Sri B Balachandra vs The Tahasildar
2022 Latest Caselaw 8032 Kant

                           1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

         W.P.No.46356/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B. BALACHANDRA,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
KUTHYARU, HOUSE NO.7/35,
BELTHANGADY VILLAGE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 214.
                                         ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. D.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE TAHASILDAR,
       BELTHANGADY TALUK,
       BELTHANGADY P.P.,
       DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 214.

2.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
       PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION,
       PUTTUR,
       DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 201.

3.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
       MANGALORE - 575 001.

4.     KUTHYARU SRI SOMANATHESHWARA TEMPLE,
       REPRESENTED BY TIS
       MANAGING TRUSTEE,
                                   2



     BELTHANGADY,
     DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 214.
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVASA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
    SRI.K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 31.05.2003, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN REV.PET.NO.42/02
VIDE ANNEXURE-N & CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER
DATED    23.07.1999  PASSED   BY   THE   R2   ASST.
COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE - L AND ETC.

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


                              ORDER

An order reserving land bearing Sy.No.173/6D1

measuring 0.36 cents and in Sy.No.173/7A3B1A1C2

measuring 0.14 cents in favour of Kuthyaru Sri

Somanatheshwara Temple.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in

possession of the said land since several decades. It is also

his case that his entire family resided in a house that is

situated in this particular land and therefore, the land could

not be reserved in favour of the temple. The Temple

authorities in whose favour the land has been reserved have

filed a detailed statement of objections. Annexure-R2, which

is enclosed to the objections indicates, that not only the

petitioner but also his mother opposed this reservation by

submitting written representation. The proceedings indicate

that the mother of the petitioner despite her initial objections,

later conceded for the reservation of the land in favour of the

Temple Authorities. The petitioner, on the other hand,

objected to the said reservation stating that he had a right to

get the land regularization. The Tahsildar overruled these

objections and recommended action be initiated against the

petitioner for eviction. This order of the Tahsildar has not

disputed by the petitioner.

3. It is also pertinent to state here that the

petitioner has deliberately suppressed the fact that he

objected to the reservation along with his mother. Infact,

there is not even a whisper in the writ petition about the

earlier proceedings to which the petitioner was a party. The

petitioner is trying to give an impression that he was totally

unaware of the proceedings to reserve the land and an order

of reservation was passed behind his back.

4. In my view, this suppression of material facts

disentitles the petitioner from seeking any relief at the hands

of this Court. It may also be pertinent to state here, that the

Authorities have recorded a finding that the house in which

the petitioner claims to be residing was a house constructed

by the Temple authorities and was handed over to his father

who was rendering religious service to the Temple. If the said

assertion of the Temple authorities is correct, it is obvious,

that the petitioner does not possess any legal right over the

house which is situated in the lands in-question.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought rely

upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the

case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs Vs.

Jagannath (Dead) by LRs reported in (1994) 1 Supreme

Court Cases 1 to state that fraud invalidates all judicial acts

and a decree or judgment obtained by fraud would have to be

treated as a nullity and could be challenged in any Court

even in collateral proceedings.

6. It is to be stated here that if any person is guilty

of fraud, in the present case, it can only be the petitioner and

not the authorities. As stated above, the petitioner being

aware of the proceedings to reserve the land and having

strenuously objected to the reservation had a moral duty to

this Court to disclose his objections for the reservation. The

petitioners having suppressed this material fact, cannot be

permitted to contend that there is a fraud played in reserving

the land in-question. Therefore, I find that this judgment is

completely inapplicable to the facts of the present case.

7. It may also be pertinent to state here that the

petitioner had instituted a suit in O.S.No.381/1999 against

the State and his officials seeking for a decree of injunction to

restrain them from assigning the property in-question for any

public purpose. The said suit was dismissed as not

maintainable, as against which, a revision was also filed in

C.R.P. No. 482/2004 before this Court which was also

dismissed by this Court. These facts have also not been

disclosed in the writ petition. It is therefore clear that the

petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and is

making a deliberate attempt to stall the order of reservation.

Therefore, I am of the view, the writ petition deserves to be

dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the

Karnataka Legal Services Authority within a period of four

weeks from today.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with

exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- payable to the Karnataka

Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from

today.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JS/-