Karnataka High Court
Veereshappa Chandrashekharappa Yanni vs The President on 3 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311
WP No. 116197 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.116197 OF 2019 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
VEERESHAPPA CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA YANNI
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
PRESIDENT
SHRI.BASAVESHWARA DEVA TRUST COMMITTEE
@ VIRAKTH MATH, CHIKKERUR-581111
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRESIDENT,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE PRESIDENT,
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.06.13
TALUKA PANCHAYAT,
12:19:59 +0530
HIREKERUR-581111,
DIST: HAVERI.
3. SRI. MA.NI.PRA. CHANDRASHEKHAR
MAHASWAMIGALU,
VIRAKTAMATH CHIKKERURU,
R/O CHIKKERUR-581111,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
4. THE PRESIDENT SECRETARY AND P.D.O.
GRAM PANCHAYAT,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311
WP No. 116197 of 2019
CHIKKERURU-581111,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.A.PATHAN AND P.V.MOGALI, ADVOCATES
FOR R.1, R.2 AND R.4;
SRI.VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE FOR R.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2019
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PRESIDENT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
HAVERI VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY SETTING ASIDE THE OREDER DATED
26.03.2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDENT, TALUK PANCHAYAT,
HIREKERUR IN TALUK PANCHAYAT APPEAL NO.25/2011 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the President of
Shri.Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee assailing the
impugned Resolution No.7 under which mutation is
effected and respondent No.3 is shown as Vahivatdar and
properties are mutated in the name of Viraktamath.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned resolution,
respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the President
of Taluk Panchayath. The President of Taluk Panchayath
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311
dismissed the appeal. Against which, respondent No.3
preferred an appeal before the President of Zilla
Panchayath. The President of Zilla Panchayath vide
impugned order dated 31.10.2019 as per Annexure-E has
set-aside impugned resolution and has directed to restore
the name of respondent No.3.
3. Respondent No.3, on receipt of notice, has
tendered appearance and along with a vacating
application, respondent No.3 has produced true copy of
the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.240/2011.
Placing reliance on this judgment, respondent No.3 would
point out that petitioner's claim that all the properties are
owned by Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee is totally
misconceived and cannot be looked into in the light of the
judgment rendered by the competent Civil Court in
O.S.No.240/2011.
4. On examining the records, this Court has noticed
that petitioner, who claims to be the President of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311
Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee, has asserted that
these properties were purchased by Trustees way back in
the year 1928 and therefore, all these properties are held
by Trustees and respondent No.3, who is the Profounder of
Viraktamath, is only entitled to enjoy the properties by
utilizing the income generated from the properties for the
welfare of the Mutt and therefore, he would point out that
Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee is the owner of all
the properties in question.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
also brought to the notice of this Court that the order
passed by respondent No.1 in setting aside the resolution
is one without jurisdiction. He has pointed out that the
President of Zilla Panchayath has no Authority to preside
over disputes relating to mutation and the President of
Zilla Panchayath ought not to have entertained an appeal
filed by respondent No.3.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311
6. Though this Court would find some force in the
submission made by the learned counsel appearing for
petitioner and though this Court is quite aware of the fact
that the President of the Zilla Panchayath and Taluk
Panchayath have no authority to decide an appeal arising
out of the mutation proceedings more particularly passed
by the Grama Panchayath, however, this Court is not
inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner in the
light of the judgment rendered by the Competent Civil
Court in O.S.No.240/2011. The said suit was filed by the
petitioner and other Trustees claiming absolute ownership
over one of the property, which was sold by respondent
No.3 in favour of one Holabasappa s/o Ningappa. While
questioning sale deed dated 31.07.1996, petitioner on
behalf of Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee, Chickerur
asserted absolute ownership over properties. In the said
suit, the only alienated property i.e., the land bearing
Sy. No.139 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas was the subject
matter of the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311
7. The Trial Court, while examining claim of the
petitioner and Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee, has
recorded a categorical finding and answered issue No.1 in
the Negative. While answering issue No.1 in the Negative,
the Trial Court held that plaintiffs have failed to prove that
the properties, which were sold, belonged to
Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee. While answering
issue No.1, the Trial Court has extensively assessed the
evidence let in by both the parties. The contention of
Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee that the Trust was
amalgamated with Viraktamath and respondent No.3 is
only custodian was negatived by the Trial Court.
8. Referring to Guru Patra dated 16.04.1970, the
Trial Court held that respondent No.3 herein is a
Mathadeesha of Viraktamath, Chikkeruru and the present
petitioner herein admitted that defendant No.2 i.e.,
respondent No.3 herein is the absolute owner of the suit
property. In the said suit, the claim made by the Trust
that there is an amalgamation was also negatived.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311
9. On examining judgment rendered by the Trial
Court in O.S.No.240/2011, it can be inferred that
respondent No.3 has sold property for development of
Mutt. If the suit filed by the present petitioner as a
President of Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee is
dismissed on merits, though the impugned resolution
could not have been entertained by the President of
respondent No.1 - Zilla Panchayath, this Court is of the
view that no purpose would be served in relegating
respondent No.3 to prefer an appeal before the Competent
Authority.
10. In the light of the subsequent developments, the
impugned resolution is of the year 2011, while the suit
filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.240/2011 is decided on
merits in 2018, this Court is bound to take cognizance of
the subsequent developments. If the petitioner has
suffered a decree in O.S.No.240/2011, this Court is of the
view that there can be no further enquiry in the mutation
proceedings relating to title over the suit schedule
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311
property. The judgment and decree rendered in
O.S.No.240/2011 has negatived petitioner's claim that all
the properties are held by Basaveshwara Deva Trust
Committee and respondent No.3 is only the custodian.
The petitioner and other Trustees of Basaveshwara Deva
Trust Committee have not chosen to challenge the
judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.240/2011 and in
view of subsequent developments, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the orders passed by
respondent No.1.
11. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Full
Bench in the case of SMT.JAYAMMA AND OTHERS VS.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND
OTHERS1, the petitioner has suffered the judgment and
decree at the hands of a competent Civil Court. The
petitioner being the Trustee of Basaveshwara Deva Trust
Committee has lost his locus to question the mutation
ILR 2020 KAR 1449
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7311
entries and therefore, he cannot ventilate his grievance in
setting aside the impugned resolution passed by
respondent No.4 - Grama Panchayath.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) In the light of dismissal of the writ
petition, no further orders are
required to be passed on the
impleading application -
I.A.No.1/2020.
(iii) The vacating application filed in
I.A.No.1/2023 by respondent No.3
does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
