Karnataka High Court
Shri Jagadguru Shankaracharya vs State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6116
WP No. 26385 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.26385 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA
MAHASAMSTHANAM
DAKSHINAMNAYA SHARADA PEETHAM,
SRINGERI 577139
BY HIS HOLINESS JAGADGURU SRI
SRI BHARATHI THEERTHA MAHASWAMIJI
REPRESENTED BY
GPA HOLDER K G RAGHU
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H S SANTHOSH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
KRISHNAPPA LAXMI
YASHODA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS
KARNATAKA
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,
SHIVAMOGGA 577201
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6116
WP No. 26385 of 2023
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION,
SHIVAMOGGA 577201
4. THE TAHSILDAR
SHIMOGA TALUK,
SHIMOGA 577201
5. CHAND PASHA
S/O LATE ABDUL SATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O BASAVANAGUDI 1ST MAIN,
NEAR VINAYAKA PARK,
SHIVAMOGGA 577201
6. SMT ULFATH NAZLI
W/O CHAND PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O BASAVANAGUDI 1ST MAIN,
NEAR VINAYAKA PARK,
SHIVAMOGGA 577201
7. K T NAGARAJ
S/O D T KASAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O LAKKAVALLI VILLAGE,
LAKKAVALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT 577228
8. KUNCHALA RAVI KISHORE
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
R/O VIDYANAGAR EXTENSION,
SHIVAMOGGA 577203
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FORR5 TO R6)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6116
WP No. 26385 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 05/10/2023 PASSED BY THE R2 DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO. R.A. NO. 20/2023 AS PER
ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order
dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Shivamogga District.
2. The petitioner-mutt petitioned the Tahasildar,
Shivamogga Taluk with regard to the revenue entries in
respect of 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.133/1; 32 guntas in
Sy.No.133/2 and 31 guntas in Sy.No.133/6. The revenue
entries were mutated in favour of respondents No.5 and 6
in terms of MR No.117/2005-06 dated 10.05.2006. The
mutation entry was made in favour of the respondents
No.5 and 6 on the strength of a registered sale deed dated
NC: 2024:KHC:6116
09.06.2007. However, it was contended by the petitioner
before the Tahasildar that occupancy rights were conferred
in favour of the petitioner-mutt by orders of the Special
Deputy Commissioner in a proceedings taken up under the
provisions of Section 10 of the Mysore (Personnel and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. The Tahasildar
has also referred to a judgment passed in
O.S.No.169/2013 dated 07.01.2020. The Tahsildar
accepted the contention of the petitioner-mutt and
consequently set aside the revenue entries made in favour
of the respondents No.5 and 6 herein. Aggrieved
respondents No.5 and 6 approached the Assistant
Commissioner remanding the matter back to the
Tahasildar for fresh enquiry and to pass appropriate
orders. Respondents No.5 and 6 approached the Deputy
Commissioner calling in question the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has
passed the impugned order while noticing that there were
several sale deeds executed in respect of the land in
question and the land was converted from agricultural to
NC: 2024:KHC:6116
non-agricultural purposes and sites have been formed. The
Deputy Commissioner is of the opinion that the Tahasidlar
had given sufficient opportunity to all the parties
concerned and thereafter he had passed the orders. The
Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision petition in part,
setting aside the orders passed by the Tahasildar on
17.02.2023 and the order of the Assistant commissioner
dated 06.06.2023 and thereafter remanded the matter
back to the Tahasildar for fresh consideration.
3. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is
evident from the contentions raised by the rival parties
herein that there are disputed questions of title. That
being the position, the Deputy Commissioner could not
have directed the Tahasildar to reconsider the matter. It
is by now well settled and reiterated at the hands of the
Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Jayamma
and Others /vs./ The State of Karnataka and Others
reported in ILR 2020 KAR 1449 that revenue
authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute
NC: 2024:KHC:6116
between the parties in respect of immoveable properties.
It is the exclusive domain of the competent civil court to
adjudicate the dispute/title in respect of the immoveable
property/properties and ultimately if any decree is passed
by the competent civil court it will be binding not only on
the parties but also on the revenue authorities.
4. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds
to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Deputy
Commissioner in R.A.No.20/2023 and also the orders of
the Tahasildar as well as the Assistant Commissioner. The
aggrieved party has to approach the competent civil court,
secure a declaration and once such a declaration is given
by the civil court, such party will have a right to seek entry
of his or her name in the land records.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KLY
CT: JL
