Karnataka High Court
Sri N V Yoganandachar vs The Chief Secretary Government Of ... on 28 June, 2023
Bench: C.M. Poonacha
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:22604
WP No. 614 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 614 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI N V YOGANANDACHAR
S/O LATE N S VEERABRAHMACHAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO.207 SAI SANNIDI APARTMENTS
BEHIND BANK OF BARODA B H ROAD,
NELMANGALA TOWN-562123
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
2. SRI N V VEDAMURTHACHAR
S/O LATE N S VEERABRAHMACHAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.1678,
DEVANGA BEEDI
NELMANGALA OLD POST OFFICE ROAD
NELMANGALA TOWN-562123
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
3. N V SHRADDANANDACHAR
S/O LATE VEERABRAHMACHAR
Digitally signed
by POORNIMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
SHIVANNA
Location: HIGH R/AT NO.5246/11
COURT OF BEHIND SWANSILK
KARNATAKA
NEAR NAVAYUGA TOLL
BYPASS ROAD,
NELMANGALA-562123
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KAMALUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUZRAI)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:22604
WP No. 614 of 2023
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560001
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
(MUZRAI DEPARTMENT)
4TH FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
4. THE TAHASILDAR
NELAMANGALA TALUK
NELAMANGALA 562123
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT K SHOBHA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO FORTHWITH HANDOVER POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE
MENTIONED PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS PER THE
REPRESENTATIONS MADE AT ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the
learned HCGP for the Respondents.
2. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are the
owners of property bearing Katha No.466/459 (old
No.466/483) and new No.570/483 situated at Petebidi,
NC: 2023:KHC:22604
WP No. 614 of 2023
Nelamangala Town, Bangalore District, consisting of a
residential premises and a private temple of Anjaneya Swamy
which was inherited through their grand father Sri Soorappa.
That the Petitioners and their family members are residing in
the said property for over 100 years and are in possession and
enjoyment of the same until they were illegally dispossessed on
18.3.2013.
3. It is the further case of the Petitioners that some
third parties alleging that the temple situated in the ancestral
land of the Petitioners land was a public temple, were
interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners
and hence, they filed a suit in OS No.16/2009 for declaration
and consequential injunction. That the Trial Court decreed the
suit and passed the following:
"Suit filed by the Plaintiffs is partly decreed with cost.
The suit of the Plaintiffs with respect of the title over
the suit schedule property is dismissed.
The Defendants No.1 to 5 are restrained from
disturbing the Plaintiffs of their agents, or their relatives
from performing the poojas in the plaint schedule properties
and also in using the dwelling houses in which the Plaintiffs
are residing or shop premises that are in the possession of
the Plaintiffs.
It is made clear that the Plaintiffs shall not prevent
the Defendants or any public or devotees from entering into
the temple and offer pooja to deity and return back from the
temple.
NC: 2023:KHC:22604
WP No. 614 of 2023
Draw decree accordingly."
4. That a Notification dated 5.1.2013 was issued by
the State Government notifying the temple of the Petitioner
under Section 28(a)(ii) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. A Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 25.10.2018 passed in WP
No.20186/2013 allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the said
Notification. The order passed in the Writ Petition was affirmed
by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 10.3.2021
passed in WA No.127/2020.
5. It is the contention of the Petitioners that
consequent to the issuance of the Notification dated 5.1.2013,
on 18.3.2013 the Respondents have taken possession of the
property. That in view of the Notification dated 5.1.2013
having been quashed pursuant to the order dated 25.10.2018
passed in WP No.20186/2013 which was upheld vide order
dated 10.3.2021 passed in WA No.127/2020, the Respondents
were required to return the possession of the property to the
Petitioners.
NC: 2023:KHC:22604
WP No. 614 of 2023
6. In the interregnum a notice dated 23.2.2022 was
issued by the fourth Respondent - Tahsildar and pursuant to
the order dated 11.3.2022 passed in WP No.5200/2022 the
Petitioners gave a representation dated 18.3.2022 to the fourth
Respondent, whereunder they have furnished all the records
and also sought for handing over of the property, the
possession of which was taken from the Petitioners. It is the
contention of the Petitioners that the request made for handing
over of the property has not been considered by the fourth
Respondent.
7. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners have been
dispossessed pursuant to the notification dated 5.1.2013. The
said notification having been quashed, which order was upheld
by a Division Bench as noticed above, the possession of the
property which was taken from the Petitioners ought to have
been returned to them.
8. It is always open for the relevant authorities to
initiate such action against the Petitioners in respect of the said
property as may be permissible under law. However, in the
absence of initiation of any such proceedings, it is
NC: 2023:KHC:22604
WP No. 614 of 2023
impermissible for the authorities to retain possession of the
property which possession was taken from the petitioners
pursuant to the notification dated 5.1.2013.
9. In view of the aforementioned, the relief sought for
by the Petitioners is liable to be granted and the fourth
Respondent is required to consider the request made by the
Petitioners vide representation dated 18.3.2022 (Annexure-A to
the writ petition) for return of property within a specific time
frame.
10. In view of the aforementioned, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ Petition is partly allowed;
ii. A writ of mandamus is issued to the fourth Respondent to
consider the representation dated 18.3.2022 (Annexure-A
to the Writ Petition) including considering the request of
the Petitioners for return of the property as expeditiously
as possible, in any event not later than four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
NC: 2023:KHC:22604
WP No. 614 of 2023
iii. In the event the fourth Respondent requires the presence
of the Petitioners, the same shall be notified and the
fourth Respondent shall pass necessary orders, in
accordance with law and intimate the orders so passed to
the Petitioners immediately thereafter.
iv. In the event the fourth Respondent is of the opinion that
another authority is required to decide upon the request
of the Petitioners for handing over the property, he shall
forward the representation dated 18.3.2022 together with
a copy of this order to the concerned authority and
intimate the Petitioners regarding the authority which is
authorized to pass suitable orders.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ND
