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

A. Order of the Land Tribunal regarding 52 withdrawal of the application claiming occupancy rights by Sri H.Bylappa

rejection of the Impleading Application

III CONCLUSION -

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:-

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

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

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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:-

(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

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

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

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.

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

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

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."

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

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:-

(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

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:-

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

C. 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

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.

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

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

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

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.

AIR 1993 Kant.39 :: ILR 1992 KAR 1359

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.

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.

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

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

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

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