IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20" DAY OF Novemasg '2bfo--§'~;. 2
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. 9.9. DINAKARAN, c'_:'t~VII'VéI=itt'.-IsV"":'v.v.'.rj:.E
THE HON'BLE MR.3=i:sI.IcELvL,é.sABE§A'ajiT.
wan APPEAL No.35{54:_/'2§)09.('LB-LLJC)L5
BETWEEN:
1
VENKATALAKs;'H'r§aA:bri:9M7g.._V A
AGED:_'AE}Q-UT.?6 I-xfEAR5._ '
w/_.o~ LATE.-ANAN.TH_AiAH_: A
R. /or MA'rH'3K.E'm.= ._ "
_YES_HWA'N:1'H rm RA H'0sLi,
BANG'A'LOR¥E r4.omH TALUK,
1a3AN'GALofR§ ' _
SR1' A" s,AfHY:._\ NA:-~RAYANA
. AGED" 53'vEARs
SE/'0 LATE ANAVNTHAIAH
" R~,to"r~=L. MATHIKERE
YESHVJVANTHPURA HOBLI,
_ "BAN»G'A_L"QRE NORTH TALUK,
3A'r3:.GA:L'oRE
SRIKODANDARAMA
"AG-ED 48 YEARS
S'j'0 LATE ANANTHAIAH
" R/OF MATHIKERE
.A YESHWANTHPURA
A H HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE
4 SRI M A NARASIMHAMURTHY
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O LATE ANANTHAIAH
R/OF MATHIKERE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE
5 SRI A SRINIVASA
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O LATE ANANTHAIAH '
R/OF MATHIKERE
YESHWANTHPURA HOLBL1
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE D -A
6 SRI M A 3AYARAMA
AGED 58.».YEARS~--»._f. x
S/0 LATE 'ANAN"{H..AIAVH~A"_j~~_V' ' "
R/O_FJ.MA§THVIKE.RE
YESBw'AN'THPURL.AG"H_OSBL; A
BAISJGALORE 5*»:-O"R_TH TALLUK
"BAN_GALOfRE _ "
7 SM':'._INDIRAM'MA'-
;' ~ AGED 55 'YEARS
/O LATE..__D_EVAPRASAN NA,
"DAUGHTER-xN-LAw OF
'v!__I-KTE AANANTHAIAH,
O --AfG_ED'j5B YEARS,
R/GjFfRAILWAY GOLLAHALLI,
.._NEL.f\MANGALA TALUK,
O' .. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ..APPELLANTS.
Sri : L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADV. )
FZAND :
1 THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
J.C. ROAD,
BANGALORE 52
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE WEST, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,BANGALORE.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALI--E*{'E.~.:'::~..:"L~::
MATHIKERE WARD, SAMp:GE« RO.Ar.)., , V *
MALLESWARAM, BANGAl'..._OR_E. AL?
THE ASSISTANT EXEVCUTIVVAE.,_E'NGIr4'i§'Ef{,_V_V.V A
BANGALORE MAHANAEGIARA PAL"1'KE'_;
MATHIKERE WARD, MAT_mr}_DR,
HOBLI, BANGALORE!Ne:)RTHj;TLA,uK,
BANGALORE. V
10 SRI M_.R'ANANlDA§RA.'M'«..
s/O 41;ATE;'M_. s RA'M_VAIAHj-- A "" "
AGED ABOUT 34S'5YEA*-RS,
R.1ATO~VG'O*s¢;g4LA..TExTE'N--sIO»N,
,'MAT'HvIE;:K*
Ti-£15 wRIT APPEAL IS FILED 11/5 4 OF THE
§.<A'RNATAKA HIGi~i COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
TQASITDE THE ORDER FASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
120947/2006 DATED 1O/O5/2009.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SABHAHIT J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLO'WING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the petiitioners
W.P.No.10947/2006 being aiggmriieved ,b\,r:tih_e_iorde’r
dated 10/6/2009 wi1eVrein,AI:__ti:’:’–e_z Iea’;1=aged’«
Judge of this Court has de.ci’iV–ned tot’
respondents 1 to 4against’respondents Svvto 11 in
preventing unauthorized» :”cQni’st_ruic_tion in the
scheduie property and» writ petition.
2. ‘ii§7he-.Q:”‘~«i.._app*e|Iants herein filed
W.P.l\i0,19V94?’./fiiifié-«._:’:”*seeking for mandamus
dire-*c.ti_ngu”respo”nd.ents 1 to 4 to take steps to
i gpreaxkent tsn_authoHriied construction in the schedule
accordance with the Karnataka
Mu__nic_ipai}~’Icorporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter
xreferreél to as the ‘Act’) and direct respondents 5 to
1-into demolish the unauthorized construction made
.. _..i§n a portion of the schedule property belonging to
the petitioners in accordance with the Act and
\\J}<.»
passed such other relief/s as this Court may deem
fit. The schedule property is described as under:-
"All that piece and parcel of
land bearing Sy.N0.7, measuring :_.
39 guntas, situated at Mathikere__\'[il.I.ag¥A.e, _
Yeshwanthpura Hobli, gi3'aVn'galo–.re.g
Taluk, Bangalore Dist. Bo.un:'de'd oln.t'h.e_- _
East by : ""ATni1aiappa._S(K–tirita;:
V.i-s§§c'1"'¢5l5"??"sIéiici.
West by V _ R%P§.d””«Vli”l
North by : land
Soyzitizyby : V’ Mun’_ir_aya”ppa’s land”
._It of the petitioners that
the sc-hedulle _ t.’pro”perty was endowed to
Hanféulmanthadeyarui Temple. The husband of the 15″
pretitioxner.yviitsnganthaiah was the Archak in the said
teinple an Archak of the said temple was
culltivagfyiingillthe land personally without any claim by
l others and no other persons were cultivating
.’ ‘”i’.h’e’lsaid schedule property and after enactment of
“the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Inams
Abolition Act, 1955, the schedule property by virtue
L/Q”
of provisions of the said Act, stood vested with the
Govt., thereby, making it a provision for
late.Archaka Ananthaiah filed an applicatici«n”if:.cf:-r”r,e-
grant of the land claiming to be
tenant of the land for grant o_f.~o._r_:cupancva..right4_’_as’atit
permanent tenant. The
Commissioner referred ‘teh_e’~..matter_tothe’:Ta’hVsi’:ldar,”V V
Bangalore North Taluk for..iir’1’gspectio.n”oiithe land to
ascertain whether’ the. -lia’teV.V?X:iJc4haV§ta:.Ananthaiah was
personallx ¢fl//4/&vat’i’h§ . property and
whether. ” iorvvgiregistration as a
Section 5 of the said Act
and the’iT.ahsViVld’ar’._ “stii3n1itted a report in favour of
AV_n.a.nt_haiah’,i”‘hus_l::and of the 15’ petitioner. The
‘ ;Speci.al’.ii3e’pu_ty Commissioner issued endorsement
confirming the issue of grant in
,_poss.e’ssio’n and enjoyment prior to the Karnataka
it iRiel.igious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act, 1955.
4. It is further averred that since the Act was
amended and the power of Special Deputy
xi-*~
Commissioner for Inams Abolition was taken'”away
and the said power was given to the Lané;l_”:’l’ri-i5i.a.na.l
to consider the application and pass ortjiersfeveini’
respect of the Inam lands-“‘and.A_in
amendment of the Act,’ L.Rs«a__of_V_A.the».’l_atev.Aricha.lta=,.
Ananthaiah were advisedv..o:’?to»fileV’ Formtibeforeii
the Tribunal seekin-g_.for,o’cctipaVhic_y rifl_cjh’t’ in respect
of the schedule No.7 was
filed. The__ North Taluk
after ho§~d’i’n’_gV lejel.d’ that late.Archaka
Anantlwavialiitilf’;ani;i;.:t–héj’.pe’titioiiers were in possession
and the schedule property
and passejd -the-._orcler-‘ggranting occupancy right in
fa_v€>.ur__iAVofVVV_the”‘petitioners 1 to 5 as the name of the
‘ §:iet.i.tEo.ners.::”5—-_to 11 were left out as they are the
sons daughter-in~law of late.Archaka
Ananthaiah.
5. It is further averred that late.M.S.Ramaiah
….was not an agriculturist and he was a civil
contractor carrying on civil work and he was not
K5′
entitled to hold the schedule property or to’*make
an application seeking for grant of occupan:cy:44,,rig’hVt
in respect of the schedule property.
Chairman of an Educational “1!-“rus’t.—n_ re’s_pon-dent
in the writ petition, consisti”n,gi*-ohfi indv5_«yid.ual’s::”.and»,
association of individuals-.._an,d non.eag.ri_”cul’iu’rist. It V
appears that late.M,§.Ra.mai.aijlVc!.aimsto have filed
an application to the__j’urisdiictjiionanl.’Special Deputy
Commissioner, jurisdiction to
grant the i{es.pect of the schedule
propert-y iS:a_;sed~jo’nV’thlesaigd alleged application,
alleged = V ‘filed, the Spl. Deputy
Commissi-onernlli holding any enquiry and
wvi»*i:i:;o:uht issuing notice to any one of the parties who
‘ be affected, passed an order granting
right on 12/4/1977. Aggrieved by the
said petitioners filed Appeal No.26-4/2002
“..jn=EV3efore the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal
‘(hereinafter referred to as ‘i(A”l”) and the same is
impending consideration. The order of granting
occupancy right in favour of late.Archaka
\/’?7~»
Ananthaiah dated 3/3/1989 is passed___ in
accordance with law and the respondents’:ivvithovut
being in possession and enjoyment of the yscyhetiuiiie
property, in order to create.:th»Erd piarhtiy”‘ri_gVhtfand V
obstructions and to claim the’xini.prove’ments.
property has encroached.,:vy:a’~.Vportio.n ‘C-fyitvheescheiduleii’
property on the easternyyi-side. and commenced the
constructions of law and
since the .n1att_er to the
unauthorrizxie.’-_g:jV1iA:.:iiQ: contrary to the
proviVysions”~»ofthe th’eVVV.–pfietitioners apart from
initiatiyngéi availabie to them
in Iavv;»._._Va,re’ advised to submit a
re.p5r.es’entatioI’i.,to_vthe respondents 1, 3 and 4,
are-que.sutingVii”‘vthem to prevent the illegal and
H constructions made by the
respondents 5 to 11 without any sanctioned plan
anidyécointrary tot he provisions of the Act and since
respondents 5 to 11 are very powerfui persons,
2 “petitioners are constrained to file the writ petition
seeking for the above referred relief.
xfi
V
«:12:«
8. Learned counsel appearing for-..» the
appellantf:i=reiterated the grounds urged
petition and submitted that the ieaineesdisiiigteL
Judge ought to have issued’n1a’n.da”.musilVaS_so–u’gh”t
for and was not justified
petition filed by the appeilants.
9. We have ‘gAi._\._..r’§–~.n carefiu”i~–..consideration to the
contention ofgthe learned ‘coiV;ns’e_lVa”ppearing for the
appellants andidissciéutiniitzedgth~e”nia’terial on record.
_’1Vn3ma’te’ri,ai. on record would clearly
show tnatcp on._iVthe of the complaint given
against responcients .5 to 11, respondents 1 to 4
[3-Hsusevdl:’und.er’-:’Section 321 (1) to (3) of the Act and
res.._pon_vd’e.n:tNo.1 preferred the appeal before the
it »71″he said appeal is dismissed for non-
ll’-pitoslecution and the application for restoration is
…_pending. The averment made in the writ petition
it would clearly show that the petitioners claim to be
\(:»:.
-: 14 :-
is justified and does not suffer from any error or
illegality as to call for interference in M.t_E*.–ViVs”–.:i}’:.l.fra-
court app’eal. Accordingly, we pass
The appeal isV»disn1isVse_cl’. V
Since the appeal is it is
unnecessary to :thLe.A”‘~appliAcation for
condonation qf the appeal,
Sd/-
Chéei §z3s%ice
x%_% ; Sd/_
~-a eeeee JUDQE
Web lil_’ostA:1’~”Yes/ No
fmvs s