Karnataka High Court
Veereshappa Chandrashekharappa Yanni vs The President on 3 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311
WP No. 116197 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.116197 OF 2019 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
VEERESHAPPA CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA YANNI
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
PRESIDENT
SHRI.BASAVESHWARA DEVA TRUST COMMITTEE
@ VIRAKTH MATH, CHIKKERUR-581111
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRESIDENT,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE PRESIDENT,
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.06.13
TALUKA PANCHAYAT,
12:19:59 +0530
HIREKERUR-581111,
DIST: HAVERI.
3. SRI. MA.NI.PRA. CHANDRASHEKHAR
MAHASWAMIGALU,
VIRAKTAMATH CHIKKERURU,
R/O CHIKKERUR-581111,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
4. THE PRESIDENT SECRETARY AND P.D.O.
GRAM PANCHAYAT,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311
WP No. 116197 of 2019
CHIKKERURU-581111,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.A.PATHAN AND P.V.MOGALI, ADVOCATES
FOR R.1, R.2 AND R.4;
SRI.VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE FOR R.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2019
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PRESIDENT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
HAVERI VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY SETTING ASIDE THE OREDER DATED
26.03.2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDENT, TALUK PANCHAYAT,
HIREKERUR IN TALUK PANCHAYAT APPEAL NO.25/2011 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the President of Shri.Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee assailing the impugned Resolution No.7 under which mutation is effected and respondent No.3 is shown as Vahivatdar and properties are mutated in the name of Viraktamath.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned resolution, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the President of Taluk Panchayath. The President of Taluk Panchayath -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311 WP No. 116197 of 2019 dismissed the appeal. Against which, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the President of Zilla Panchayath. The President of Zilla Panchayath vide impugned order dated 31.10.2019 as per Annexure-E has set-aside impugned resolution and has directed to restore the name of respondent No.3.
3. Respondent No.3, on receipt of notice, has tendered appearance and along with a vacating application, respondent No.3 has produced true copy of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.240/2011. Placing reliance on this judgment, respondent No.3 would point out that petitioner's claim that all the properties are owned by Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee is totally misconceived and cannot be looked into in the light of the judgment rendered by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.240/2011.
4. On examining the records, this Court has noticed that petitioner, who claims to be the President of -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311 WP No. 116197 of 2019 Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee, has asserted that these properties were purchased by Trustees way back in the year 1928 and therefore, all these properties are held by Trustees and respondent No.3, who is the Profounder of Viraktamath, is only entitled to enjoy the properties by utilizing the income generated from the properties for the welfare of the Mutt and therefore, he would point out that Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee is the owner of all the properties in question.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court that the order passed by respondent No.1 in setting aside the resolution is one without jurisdiction. He has pointed out that the President of Zilla Panchayath has no Authority to preside over disputes relating to mutation and the President of Zilla Panchayath ought not to have entertained an appeal filed by respondent No.3.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311 WP No. 116197 of 2019
6. Though this Court would find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and though this Court is quite aware of the fact that the President of the Zilla Panchayath and Taluk Panchayath have no authority to decide an appeal arising out of the mutation proceedings more particularly passed by the Grama Panchayath, however, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by the Competent Civil Court in O.S.No.240/2011. The said suit was filed by the petitioner and other Trustees claiming absolute ownership over one of the property, which was sold by respondent No.3 in favour of one Holabasappa s/o Ningappa. While questioning sale deed dated 31.07.1996, petitioner on behalf of Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee, Chickerur asserted absolute ownership over properties. In the said suit, the only alienated property i.e., the land bearing Sy. No.139 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas was the subject matter of the suit.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311 WP No. 116197 of 2019
7. The Trial Court, while examining claim of the petitioner and Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee, has recorded a categorical finding and answered issue No.1 in the Negative. While answering issue No.1 in the Negative, the Trial Court held that plaintiffs have failed to prove that the properties, which were sold, belonged to Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee. While answering issue No.1, the Trial Court has extensively assessed the evidence let in by both the parties. The contention of Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee that the Trust was amalgamated with Viraktamath and respondent No.3 is only custodian was negatived by the Trial Court.
8. Referring to Guru Patra dated 16.04.1970, the Trial Court held that respondent No.3 herein is a Mathadeesha of Viraktamath, Chikkeruru and the present petitioner herein admitted that defendant No.2 i.e., respondent No.3 herein is the absolute owner of the suit property. In the said suit, the claim made by the Trust that there is an amalgamation was also negatived. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311 WP No. 116197 of 2019
9. On examining judgment rendered by the Trial Court in O.S.No.240/2011, it can be inferred that respondent No.3 has sold property for development of Mutt. If the suit filed by the present petitioner as a President of Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee is dismissed on merits, though the impugned resolution could not have been entertained by the President of respondent No.1 - Zilla Panchayath, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in relegating respondent No.3 to prefer an appeal before the Competent Authority.
10. In the light of the subsequent developments, the impugned resolution is of the year 2011, while the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.240/2011 is decided on merits in 2018, this Court is bound to take cognizance of the subsequent developments. If the petitioner has suffered a decree in O.S.No.240/2011, this Court is of the view that there can be no further enquiry in the mutation proceedings relating to title over the suit schedule -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311 WP No. 116197 of 2019 property. The judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.240/2011 has negatived petitioner's claim that all the properties are held by Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee and respondent No.3 is only the custodian. The petitioner and other Trustees of Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee have not chosen to challenge the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.240/2011 and in view of subsequent developments, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by respondent No.1.
11. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in the case of SMT.JAYAMMA AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1, the petitioner has suffered the judgment and decree at the hands of a competent Civil Court. The petitioner being the Trustee of Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee has lost his locus to question the mutation 1 ILR 2020 KAR 1449 -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311 WP No. 116197 of 2019 entries and therefore, he cannot ventilate his grievance in setting aside the impugned resolution passed by respondent No.4 - Grama Panchayath.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) In the light of dismissal of the writ petition, no further orders are required to be passed on the impleading application -
I.A.No.1/2020.
(iii) The vacating application filed in I.A.No.1/2023 by respondent No.3 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41