1 by Sri Irjlemanthitihlandanagoudar and
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 28"" DAY or JANUARY 2010.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L';n"l'~.'.EAN§_4U'l$llA}lf.ill."' A ' A
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE:A--RAV.IND
W.A. No. zzilro/20o07li((3M;t%;s.R)
Between: A' 'A L .. it
1. M/s Sri Krishr1a--Yadava;Edi1catiori«Trust-
Having its Qfficefat _Be1l'ary'rhrepresentedby' its
Chairman 63. 1__,al<,éhniana---s'g'-0 liiirfikundappa,
Aged abont"?.'3V"years, 'D_war"ake Nilayia,
Gandl.iinagar,.Bella1i'§ {slenier citizen
Not cl'aiming.bene-fi'ts),. ., ' -
2. Nanda Gol<.zila=.Kanna~fla English
Meg;ii'u1n School,' Club Road,
" _ Fire Station,' Devinagar, Bellary,
, 'R_epreéented.by Secretary
'"13, 'Ragm/eddra"YadaVa (G.P.A. Holder)
" A - Appellants
K'. Shashikir'an Shetty, Advocates)
. '4AafidV' ,
The Government of Karnataka
--. " Represented by Principal Secretary,
2
Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore--560 001.
2. Deputy Commissioner,
Bellary District, Bellary.
3. Assistant Commissioner,
Bellary District, Bellary.
(by Sri Mahantesh C. Kotturshettar, Advocate for R4, .3 . «. _V
by Sri C.S. Patil, A.G.A. for R1 to 3) i A ' V
--: " = ---:Resp:or1dents" 'V . ii
This Writ Appeal is filed und,er~v..Sectioni_4t of-it
Karnataka Act, 1961 praying to set asii'dei'th_e order adiaied Q5.10.2007
passed in by the learned Single.JVudgei'n W'.P."N_o. 10426/2.0705
This appeal coming oniifo14 on this day
KL. Manjunath. J , delive1'ed thefolilto '*ing_}udgIner1t.
1. There .aidelay=.ofi-ii3'9i in filing the appeal. To condone
the delayypgoif 39 days..i_lf1iiifilii1giii the appeal LA. No. 1/2007 is filed.
Being:satisfied.wiiti1,th.e cause shown in the affidavit filed in support
of ideliay of 39 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
The appeal "is: talcien up for final hearing by consent of parties.
\ W'
La)
2. The appellants are challenging the legality and correctness of
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.
dated 05.l0.2007. According to the appellants,
Trust, incorporated on 22.03.1995 which run an i_nlstit1.1tion._unde:* the
name of Sri Krishna Yadava Educational__ Trust. 're'spo.ndent~,
Sangha came into existence in the year'i'el.,:9"7.5. The.laf1d-walségranted to
the 4m respondent by the Deputy Cc.i_lnrnlis'sli.one'r..Bellarydi According
to the appellants on the reque.s:t_ ‘-of appelllaiits, 4m respondent
Sangha has leased. in..lltiaVlolLlir”of the appellants on a
monthly rent of escalation of 10% once in
5 years. That has constructed school building
and a school run the_rel;._vlt’i.s~’i’the case of the appellants that since
there wasldispiute in hetw-een’ the members of the Sangha, the Deputy
Comrnls_s’ioneraappo_inted an Administrator to take over and its assets.
Vi*””Accordingly_thei’l§.d;ministrator on l0.l0.200l assumed the office of
“”2-:i.”,%lllllVlrespond.ent:’ society. While assuming the office he had wrongly
tlak_enV_l’pcslsession of the appellants’ institution. Thereafter the
-A:dn1i’nistrator passed an order as per Annexure-A to hand over
wt-=7′.
K2
4
possession of the school run by the appellant to the 43′ respondent
society and this order was questioned by the appellants by filing a
Writ Petition. Learned Single Judge after hearing the
rejected the Writ ?etition on the ground that the administration,j’of” _
Sangha was taken over by the Administratorand lateron’ account it ”
election of the office bearers to the 43″;
Administrator has rightly passed an ordle’i*..to hand o~tr;glr”thlé.;v¢locuinentsl” A
and assets of the 4th respondent society.””.1’Accordingly’~Writ Petition
was rejected against which the presenti’,appleal..i:is’
3. The rnain ‘ground the appellants before us is that the
learned Single co.niini;tted an error in dismissing the Writ
:_’f”e’tition.v-i:r.jl’*A:_ccording l’t’o~-him, when the Trust was running the
instit_ution’a.s:”aa:lesisee”;of the 4″‘ respondent, the Administrator could
l”””not have.u__tal<veiilpossession of the Trust property. Similarly while
" " 'T overtlie assets of the 43' respondent Sangha the Administrator
rectified the mistake cornrnitted by him and should have
A handed over the possession of Trust property to the appellants.
Ex! I
.%"x
Therefore he requested the Court to set aside the order passed "by the
learned Single Judge.
4. After hearing the parties the only point to be
in this appeal is:
Whether the learned Single Judge has ciorninittedgarperror 0′
rejecting the Writ Petition? ‘ ‘
5. According to us learned’ iihasgnot committed any
Admittedly’ the”iAdrr:»;riiistrator’has taken possession of the
school which isisaid to hayéeheehtsrun by the appellants on 10. i 0.200 r.
‘the appellants are oi’i”lthe—-opinion that taking over possession of the
scho.0l”:b}: the Administrator on 10.10.2001 was illegal,
“they should hatveiprotested the act of Administrator to take possession
propertj? or at least they would have approached the Court to
redelixrer the possession of the property to them. Having slept over
my’ )’