Shri.Madhusudanaiah vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12769 Kant

                         1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                      BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

    WRIT PETITION NO.39780 OF 2014(LR)

BETWEEN:

SHRI.MADHUSUDANAIAH,
@ MADHUSUDHANA,
S/O ARCHAK LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
ARCHAK, SRI.ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE,
BOMMANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TQ.
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SOMASHEKHARIAH R P, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
   REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
   REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING,
   BANGALORE - 01.

2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER,
   BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
   BANGALORE - 562 123.

3. THE TAHASILDAR AND MUZARAI OFFICER,
   SRI.ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE,
   BOMMANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI,
   NELAMANGALA TQ,
   BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.

4. SHRI.B.T.KRISHNAIAH,
   S/O LATE B K THIMMARAYAPPA,
   SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
                              2

A)    SMT. T SAROJAMMA,
      W/O LATE B T KRISHNAIAH,
      SINCE DEAD BY LRS FROM 4(B) TO 4(E)

(B)   TEJAS,
      D/O LATE B K SEETHARACHARYA,
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

(C)   SHRI.B.K.MANJUNATH,
      S/O LATE B T KRISHNAIAH,
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
      DRIVER, KSRTC,

(D)   SMT.B.K.KANAKAMBA,
      D/O LATE B T KRISHNAIAH,
      AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

(E)   SHRI.B.K.PRAKASH,
      S/O LATE B T KRISHNAIAH,
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT T BEGUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TQ,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V SESHU, HCPG FOR R1-R3;
    SRI.NAGESH V R, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4(A);
    SRI.R.S.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
    SRI.NARENDRA D V GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4(B-E);
        V.C.O DATED 23.09.2022 R4(B-E) TREATED AS
        LRS OF DEAD R4(A))

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 5.8.2014
VIDE ANN-E.

     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
                       ORDER

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for

assailing the order dated 05.08.2014 (Annexure E)

whereby the Deputy Commissioner has registered

occupancy in respect of 2 acres & 21 guntas of

Bommanahalli Village in Nelamangala Taluk in favour of

the private respondents herein.

2. The operative portion of the impugned order

reads as under:

"DzÉñÀ:

£É®ªÀÄAUÀ¼À vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½, ¨ÉƪÀÄä£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.23gÀ°è 2-21 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À.£ÀA.63gÀ°è 0-08 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¸À®Ä PÉÆÃj ªÀÄzsÀĸÀÆzÀ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ©.n.PÀȵÀÚAiÀÄå gÀªÀgÀÄ ²Ã DAd£ÉÃAiÀĸÁé«Ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ CZÀðPÀgÁV ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸À°è¹zÀÝ jmï CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌj¹ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÁV »A¢gÀÄV¹zÀÄÝ, G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀæjUÀÆ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ CªÀPÁ±À ¤Ãr CªÀgÀªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉ ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀægÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ ºÁUÀÆ °TvÀ ªÁzÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ªÉÄÃ¯É G¯ÉèÃT¹gÀĪÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½UÁV ºÁUÀÆ F »AzÉAiÉÄà ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è DAd£ÉøÁé«Ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ CZÀð£Á ªÀÈwÛ §UÉÎ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è DVgÀĪÀ wêÀiÁð£ÀzÀAvÉ CAwªÀÄ wêÀiÁð£À PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ F ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ zÀvÀÛªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ£ÀzÀ°è ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ CAwªÀĪÁV GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ ªÀeÁPÀj¹gÀĪÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄPÀÛ £É®ªÀÄAUÀ® vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½,¨ÉƪÀÄä£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.23gÀ°è 2-21 JPÀgÉ d«Ää£À C¢¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©.n. PÀȵÀÚAiÀÄågÀªÀjUÉ £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¸À¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¥sÀªÀwAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¢||©.n.PÀȵÀÚAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ GvÀÛgÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¸À®Ä DzÉò¹gÀÄvÉÛ.

F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ²ÃWÀæ°¦UÁgÀjUÉ GPÀÛ¯ÉÃR£À ¤Ãr UÀtQÃPÀj¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹ vÉgÉzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ:5-8-2014gÀAzÀÄ WÉÆö¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

argues that registration of occupancy could not have

been done inasmuch as, it is his client who has been

treated as the Archak of the temple in question by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.440/1987

disposed off on 29.07.1997 and therefore the impugned

order should be voided with a direction to register to

occupancy in his favour. Learned AGA appearing for the

official respondents and learned Senior Advocate

appearing for private respondents oppose the writ

petition making submissions in justification of the

impugned order and the reasons on which it has been

structured.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the petition papers, this Court

declines indulgence in the matter for the following

reasons:

(a) The vehement submission of learned counsel

for the petitioner that his client has been held to be an

Archak of the temple in question in the subject RSA, is

true. However, at para 6 of the judgment dated

29.07.1977, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has

clarified the matter as under:

"Making it clear that it is open to the plaintiff to establish his title and then sue for possession, this second appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court".

Subsequently, the private respondents herein had filed

W.P.No.6412/2006 disposed off by another Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court on 05.11.2008 whereby the order

dated 31.03.2006 made by the Deputy Commissioner in

favour of the petitioner herein was voided and matter

was remitted for consideration afresh. If contention of

the petitioner structured on the basis of RSA judgment

were to be accepted, the question of remand would not

have arisen.

(b) The RSA judgment suffered by the private

respondents affirmed the judgment dated 10.04.1987

passed in petitioner's R.A.No.78/1986 whereby the

decree obtained by the private respondents on

30.06.1986 in their O.S.No.127/1981 was reversed. It

related to the period post vesting of the land in the State

i.e., 1973 under the provisions of Mysore (Personal and

Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. It had nothing

to do with the Archakship before such vesting. In RSA,

the observation that Mr.B.T.Krishnaiah ie., the father of

the private respondents was a teacher in a school and

therefore he could not have performed pooja, cannot be

construed to the effect that even his father Sri

Thimmarayappa & grandfather Sri Karigiriyappa were

not doing pooja and they were not cultivating the subject

land. In any circumstance, the RSA judgment does not

speak of petitioner's possession of the subject land at all,

as rightly contended by learned Sr. Advocate Mr.

R.S.Ravi appearing for the private respondents.

(c) The original records reveal that it is the father

& grandfather of the private respondents who were doing

the Archakship uninterruptedly for decades till 1973 &

after which fact is not only reflected in the Record of

Rights but also the Revenue payment receipts and

several records concerning the auction of tamarind trees

standing in the land. These documents are not disputed

by the petitioner's side.

(d) The above apart, the petitioner admittedly is

the resident of Vanigere village in Kunigal Taluka as is

reflected in a series of Voters Lists; he has also obtained

grant of occupancy to the extent of 4 acres & 36 guntas

vide order dated 29.06.1987 at the hands of Land

Tribunal, Kunigal which specifically mentions his

residence being Vanigere which is 70 kms. away from

Bommanahalli village in Nelamangala Taluka, which

specific contention in the Statement of Objections taken

up by the respondents is not disputed. It is humanely

impossible for a person to perform the daily pooja of

deities in two temples located at a long distance of 70

kms. in between. The Tastik Allowance Register shows

that the deities have the tradition of Nitya katle i.e.,

daily pooja. That being the position, petitioner cannot

claim the occupancy in one more village, having already

got a huge land at another place.

(e) There was a rival claimant obviously at the

instance of some unscrupulous villagers and he withdrew

his claim, some better sense having prevailed. He has

given a statement that favoured the claim of the private

respondents. In fact, a criminal case in PCR No.56/2015

has been instituted by one of the private respondents

against the petitioner herein; the matter having been

referred by the learned JMFC Nelamangala u/s.156(3) of

Cr.P.C. 1973, the police have investigated into the

offences and filed a charge sheet in Crime No.171/2015

on 05.05.2015 for the offences of mischief, fabrication of

records & perjury punishable u/s. 420, 193, 196, 199 of

I.P.C. Of course, this matter is pending consideration is

true; however, the investigation by the statutory

authority like the police has resulted into a report about

the culpable conduct of the petitioner and on the civil

side the same can be looked into along with other

corroborative evidence discussed above. That being

said, this observation would not in any way affect his

defence before the Criminal Court, needs to be made

clear.

In the above circumstances, the petition being

devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and

accordingly it is with a cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by

the petitioner to the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority within one month and delay would entail him

an additional levy of Rs.1,000/- per day. The Registry

shall send a copy of this judgment to the Member

Secretary, KSLSA, Bengaluru by Speed Post immediately.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Snb/