
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 064.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE AND
SRI SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (A, B, D, E & F)
AND R5 (A TO D);
SRI P. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R6 (A TO E);
R5 (C) IS SERVED]
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 15.09.2016 PASSED BY THE R2 IN LRF NOS.
945, 1187 AND 1418/74-75 IN ANNEXURE-Q AND ALSO THE
17
ORDERS PASSED BY THE R2 DATED 18.10.2016 IN CASE
O.LRF 945, 1187, 1418/74-75 IN ANNEXURE-R AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO.14332/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI LATE BASAPPA
S/O RANGAPPA
SINCE DIED THROUGH
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
(LR'S BOUGHT ON RECORD
VIDE ORDER DATED 28.08.2023)
SMT. SAVAKKA BASAPPA HULINAYAKA
W/O BASAPPA RANGAPPA HULINAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT TUPPADAHURAHATTI VILLAGE
NAVALGUND TALUK
DHARWAD DISTRICT
DHARWAD - 580 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK (ADDITIONAL),
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK,
18
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064.
4. SMT. RAMA
W/O VASUDEVAN
D/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.1562, 2ND CROSS
SUGAPPA LAYOUT
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
5. SMT. UMA
W/O SRINATH
D/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.43, RAILWAY COLONY
R M V EXTENSION 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 094
6. SMT. GEETHAMMA
D/O LATE HUCHAMMA
@ PARVATHAMMA
W/O K.N. GOPALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/O THINDLU MAIN ROAD
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
KODIGEHALLI
BENGALURU-560 092
7. SMT REKHA
W/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 092
19
8. SMT SHOBHA
W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE
SAHAKARANAGARA POST
KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092
9. SRI G MOHAN
S/O K N GOPALAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE,
SAHAKARANAGARA POST,
KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092
10. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
@ RAJALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
W/O LATE R. VENKATARAMAIAH
R/AT NO.115,
NEAR SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE
BESTHARA STREET, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560 064.
11. SRI. V V. VINAYAKA
S/O LATE R. VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.115, NEAR SRI VENUGOPALA
SWAMY TEMPLE, BESTHARA STREET,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064
12. SMT. V. SHANTHALA
D/O LATE R VENKATARAMAIAH
W/O R VASUDEV
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.107-F, 29TH A CROSS
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 082.
20
13. SMT V SURYAKALA
D/O LATE R VENKATARAMAIAH
W/O SRI Y V RAVINDRA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O NO.58, FORT STREET,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.
14. SRI B. RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE H. BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O SUBEDHARPALYA
JARAKABANDEKAVAL
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 064.
15. SMT. B SHESHAMMA
D/O LATE H BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.348, 7TH CROSS
ATTUR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
16. SMT VASANTHA
D/O LATE BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT T DASARAHALLI
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 058
17. SRI S.B. BALAJI
S/O LATE H. BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/O SUBEDHARPALYA
JARAKABANDEKAVAL,
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 064.
21
18. S.B. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
S/O LATE H. BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O SUBEDHARPALYA
JARAKABANDEKAVAL, YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 064.
19. SRI CHANDRAMOULESHWARA
SHIVACHARYA SWAMIGALU
MATADIPATHI OF SRI RAMALINGESHWARA MUTT
SITUATED AT HARANAHALLI VILLAGE
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 416.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE AND
SRI SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R5, R7 TO R13;
R7 TO R9 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R6
VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2021;
SRI SOMASHEKAR G.V., ADVOCATE FOR R14 TO R18;
SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI T.S. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R19)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
COMMON ORDER DATED 18.10.2016 PASSED BY THE R2 IN
LRF NOS. 945, 1187 AND 1418/74-75 ON THE FILE OF THE
LAND TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK,
BENGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-V AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS PERTAINING TO PRINCIPAL
BENCH, BENGALURU, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
AT DHARWAD BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ON
17.11.2023 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS AT PRINCIPAL BENCH, BENGALURU THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
22
ORDER
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV. J This Order has been divided into the following Sections to facilitate analysis:
I DETAILS OF WRIT PETITIONS FILED AND SUMMARY OF THE 23 PRAYER SOUGHT FOR II TIMELINE OF RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS/EVENTS 28 III CONSIDERATION 51 A. Order of the Land Tribunal regarding 52 withdrawal of the application claiming occupancy rights by Sri H.Bylappa B. Order of the Tribunal regarding 57 rejection of the Impleading Application III CONCLUSION -A. W.P. No. 9549/2017 68 B. W.P. Nos. 5993/2020 & 14332/2020 69 C. W.P. No. 58487/2015 72 IV CONSIDERATION OF I.A.NO.1/2023 FILED IN 77 W.P.NO.5993/2020 23
Writ Petition Nos.58487/2015, 5993/2020, 9549/2017 and 14332/2020 are taken up together and disposed off by a common order; in light of factual matrix which is interlinked, as the prayer sought for overlaps, as the adjudication in one of the Writ Petition may have adverse consequences as regards petitioners in other matters, accordingly, in order to comprehensively deal with the legal controversy and prevent the possibility of passing of conflicting orders, the above Writ Petitions are taken up together and disposed off by a common order.
A. DETAILS OF WRIT PETITIONS FILED AND SUMMARY OF THE PRAYER SOUGHT FOR:-I. W.P.No.58487/2015
1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the son of late Sri Doddahanumaiah, who is stated to be a tenant under the Inamdar Sri N.K.Surappa. It is averred that 24 Doddahanumaiah alongwith his family members was cultivating the lands in the following Survey numbers:-
(i) Survey No.64/1-measuring 6 acres 35 guntas including kharab of 5 acres 13 guntas.
(ii) Survey No.70 - measuring 15 acres 37 guntas including kharab of 14 guntas.
(iii) Survey No.71- measuring 12 acres 37 guntas
(iv) Survey No.76/5 - measuring 14 acres 02 guntas.
(v) Survey No.72 - measuring 34 acres 32 guntas.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Land Tribunal dated 09.02.2012 in LRF No.945, 1187, 1418/74-75 and have also sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the Land Tribunal to consider the applications filed under Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) dated 12.01.2012. The said impleading application was filed by the petitioner Sri H. Ramakrishnappa contending that Sri H. Bylappa being the Manager of the joint family had filed an 25 application seeking grant of occupancy rights alongwith his father on 30.12.1974.
3. It is submitted that an order was passed registering Sri H. Bylappa, who was the petitioner's brother as a tenant in respect of the lands. There were series of litigations and in light of apprehension that Sri H.Bylappa would withdraw the application in Form No.7, in order to protect the legal rights and interest, the application for impleading has been filed in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal that stood revived by an order of remand.
B. W.P.No.9549/2017
4. This Writ Petition has been filed by Sri Sha Bra Vishwaradhya Sahivacharya Swamigalu, Matadhipathi of Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mutt') seeking for setting aside of the order of the Land Tribunal passed in LRF No.945, 1187, 26 1418/74-75 dated 18.10.2016, by which order the occupancy rights granted in favour of Smt.Huchamma @ Smt.Padmavathamma and Sri R.Venkataramaiah to an extent of 16 acres 16 guntas in Survey No.72 of Jarakabande kaval, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Additional Taluk came to be confirmed. A finding was recorded that the rival claimant H.Bylappa had withdrawn application in Form No.7 under Order XXIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC.
5. The petitioner Mathadipathi had also challenged the order passed on 15.09.2016 in the same proceedings pending before the Land Tribunal, by virtue of which the impleading application filed by Sri Sha Bra Chandramouleshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu, the Mathadhipathi of the Mutt on 07.03.2013 and subsequent impleading application filed by Sri Sha Bra Vishwaradhya Shivacharya Swamigalu of Mutt on 07.04.2015 also came to be rejected.
27C. W.P.No.5993/2020
6. This Writ Petition has been filed by Sri Durgamba Educational Trust®, Sri Sridevi Charitable Trust®, Sri Ramana Maharshi Educational Trust® calling in question the validity of the order of the Land Tribunal dated 18.10.2016 passed in LRF No.945, 1187, 1418/1974-75, whereby there was a confirmation of grant of occupancy rights in favour of Smt.Huchamma @ Smt.Padmavathamma and Sri Venkataramaiah. The petitioners have also sought for a dismissal of the application filed in Form No.7 by the applicants, Smt.Huchamma @ Smt.Padmavathamma and Sri R.Venkataramaiah.
7. The petitioners are purchasers of land in Survey No.72 from the Mathadipathi Sri Chandramouleshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu of Mutt by Sale Deeds dated 31.07.2010.
28
8. The petitioners claim that without arraying them as parties and without notice to them, the claimants have filed Form No.7 with respect to the lands sold to them and occupancy rights have been granted in favour of the claimants prejudicing their legal rights. D. W.P.No.14332/2020
9. The said Writ Petition has been filed calling in question the order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the Land Tribunal in LRF No.945, 1187 & 1418/74-75 referred to above. The petitioner claims to be a bona fide purchaser of an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.72 from Sri Chandramouleshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu, the Mathadipathi of Mutt by a Sale Deed dated 31.07.2010. II. TIMELINE OF RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS/EVENTS:-
Sl. Date Events/Proceedings No. 1. 19.07.1977 The Land Tribunal passed an order granting
occupancy rights in Sy.No.72, Jarakabandekaval, in favour of Smt. Hucchamma @ [1st Order of Padmavathamma and Sri. R. Venkataramaiah Tribunal] 29
2. 1977 Challenging the order of the Land Tribunal dated 19.07.1977, Writ Petition No.10135/1977 came to be filed by Sri. H Bylappa s/o Doddahanumaiah contending that the tribunal has passed the impugned order while an application filed by him with respect to the same land was kept pending. 08.12.1980 The Writ Petition was allowed and the proceedings were remanded to the Land Tribunal with a direction to consider and club both the rival applications together and to pass a common order .
3. 24.05.1988 Subsequent to the order of the High Court in W.P.No.10135/1977, the Land Tribunal passed an [2nd Order of order dated 24.05.1988, granting occupancy Tribunal] rights in favour of Sri. H Bylappa.
4. 1991 Writ Petition Nos. 28850/1991 & 29259/1991 were filed by Smt. Hucchamma @ Padmavathamma and Sri. R. Venkataramaiah respectively, assailing the order of the land tribunal dated 24.05.1988.
05.12.2006 W.P.No.29259/1991 was disposed off on 05.12.2006 setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 24.05.1988 and remanding the 30 matter for fresh consideration, holding that signing of the order by the Chairman and the members on different dates is against judicial discipline.
Vide order dated 18.12.2006,
18.12.2006
W.P.No.28850/1991 was disposed off in terms of the connected matter in W.P.No.29259/91.
5. 2007 Sri. H Bylappa assailed the order passed in W.P.No.29259/1991 in W.A. No.943/2007. In the said Writ Appeal, Sri H Ramakrishnappa [Petitioner in present W.P. No.58487/2015] filed Impleading Application.
09.08.2010 The Writ Appeal No.943/2007 was dismissed confirming the order of remand passed in W.P. No.29259/1991 and in light of the dismissal of the writ appeal, the impleading application filed were not taken up for consideration.
6. 12.01.2012 H. Bylappa filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 R/w Section 151 CPC seeking for withdrawal of the Form No.7. In the affidavit, it was stated that he was not interested in 31 prosecuting the matter in light of health constraints.
7. 26.07.2012 The Land Tribunal pursuant to the order of remand passed in W.P. No.29259/1991 affirmed [3rd Order of in W.A. No.943/2007, conferred occupancy rights Tribunal] in favour of the legal representatives of Smt. Hucchamma @ Padmavathamma and Sri. R. Venkataramaiah. The Tribunal rejected the claim of Sri. H. Bylappa in light of the application filed, seeking withdrawal of occupancy rights.
8. 2012 H. Bylappa filled Writ Petition No.28580/2012 & W.P.Nos.28616-617/2012 challenging the order dated 26.07.2012 passed by the Land Tribunal. 24.09.2012 In W.P. No. No.28580/2012, the learned Single Judge has observed that, when an application is filed under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC, before passing an order, the Tribunal has to record its satisfaction as to whether the application was filed voluntarily with an intention to withdraw the claim. It was further observed that the Tribunal had not passed any order on the withdrawal application filed by H. Bylappa. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the 32 Tribunal dated 26.07.2012 and remanded the matter for consideration afresh.
9. 19.03.2013 The legal representatives of Smt. Hucchamma and Sri. R. Venkataramaiah challenged the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.09.2012 in Writ Appeal No.6946-55/2012.
The Division Bench affirming the order of the learned Single Judge had held that the only point of consideration before the Tribunal was as to whether H.Bylappa had filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC.
2015 Sri Sha Bra Vishwaradhya Shivacharya Swamigalu, Mathadipathi of Mutt filed an application on 16.04.2015 seeking for clarification in W.A.Nos.6946-6955/2012. The said application was dismissed as not pressed, vide order dated 17.03.2017.
10. 27.05.2014 Pursuant to the order passed in the Writ Petition affirmed in Writ Appeal Nos.6946-55/2012, the [4th Order of Land Tribunal passed an order wherein it was Tribunal] held that the application under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC was infact filed by H.Bylappa seeking for 33 withdrawal of Form No.7 along with an affidavit and the same was sworn on 11.01.2012. It was further held that H.Bylappa was present before the Land Tribunal and had signed on the left side of the Order Sheet in open Court, i.e. Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal confirmed the order dated 26.07.2012 wherein occupancy rights was conferred in favour of legal representatives of Smt. Hucchamma and Sri. R. Venkataramaiah.
11. 2014 The Legal Representatives of H.Bylappa filed Writ Petition No.29135/2014 assailing the order dated 27.05.2014 on the ground that the Land Tribunal had passed order against a dead person and the legal representatives were not brought on record. Another Writ Petition No.32150/2014 was filed by Ramalingeshwara Mutt challenging the very same order of the Tribunal.
09.03.2015 The learned Single Judge clubbing both the Writ Petitions passed a common order, wherein the order dated 27.05.2014 passed by the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration in letter and spirit, in terms of the 34 order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.6946-55/2012 dated 19.03.2013. However insofar as the claim of Sha Bra Vishwaradhya Sahivacharya Swamigalu Mathadhipathi of Ramalingeshwara Mutt, the Single Judge opined that it could not be resolved in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the Single Judge Directed the tribunal to pass appropriate order on the impleading application pending before it.
12. 31.10.2014 The Legal Representatives of H.Bylappa filed application seeking review of the order in W.A.Nos.6946-6955/2012, wherein the Review Petition No.405/2014 was dismissed as no grounds were made out.
13. 28.10.2015 Challenging the order passed in W.P. 29135/2014 c/w W.P. No.32150/2014, the legal representatives of Smt. Hucchamma and Sri. R. Venkataramaiah filed Writ Appeal Nos. 1232- 1233/2015.
H.Ramakrishnappa [Petitioner in present W.P. No.58487/2015] had filed Impleading Application. The Division Bench upheld the order of the Single Judge and also placing reliance on the order in 35 W.A. Nos. 6946-6955/2012 had reiterated that the only point for enquiry before the Tribunal would be as to whether H.Bylappa had filed application under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC. Further in light of the disposal of the Writ Appeals, all the applications were disposed off.
14. 2015 Review Petition No.806/2015 was filed in Writ Appeal No.1232/2015 by Sha Bra Vishwaradhya Sahivacharya Swamigalu, Mathadhipathi of Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt.
11.03.2016 The said Review Petition was disposed off on 11.03.2016. The Court had recorded the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that there were no grounds for review in the case and what was only sought for was a clarification. Observing such submission, the Review Petition was rejected.
15. 15.09.2016 The Tribunal vide its order dated 15.09.2016 rejected the impleading applications dated 07.03.2015 filed by Sri Sha Bra Chandramouleshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu & 07.04.2015 filed by Sha Bra Vishwaradhya Sahivacharya Swamigalu, the Matadhipatis of Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt.
36
16. 18.10.2016 In compliance with the order in Writ Appeal Nos.1232-1233/2015, the Land Tribunal [5th Order of confirmed the grant of occupancy rights in favour Tribunal] of Smt.Huchamma and Sri. R. Venkataramaiah.
Further it is held that H.Bylappa had in fact filed the withdrawal application.
17. 2016 The Legal Representatives of H.Bylappa filed Writ Petition No.62967/2016 assailing the order of the Land Tribunal dated 18.10.2016.
14.02.2023 The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. An affidavit was filed by the petitioner therein, sworn on 25.01.2023, to the effect that the petitioners had been granted sufficient lands by the Tribunal and therefore they did not want to press the said Writ Petition.
10. It must be noted that Writ Appeal Nos.6946- 6955/2012 was disposed off on 19.03.2013 and the judgment passed therein would be of significance as it has determined the scope of further proceedings. 37
11. The said Writ Appeals were filed challenging the order of learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.28580/2012 and 28616-28617/2012 disposed off on 24.09.2012. The learned Single Judge in the aforementioned Writ Petitions had set aside the order dated 26.07.2012 passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting application filed in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of Survey No.72, measuring 33 acres 20 guntas including 1 acre 20 guntas of kharab at Jarakbandekaval, Yelahanka Hobli Bengaluru North Taluk.
12. The learned Single Judge had noticed that the Tribunal had rejected the application in light of application filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC seeking permission to withdraw the application seeking occupancy rights. The Tribunal then proceeded to confer occupancy rights as regards the claimants Smt.Huchamma @ Padmavathamma and Sri Venkataramaiah, who were deceased by then and were 38 survived by their legal representatives. The learned Single Judge noticed the contention of the petitioner Sri H.Bylappa, who had asserted that no application for withdrawal as contended was filed by him. After taking note of the relevant facts and records, the order of the Tribunal impugned dated 26.07.2012 was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to ascertain whether application for withdrawal was filed, and the circumstances in which the said application went missing from the original records.
13. As against such order, Writ Appeal Nos.6946- 6955/2012 came to be filed which was disposed off by a detailed order and relevant directions at paras-3, 4 and 5 are as follows:-
"3. Having heard Mr.Nataraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the Govt. Advocate, we do not see any error committed by the learned single Judge which calls for our interference for the following 39 reasons: Admittedly two sets of Form No.7 were filed by claiming the very same land. Application filed by the writ petitioner Bylappa in Form No.7 is not in dispute. Similarly, application filed by late Huchamma @ Padmavathamma and Venkataramaiah are not in dispute. Tribunal has granted occupancy rights by considering the application filed by Venkataramaiah and Huchamma @ Parvathamma as if they are the sole applicants before the tribunal on the ground that writ petitioner Bylappa has withdrawn his application by filing an application under Order - 23 Rule-1 of CPC.
4. When the writ petitioner has contended before the learned single Judge that no such application and to withdraw Form No.7 was filed by him before the tribunal, when the learned single Judge by considering the records produced by the Government is of the view that no such records are available, in such circumstances if the learned single Judge has directed the tribunal to hold an enquiry on the application said to have been filed by the writ petitioner and thereafter to consider the case of 40 both the parties in accordance with law, this court cannot interfere with such order in an intra court appeal. It is needless to state that if the tribunal is of the view that writ petitioner had in fact filed an application under Order-23 Rule-1 of CPC and such an application was considered by the tribunal in accordance with law and based on the same, Form No.7 filed by the writ petitioner was permitted to be withdrawn, there is no necessity for the tribunal to re-consider the matter on the application filed by late Venkataramaiah and Huchamma @ Padmavathamma. Considering the applications of rival claimants, the point that arise is only if the writ petitioner had made an application under Order-23 Rule-1 of CPC and such application had in fact been withdrawn by him."
(emphasis supplied)
14. Accordingly, it becomes clear that the Writ Appeal filed against the order of remand was disposed off as follows:-
41
(a) Directing the Tribunal to record a finding as to whether application was filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. and whether such application was considered by the Tribunal in accordance with law;
(b) If the Tribunal had permitted the
withdrawal of Form No.7, there was no
necessity for the Tribunal to reconsider the matter as regards the application filed by Sri Venkataramaiah and Smt.Huchamma @ Padmavathamma;
15. It ought to be noted that as on the date of disposal of Writ Appeal Nos.6946-6955/2012, Sri H.Ramakrishnappa was not a party either as an impleading applicant nor had he participated in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28580/2012 and W.P.Nos.28616-28617/2012. If 42 that were to be so, the observations made in the Writ Appeals referred to above cannot be construed as contemplating adjudication of inter se disputes between Sri H. Ramakrishnappa and Sri H.Bylappa.
16. In effect, the order of the Tribunal conferring occupancy rights on Sri Venkataramaiah and Smt.Huchamma @ Padmavathamma would stand affirmed, if the Tribunal records an affirmative finding regarding filing of application for withdrawal of claim of occupancy rights.
17. In light of the observations made and restricted scope of enquiry, the legality of proceedings subsequent to the order passed in Writ Appeal Nos.6946- 6955/2012 are to be looked into.
18. Subsequent to the order passed in Writ Appeal Nos.6946-6955/2012, the proceedings in LRF No.945, 1187, 1418/1974-75 came to be revived. It is 43 stated that the Land Tribunal made efforts to trace the application for withdrawal. The Land Tribunal vide its order dated 27.05.2014 has observed that though the original application for withdrawal was missing from the records of the Land Tribunal, however, filing of such application, was evident from the proceedings as recorded in the order sheet on 12.01.2012.
19. It was further observed that application was filed in the presence of Sri H.Bylappa and his counsel and that proceedings contained the signature in the order sheet. The operative portion of the order which speaks for itself reads as follows:-
"By complying the order of Writ Appeal Nos.6946-55/2012 (KLR) dated 19-03-2013, this Land Tribunal found that i.e., the Rival Claimant Late Sri H.Bylappa filed withdrawal application of his Form No.7, under Order-23, Rule-1 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure with Affidavit, same has been duly sworn on dated:11- 01-2012 and he was present in this Land Tribunal 44 through his Advocate, and Rival Claimant Late. Sri H.Bylappa also signed in the left side of the Order Sheet in the open Court/Land Tribunal on 12-01- 2012. Under this facts and circumstances of the case, this Land Tribunal as (sic) unanimously declared that Late Sri H.Bylappa filed his withdrawal application. And accordingly, this Tribunal confirms the order dated: 26-07-2012 for the occupancy rights under section 48-A of the Act, in favour of LRs of the Late Smt.Huchamma @ Padmavathamma and Late Sri R.Venkataramaiah at an extent of 16 acres 16 guntas each in survey No.72 of Jarakabandekaval, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk."
20. It is clear that by virtue of recording an affirmative finding regarding the application for withdrawal and taking note of the observations made in the Writ Appeal, the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 26.07.2012 conferring occupancy rights on Smt.Huchamma @ Smt.Padmavathamma and Sri R.Venkataramaiah to an extent of 16 acres 16 guntas in Survey No.72 came to be affirmed.
45
21. As against such order passed by the Tribunal on 27.05.2014 as aforementioned, W.P.Nos.32150/2014 and 29135/2014 were filed by Sri Sha Bra Vishwaradhya Sahivacharya Swamigalu, Mathadhipathi of the Mutt and the children of Sri H.Bylappa respectively. The said Writ Petitions were disposed off on 09.03.2015 and the relevant observations are as follows:-
"16. Before parting with this case, I.A.No.1/14 in W.P.No.32150/2014 for substituting the name of Mathadipathi is also to be considered. Whether Ramalingeshwara Mutt is in existence, if it is in existence who is in charge of its administration or management, whether the said Mutt has any legally recognizable interest in the land, etc. require factual determination. They cannot be resolved in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The ends of justice would be met by my directing the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders on the application for impleadment filed by the petitioner, which is said to be pending consideration before the Tribunal. It is made clear that no opinion 46 whatsoever is expressed on the litigational competence of Ramalingeshwara Mutt to resist Form No.7 applications filed by the parties. Needless to observe that the Tribunal is required to reconsider the matter in the letter and spirit of the order passed by the Division Bench in its judgment, dated 19.3.2013 in W.A.Nos.6946-55/2012. Ramalingeshwara Mutt may exercise the liberty of seeking the review of the said order or of challenging it by way of appeal, if it has that liberty in law. With these observations I.A.No.1/14 in W.P.No.32150/2014 is disposed of."
22. In light of the order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, solely on the ground that H.Bylappa was dead as on the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal dated 27.05.2014 came to be set aside with a further direction that appropriate orders are required to be passed on the application for impleadment that is filed by Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt. It was however reiterated that 47 the reconsideration of the matter by the Tribunal was to be strictly in accordance with the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.6946-6955/2012 and liberty was also kept open to the Mutt as regards orders passed on its application.
23. As against orders in W.P.Nos.32150/2014 and 29135/2014, Writ Appeals were filed by the legal representatives of Smt.Huchamma @ Padmavathamma in W.A.Nos.1232-1233/2015. The said Writ Appeals were rejected affirming the order of the learned Single Judge and reiterating observations made in the previous Writ Appeal in W.A.Nos.6946-6955/2012. The relevant observations made at para-6 are as follows:-
"We reiterate that the only point for enquiry before the Tribunal would be as to whether the writ petitioner in Writ Appeal No.1232/2015 had in fact filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether he had withdrawn such application."48
24. Subsequent to the aforesaid Writ Appeals, the Tribunal has passed orders in October 2016, both on the impleading application of the Mutt as well as on the specific question relating to withdrawal of occupancy rights by application filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC by Sri H.Bylappa.
25. The Tribunal after taking note of the observations in Writ Appeal Nos.1232-1233/2015 has come to the same finding after reconsideration as in the earlier order of 2012. The operative portion of the order passed on 18.10.2016 reads as follows:-
"By complying the order of Writ Appeal Nos.1232 to 1233/2015 (LR), order dated 28.10.2015, this Land Tribunal found that i.e., the Rival Claimant Late Sri H.Bylappa filed withdrawal application of his Form No.7, under Order-23, Rule-1 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure with Affidavit, same has been duly sworn on dated:11-01-2012 and he was present in this Land Tribunal through his Advocate, and Rival Claimant Late. Sri H.Bylappa also signed in the 49 left side of the Order Sheet in the open Court/Land Tribunal on 12-01-2012. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Land Tribunal has unanimously resolved to confirm the occupancy rights under section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in favour of:
(1) Smt.Huchamma @ Padmavathamma and (2) Sri R.Venkataramaiah to an extent of 16 acres each in Sy. No.72 of Jarakabandekaval, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Addl. Taluk, Bengaluru."
26. Accordingly, once again the Tribunal has recorded an affirmative finding regarding application filed withdrawing Form No.7 under Order XXIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC and has affirmed the grant of occupancy rights in favour of Smt.Huchamma @ Padmavathamma and Sri R.Venkataramaiah.
27. Prior to passing of the abovesaid order, the Land Tribunal disposed off the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC filed on behalf of Mutt by the following:-
50
(i) Sha Bra Chandramoulya Shivacharya Swamigalu
(ii) Sha Bra Vishwaradhya Shivacharya Swamigalu.
The said application for impleading came to be rejected for "want of cause of action, locus standi and legal right over the property in question."
28. These aforesaid orders dated 15.09.2016 passed on the impleading applications filed on behalf of Mutt as well as the order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the Land Tribunal recording a finding in the affirmative regarding withdrawal of the occupancy rights and conferring occupancy rights in favour of Smt.Huchamma @ Padmavathamma and Sri R.Venkataramaiah have been challenged before this Court in the following Writ Petitions:-
A. (i) W.P.No.14332/2020 - challenging the order conferring occupancy rights 51 dated 18.10.2016 filed by the purchasers from Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt.
(ii) W.P.No.5993/2020 - filed by the purchasers from Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 18.10.2016.
B. W.P.No.9549/2017 - filed by the Matadipathi of Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt seeking setting aside of the order of the Land Tribunal dated 18.10.2016 and also 15.09.2016 rejecting the application for impleading.
C. W.P.No.58487/2015 - filed by Sri Ramakrishnappa s/o late Doddahanumaiah, seeking for setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 09.02.2012 and order dated 18.10.2016.
III. CONSIDERATION :-
29. In light of the factual narration and the relief sought, the scope of interference is limited to the following:-
52
A. Order of the Land Tribunal regarding withdrawal of the application claiming occupancy rights by Sri H.Bylappa B. Order of the Tribunal regarding rejection of the Impleading Application A. ORDER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPLICATION CLAIMING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS BY SRI H.BYLAPPA.
30. As observed above, in light of the observations made in W.A.Nos.6946-6955/2012 and reiterated in W.A.Nos.1232-1233/2015, the Tribunal was required to record a finding as to whether the application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC was filed and considered by the Tribunal in accordance with law.
31. Pursuant to direction as aforestated, the Tribunal has taken up for consideration the aspect relating to the withdrawal of claim of occupancy rights by way of application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC. The Tribunal by its order dated 18.10.2016 has concluded 53 that Sri H.Bylappa had indeed filed an application for withdrawal and was present before the Tribunal.
32. The Tribunal has noticed that the application filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC was indeed misplaced.
33. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the application for withdrawal was filed in open Court on 12.01.2012 and the same was filed through his Advocate and that the signature of Sri H.Bylappa was obtained in the order sheet. The Tribunal further records that the withdrawal application was sworn to before the Notary on 11.01.2012, i.e. a day prior to its filing on 12.01.2012. The Tribunal has also made passing reference to Sri S.B.Hanumantharayappa s/o Sri H.Bylappa of having been a witness to the Sale Deeds executed in favour of purchasers by the Mutt. 54
34. The Tribunal also takes note of the non-filing of objections by the legal representatives of Sri H.Bylappa to the impleading application filed by Matadipathi of Mutt, which the Tribunal observes would indicate collusion between the legal representatives of rival claimant Sri H.Bylappa with the Mutt.
35. Perused the Xerox copies of the application seeking withdrawal of claim stated to have been filed by H.Bylappa before the Tribunal (produced by Sri H.Ramakrishnappa, the petitioner in W.P.No.58487/2015 at Annexure-'F2'). The application filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. has been signed by Sri H.Bylappa himself. The Affidavit filed in support of the application narrates circumstances leading to filing of the application and the reason being due to health constraints and laches.
55
36. The certified copy of the order sheet dated 12.01.2012 records a finding regarding filing of withdrawal application. In fact, Sri H.Bylappa has affixed his signature on 12.01.2012.
37. In light of the record in official proceedings referring to filing of the application for withdrawal and the same having been noted in the order sheet and in light of the sanctity attached to proceedings of such quasi judicial authorities, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal as noticed above does not call for any interference.
38. Once the order of the Tribunal permitting withdrawal is not interfered with, the legal consequences emanating in the observations made in the Writ Appeal Nos.6946-6955/2012 would follow.
39. As regards the contention raised by Sri H. Ramakrishnappa s/o late Doddahanumanaiah, brother of 56 Sri H.Bylappa regarding the power of Sri H.Bylappa to have withdrawn the application as the same was filed on behalf of the joint family of Sri Doddahanumaiah considering the same would lead to overreaching the order in the Writ Appeal Nos.6946-55/2012 and Writ Appeal Nos.1232-1233/2015. Sri H. Ramakrishnappa being an impleading applicant in the Writ Appeal proceedings in Writ Appeal Nos.1232-1233/2015, is necessarily bound by the observations made in the Writ Appeal and in the absence of the Court expanding the scope of proceedings upon remand, the directions in the Writ Appeal Nos.6946-6955/2012 and Writ Appeal Nos.1232-1233/2015 ought to be strictly construed. Similarly, the contentions of Mutt that the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the contention that Mutt was the owner of the lands in question cannot be considered in light of the limited scope of enquiry as stipulated in the Writ Appeals.
57
40. Neither Sri H.Ramakrishnappa nor Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt have challenged the order passed in Writ Appeal Nos.Nos.6946-6955/2012 and accordingly, are necessarily bound by the observations made in the Writ Appeals and are estopped from seeking an enlargement of the scope of enquiry by the Land Tribunal.
B. ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REGARDING REJECTION OF THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION:-
41. The learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.32150/2014 and 29135/2014 disposed off the Writ Petitions filed challenging the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights to the legal representatives of the contesting respondent, viz., Smt.Huchamma @ Padmavathamma and Sri R.Venkataramaiah. The main ground urged was that the order passed by the Land Tribunal was against a dead person (it is stated that Sri H.Bylappa was dead as on 58 the date of order and legal representatives were not brought on record).
42. The assertion was also that the property belongs to the Mutt. Writ Petition No.32150/2014 filed by Sri Sha Bra Vishwaradhya Shivacharya Swamigalu, the Matadipathi of Mutt came to be disposed off while observing that the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the order was passed against a dead person. The Court observes that, as the order was passed against a dead person, the matter required to be re-heard and fixed a date of appearance for the parties.
43. It must be noticed that I.A.No.1/2014 was filed in W.P.No.32150/2014 for substituting the name of the Matadipathi. Insofar as the right of the Mutt to resist Form No.7 application filed, which was the prayer made in W.P.No.32150/2014, the Court has not 59 expressed any view or recorded any finding. The observation made in para-16 of the order dated 09.03.2015 disposing off the Writ Petitions records a clear finding as noticed above and is extracted as hereinbelow:-
"It is made clear that no opinion whatsoever is expressed on the litigational competence of Ramalingeshwara Mutt to resist Form No.7 applications filed by the parties. Needless to observe that the Tribunal is required to reconsider the matter in letter and spirit of the order passed by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 19.03.2013 in W.A.Nos.6946-6955/2012. Ramalingeshwara Mutt may exercise the liberty of seeking the review of the said order or of challenging it by way of appeal, if it has that liberty in law. With these observations, I.A.No.1/2014 in W.P.No.32150/2014 is disposed of. "
44. The order in W.P.No.32150/2014 as regards the prayer by the Mutt has attained finality, as no appeal was filed by the Mutt against such order. In fact, appeal 60 was filed only by the legal representatives of Smt.Huchamma @ Padmavathamma and Sri R.Venkataramaiah questioning the correctness of the common order passed in W.P.No.32150/2014 called along with W.P.No.29135/2014. The said Writ Appeal came to be disposed off with the following observations:-
"6. We do not find any merit in these appeals. However, having regard to the long pendency of the matter, we request the Tribunal to dispose of the matter by three months from the date of communication of this order. We reiterate that the only point for enquiry before the Tribunal would be as to whether the Writ petitioner in W.A.No.1232/2015 had in fact filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure and whether he had withdrawn such application."
45. It is pertinent to note that Sri Sha Bra Vishwaradhya Shivacharya Swamigalu, Mathadipathi of the Mutt had sought for review in Writ Appeal 61 No.1232/2015 (which Writ Appeal was filed by the legal representatives of Smt.Huchamma and Sri R.Venkataramaiah). The said Review Petition was disposed off on 11.03.2016. The Court had recorded the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that there were no grounds for review in the case and what was only sought for was a clarification. Observing such submission, the Review Petition was rejected.
46. Accordingly, it is clear that the observations made reiterate the narrow scope of enquiry by the Land Tribunal as regards the withdrawal of claim of occupancy rights by virtue of application filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC, while not granting any relief insofar as the Mutt as sought for in W.P.No.32150/2014.
47. Subsequent to the restoration of proceedings, the Tribunal has taken up for consideration the application of Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt filed for 62 impleading. The Tribunal has noted that the claim of the impleading applicant, Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt was on the basis that Survey No.72, measuring 32 acre 32 guntas of Jarakabandekaval, Yelahanka Hobli belonged to Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt, to which rights in the property were conferred by the Keladi Rulers.
48. The Tribunal took note of the order passed in O.S.No.84/1970 disposed off on 11.04.1974 wherein possession of Survey No.72 was claimed and noted the dismissal of such claim of the Mutt as being a bogus one as also the dismissal of the suit with costs of Rs.75/- and accordingly, has held that once the suit was filed and disposed off making observations, the question of seeking rights regarding same property does not arise. The Tribunal also refers to the order in W.P.No.9307/2005 and connected matters and observes that whether the impleading applicant is the Matadipathi, is also to be decided. Lastly, the Tribunal observes that 63 impleading application is filed about 39 years after claim is made for grant of occupancy rights by Sri H.Bylappa in 1977 and accordingly, same could not be considered and has rejected the application.
49. At the outset, as noticed above, the mandate in Writ Appeal Nos.6946-6955/2012 and Writ Appeal Nos.1232-1233/2015 is to the effect that the Tribunal has to re-look into the aspect of withdrawal of the occupancy claim and if the same is found to be in the affirmative, the finding regarding conferment of occupancy rights in favour of Smt. Huchamma and Sri. R Venkataramaiah stands affirmed. Even in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32150/2014, the Court has specifically observed that the Mutt is at liberty to seek for review of the order in Writ Appeal Nos.6946-6955/2012. Not having done so, the Mutt cannot claim any substantive relief before 64 the Tribunal that would overreach the conclusion in Writ Appeal Nos.6946-6955/2012.
50. Even otherwise, if the impleading application is considered on its merits, the same is required to be rejected on several grounds including Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt was not shown in the Form No.7 as the landlord. The impleading application filed for the first time before the Land Tribunal on 07.03.2012 is hopelessly barred by laches. There is no conclusive record that the Mutt was the actual owner and Sri Surappa was only the Manager.
51. O.S.No.84/1970 filed by Mutt against the Government seeking for handing over of possession of properties, including Survey No.72 (Item 17) came to be rejected and the Issue Nos.1 and 2 as to whether the plaintiff Mutt proved title to the suit schedule property 65 and was entitled to possession, was held in the negative. The relevant observations are extracted below:
"6. ... It is not mentioned in these exhibits what properties really belonged to the alleged Ramalingeshwara Mutt. The plaintiff has not produced any document to show that there existed a Mutt known as Ramalingeshwara Mutt and the schedule properties were given to this Mutt. It is the evidence of P.W.1 the plaintiff that one Seshamma gave choultry to Ramalingeswara Mutt. Ex.P-1(K) is said to be the statement of Seshamma given before the Deputy Commissioner on 4.5.1880. It is supposed to be a copy of the statement and we find the Revenue Commissioner Cheluvaiyengar subscribing his signature to this copy. From this document it cannot be made out that one choultry was given to Ramalingeswara Mutt by Seshamma. Ex.P-1(l), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q) and
(r) are said to be the items belonging to Ramalingeswara Mutt. This is also a copy of some document and it appears the signature in the alleged Revenue Commissioner Cheluvaiyengar and it bears the number as 28/1880. The reliance placed by the plaintiff on 66 this document is not of any help to him to prove that there existed a Ramalingeswara Mutt and the rulers of Keladi dynasty granted the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff Mutt. The Assistant Director of Land Records DW.10 has sworn that there are no records in Survey and Settlement office to show the existence of Ramalingeswara Mutt in Haranahalli, Shimoga District. He has produced the extracts of Index of Lands and records of right pertaining to the suit schedule properties which are marked as Exs.D-1 to D-67 and D-68 to D-154. From these documents it cannot be made out that there was a Mutt known as Ramalingeswara Mutt. It is also in his evidence that Exs.P.1 to P.1(r) referred to above are not the originals and there are no original documents corresponding to Exs.P.1 to P.1(r).
It is in his evidence that he made a through (sic) search of the document, in his office and also in Divisional Commissioner's Office. According to this witness, Ex.P-1 is a Mis.file wherein all the original letter are found. So far as the original of Exs.P.1 to P.1(r) are not to be found in this file and is unable to see how these copies were inserted in this file. Further it is clear from his 67 evidence that there was no Commissioner by name Cheluvaiyengar during 1880. ... DW.8 .H.K.Ramanna is a viallage panchayat member of Haranahalli. It is in his evidence that the plaintiff was not residing at Haranahalli and he had not seen him there. DW.7 Subba Jois was the Shanbhogue of Haranahalli and it is in his testimony that there existed no Mutt known as Ramalingeswara Mutt. It is elicited from this witness that his brother has attested a mahazar Ex.P.3. Nothing can be made out from this witness under what circumstances the mahazar was attested. DW.6 Basavanappa is a resident of Haranahalli and it is in his evidence that plaintiff at no time resided in Haranahalli and he has not seen Ramalingeswara Mutt in Haranahalli. ... From the evidence of these persons it is absolutely clear that there existed no mutt known as Ramalingeswara Mutt and that the plaintiff is not the Sarwadhikari of the plaintiff mutt.
7. ... The evidence adduced by the parties in this case conclusively prove that the plaintiff's claim is a bogus claim to knock off the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff has not made 68 out a case that there is a Ramalingeshwara Mutt or that he is the sarwadhikari of that mutt. The defendants contended that they are not in the possession of the suit schedule properties. It is strange to note that the plaintiff did not produce the extract of Index of Lands or record of rights along with the plaint. Even after the defendants produced these extracts, the plaintiff has not cared to implead the persons who are in possession of the properties, as parties to the suit. ...."
IV. CONCLUSION: -
A. W.P.No.9549/2017:-
52. W.P.No.9549/2017 has been filed by Sha Bra Vishwaradhya Sahivacharya Swamigalu, Matadhipathi of Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt seeking for setting aside of the order dated 15.09.2016 rejecting the application filed seeking to implead before the Tribunal and have also called in question the correctness of the order dated 18.10.2016 passed in LRF 945, 1187, 1418/74-75 wherein the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the 69 application filed seeking to withdraw the claim of occupancy rights was indeed filed.
53. In light of the observation made supra at paras-41 to 51, the relief sought by Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt does not survive for consideration. B. W.P.NO.5993/2020 & W.P.NO.14332/2020: -
54. The petitioners in W.P.No.5993/2020 have purchased the property from Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt represented by its Matadipathi, Sri Chandramouleshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu through Sale Deeds dated 31.07.2010 - (i) Annexure-'A3' executed in favour of Sri Durgamba Educational Trust®, (ii) Annexure-'B3' executed in favour of Sri Sridevi Charitable Trust® and
(iii) Annexure-'C3' executed in favour of Sri Ramana Maharshi Educational Trust®. All these Sale Deeds are executed by Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt in the year 2010. Similarly, in W.P.No.14332/2020, the petitioner has 70 purchased the property from Sri Chandramouleshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu, Mathadipathi of the Mutt through the Sale Deed dated 31.07.2010 at Annexure-'B2' produced alongwith the memo filed by the petitioner dated 04.01.2021.
55. If the facts made out by Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt are to be accepted, it is not in dispute that the Mutt itself admits that the claim in Form No.7 was defective as the property belonged to the Mutt and Sri N.K.Surappa was shown as the owner. Even if the stand of the Mutt that it is the owner is accepted, once there is a claim of tenancy rights by filing Form No.7, the land vests in the State under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the question of land owner executing the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.5993/2020 or in W.P.No.14332/2020 does not arise and such alienations would be void. While, this would be one way of looking at it, it must be noted that 71 the rights of the Mutt have been discussed supra at paras-41 to 51 and in terms of the said reasoning, in light of the observations made in Writ Appeal Nos.6946- 6955/2012, and Writ Appeal Nos.1232-1233/2015, it is clear that once the Tribunal has come to the finding that the claim of occupancy rights by Sri H.Bylappa has been withdrawn, the legal consequences as contemplated therein would flow and the conferment of tenancy rights in favour of Smt.Huchamma @ Padmavathamma and Sri R.Venkataramaiah would stand affirmed. By virtue of the narrow scope of enquiry, the Mutt has no right to assert contentions as raised in the proceedings consequent to the directions in the Writ Appeals. Accordingly, the purchasers of the Mutt cannot claim any better right than the Mutt and accordingly, the relief sought for by them cannot be considered in the present proceedings.
72C. W.P.No.58487/2015:-
56. The petitioner, who is the son of late Sri Doddahanumaiah has filed the petition - (a) challenging the order dated 09.02.2012 passed in LRF No.945, 1187, 1418/74-75; (b) sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC.
57. The petitioner claims to be the brother of Sri H.Bylappa in whose name the Form No.7 was filed. It is the stand of the petitioner that the claim of occupancy rights has been made on behalf of the family of late Doddahanumaiah.
58. The petitioner has challenged the order by virtue of which the impleading application filed by the petitioner seeking to be impleaded before the Tribunal has been rejected. Though as per the prayer in the petition relief has been sought for setting aside the order 73 dated 09.02.2012, however, the order rejecting the impleading application is dated 16.02.2012, and on going through the pleadings, it is clear that what has been challenged is the order rejecting the impleading application.
59. It must be noticed that the Tribunal has concluded the proceedings and final order was passed on 26.07.2012. Such order was then challenged and in light of admitted subsequent developments, including passing of fresh order by the Land Tribunal dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure-'Y') subsequently, the prayer sought for does not survive for consideration. Similarly, the prayer for direction to reconsider the impleading application filed also does not survive for consideration in light of the subsequent developments.
60. The petitioner has then sought for amendment of the prayer in the writ petition by filing I.A.No.1/2017.
74
The said application contains the following proposed amendment:-
"(b) To include the following additional prayer in page-22 of the writ petition after prayer 'A':
"A-1. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any order quashing ANNEXURE:Y the order dated 18.10.2016 made by the 2nd respondent Land Tribunal in proceedings L.R.F.Nos.945, 1187, 1418/74-75 on its file in the interest of justice and equity."
61. Additional grounds have been sought to be raised in support of such prayer.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 is allowed in light of similar prayer under consideration in other writ petitions.
62. On merits of the newly added contentions, it must be noted that at the outset, the challenge is sought to be made to the order of the Tribunal dated 18.10.2016 whereby the conferment of occupancy rights on Smt.Huchamma @ Padmavathamma and Sri 75 Venkataramaiah came to be confirmed while recording in the affirmative regarding filing of application by Sri H.Bylappa to withdraw the claim of occupancy rights. The petitioner H.Ramakrishnappa, who seeks to dispute the power of Sri H.Bylappa to withdraw the claim of occupancy rights requires consideration.
63. At the outset, it must be noted that in Writ Appeal Nos.1232-1233/2015, the present petitioner was an impleading applicant in I.A.No.7/2015, the Division Bench had reiterated the scope of the proceedings being limited to examining as to whether application for withdrawal was filed and he had withdrawn the claim. The order in Writ Appeal Nos.6946-6955/2012 was reiterated. Further, though the petitioner herein was a party in the proceedings, the impleading application was dismissed as having become infructuous. Thus, the scope of the proceedings have been defined and was limited and the question of entering into any question 76 beyond the mandate in Writ Appeal Nos.6946-6955/2012 and Writ Appeal Nos.1232-1233/2015 does not arise. Accordingly, the question of entering into issues as raised by the petitioner does not arise (Refer supra at paras-39 & 40).
64. All along, Sri H.Bylappa was allowed to participate in the proceedings. If it is the case of Sri Ramakrishnappa that in order to make unlawful gain, Sri H.Bylappa has withdrawn the application, it is the risk that the other family members of Doddahanumaiah had exposed themselves to. They cannot now cry foul of such action by Sri H.Bylappa.
65. The inter se dispute between Sri H.Bylappa and his brother cannot now result in reviving of the proceedings which has now attained finality in conferment of tenancy rights in favour of Smt.Huchamma and Sri Venkataramaiah. Further, as 77 noticed above, this question of inter se dispute could not have been the subject matter of enquiry before the Tribunal in light of the judgment in Writ Appeals on two occasions.
66. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Booda Poojary v. Smt.Thoma Poojarthi and Others1 is also misplaced as the observations made and the law laid own was in the factual context which was in issue. V. CONSIDERATION OF I.A.NO.1/2023 FILED IN W.P.NO.5993/2020:-
67. The application has been filed by Sri Chandramouleshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu stated to be the Matadhipathi of Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt and it is specifically averred that the assertion that Sri Chandramouleshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu had died on 28.09.2014 is a false assertion and that Sri Chandramouleshwara Shivacharya Swamiji is still alive. 1 AIR 1993 Kant.39 :: ILR 1992 KAR 1359 78 It is further alleged that fake death certificate had been obtained. Accordingly it is submitted that the impleading application filed on behalf of Sri Chandramouleshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu is to be allowed.
68. However, detailed statement of objections has been filed on the application filed for impleading by the petitioners. It is specifically averred that Sri Chandramouleshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu died on 28.09.2014 and death certificate had been issued, copy of which is produced as Annexure-I to the statement of objections dated 15.11.2023.
69. It is specifically averred that previous attempt for impersonation was made in M.F.A. No.4436/2021 and on the basis of complaint regarding attempt of impersonation, Crime No.150/2018 was registered in which charge-sheet was filed and the said case has been numbered as C.C.No.1873/2023.
79
70. All such assertion of the petitioners in the statement of objections are not controverted. Perusal of the death certificate would show that Sha Bra Chandramouleshwara Shivacharya Mahaswamigalu died on 28.09.2014, as per Annexure-I. Perusal of the order in M.F.A. No.4436/2021 at Annexure-II would indicate that the very same assertion that the impleading applicant was still alive has been rejected and prima facie disbelieved and in light of the same, the Court found misconduct having been committed by the counsel which aspect has been referred to the Karnataka State Bar Council for enquiry. Relevant observations are extracted hereinbelow for reference:-
"3. The order dated 21.11.2022 shows that since death of claimant No.7 was disputed, the Superintendent of Police, Shivamogga District was directed to hold an enquiry and submit report. Further, learned counsel for claimant No.7 was also directed to keep him present before the Court.80
4. The records show that on 30.11.2022, one person appeared and claimed himself to be claimant No.7. At that time, the report of the Superintendent of Police, Shivamogga was not yet received. Still this Court observed that the age of the person present before the Court and age of claimant No.7 as noted in the records did not match.
5. Now the report of the Superintendent of Police, Shivamogga is received stating that claimant No.7 died on 28.09.2014. The death certificate to that effect is also produced.
6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has produced the copy of the charge sheet in Cr.No.150/2018 of Upparpet Police Station to the effect that accused Nos.1 and 2 impersonating claimant No.7 committed forgery and cheating. The said matter is pending in C.C.No.1873/2020. Accused No.2 is the counsel for the appellant herein.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to argue the matter before this Court and seeks permission to withdraw the appeal. He files 81 memo to that effect. Such submission of the learned counsel indirectly imputes distrust to the Court which shall be deprecated.
8. The aforesaid circumstances show that the matter involves serious allegation of misconduct against the counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the matter is referred to the Karnataka State Bar council for enquiry.
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
The Registrar General shall forward the copies of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Shivamogga, charge sheet in Crime No.150/2018 pending in C.C.No.1873/2020, the copy of the order of this Court dated 21.11.2022 and copy of this order to the Karnataka State Bar Council for the needful.
71. The very same counsel who has appeared in M.F.A. No.4436/2021 has filed I.A.No.1/2023 without revealing the proceedings in Miscellaneous First Appeal. A party who comes before the Court invoking the writ jurisdiction should come with clean hands and only on 82 the ground of suppression of material facts, the application deserves to be rejected. The counsel does not controvert the proceedings in Miscellaneous First Appeal and accordingly, the application is frivolous and amounts to an abuse of process of the Court and accordingly deserves to be rejected with costs.
72. It is also to be noted that the said counsel had sought for recusal. It must be noticed that this Court has recorded a finding on merits that the Mutt has no locus standi and none of the other parties have supported the plea for recusal, including the Ramalingeshwar Mutt represented by Sri Sha Bra Vishwaradhya Shivacharya Swamigalu. Noting the complete lack of bona fides in such request the request for recusal is rejected as being an attempt to prolong the proceedings. In fact, the request is made only after conclusion of substantial hearing of both sides and 83 accordingly having been made at the fag end and for the reasons as aforestated, the request is rejected.
73. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.58487/2015, 5993/2020, 9549/2017 and 14332/2020 are rejected.
I.A.No.1/2017 in W.P.No.58487/2015 is allowed. In light of allowing of I.A.No.1/2017, the petitioner to carry out necessary amendment and file the amended petition forthwith.
All the pending interlocutory applications in all the Writ Petitions are disposed of as not calling for adjudication.
Sd/-
JUDGE VGR/NP