S Krishnappa vs The Tahsildar on 11 February, 2010

I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 1 11-" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010

BEFORE

THE HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE AJIT J.GUN;}A1;_~    _

WRIT PETITION No.25775 or 2009(oMgRES}  "  

BETWEEN:

S.Krish11appa,

S / o Subbaiah.

Aged 56 years _

Working as Inspector   _

KSRTC. R/at No.4511~  t

See/tha Nilaya, "

St.Mary's Roado"  .  .  .  *
N.R.Moha11a,       '-7*-.....f...PET1TI0NER

(Sri T  Advs.)

AND:

 1.  TahRsndar~;roT TTTTT 
" ._1\/Eysor}: '_I"a1.uk, Mysore.

_t:5 

.  "RéVxo11.Ai:1ca:-'Inspecttor,
A Si'irangap_a*tna T aluk,
Srirangapatna.

. he Vrllage Accountant,
. _Né_«g'uvanaha11i Circle,

 Srirangapatna, Taluk.

 Mysore Taiuk.



Id

4. N.R.l~1onneg0wda.
S / 0 Late Ramegowda,
Naguvanahalli Village,
Srirangapatna Taluk,
Mandya Dsitrict. ...RESPONDEN'I' S

[Sri Narendra Prasad. HCGP for R1 to R3; Sri 
Adv. for R4]  < 0'  "

This writ petition is filed under Articles ?.2"Zu 
of the Constitution of India praying topqLlashl'Arinex:;re'--:F '
the re~auCtion notice dated 27.012.20.09}issijedaby'the.,.l?*'
respondent and also AnneXure~G "the--.aiictionp pr_oceedin'gs_

dated 30.07.2009 Conducted-.___by the’ W eI’éSponde_l;1tVlir_1le.
favour of the fourth resporldentin respect-.ofv_;l.lO3lacres of
land in Sy.No.28 of Naguvanahalli Village. and acres of
land in Sy.No.l76/ 1′ Kallasta’va’d–;. Village in Mysore
Taluk. ‘_

for preliminary hearing
in ‘B’ Gzvroupithis day. the,_Court made the following:

E R

ffhe ternplefirr” qz,i’estion Sri Rama Devaru Temple

fiat. is the family deity of the petitioner

has well respondent. The temple owns 1 acre 3

_ guntas of in Sy.No.28 of Naguvanahalli Village and 2

in” “Sy.No.176/ l of Kalastavadi Village of Mysore

.l The income derived from the said lands is being

” “used for the maintenance of the temple. It appears, there

(Zia

-3
‘3

was a family dispute and a suit. was filed in O.S.No.53/93
wherein declaration is granted that the said temple in
question owns the lands which are subject the
present. proceedings. It appears. the
appeal before this Court. in RFA 680/Q2…lVai:1d:

appeal was dismissed confirmir1g:=.the:-jiidgltnerit”–and’-eleerele

passed by the trial Court. It*is.__riot dispui_’e’l’l’§tV}p:1.§;tp said’ ;

land is sought to be auctilonvedu betfween the family
members and the incoine deriv2,jed. is to be used for

the maintenance of,”the-.11″te’mple…V;;.’Fieeording to the

petitioivierllthefgdateioi’_:a’eieti.0n.llVii}as fixed on 27.07.2009 at
11.00 a’..ml. in first respondent. whereas it
ought to ha4vle_be’e.nl’in” frent of the temple. He reiies on a

Panehanama ‘or__pll\/Eahazar stated to have been drawn by

.°thel”e’~\l/.i1i.age’i’Accountant. t.o buttress his contention that

was supposed to take place only in the

terriple ,___pi*erriises. T he ease of the petitioner is that the

fifourth’ respondent was the highest bidder for Rs.33,O00/M

w~lfand”‘th.e land has been leased in his favour for cultivationg

r’

,/../’

4

for a period of one year commencing from 1*” A1..1gU.St 2009
till 31*’ July 2010. The main contention of the petitioner
is that when it was notified that the auction will in
front. of the temple. the same could not
the office of the respondent. No. 1. lflence_.«
before this Court questioning theI’fiaid’l:lLj1f1(fti§).i;i.,l 4′ l V l

2. Mr.KaruInbaiah.

the petitioner submitszand rcnlction was
not held in the held in the office
of the l,eSp0nde_na.£V_%N0.:1′; Annexure–D to

support his h –. ‘

learned HCGP for the State

‘lV’=.sub.rfiits-..At.l1.at Aniie:s:u’re–D cannot. be pressed into service

_f(5.r_the:”=rea§on’that it is only a Mahazar stated to have

the Village Accountant indicating that the

V”‘»au<:tion__fwould take place in front of the temple. But

l' -howe've1*. he would refer to Annexure~C wherein it is stated i

K

./.5.

5
that the auction would be held in the office of the. first

respondent.

4. Learned cousnel for the fourth responodent
supports the action of the first respondent. ‘ 0 V’ 0 ‘V

5. I have perused the papers.

income which is derived from
be used for the maintena11ce-of
bone of contention is as addiction was
supposed to take place’«-.e:i’the0i’p in pielniises or in

the office of V Insofar as Annexure~D is
concerned. “a rea,ding. lof-.._ii’1e”‘same would indicate that the

action -was iéLi.p”p()S1€Cl.lV’i,()..ll;,&1k€ place on 27.07.2009 in the

‘temple But however, no credence can be given

to ‘the document. inasmuch as. it is only a Mahazar

dravvri V.__”by’-ufthe Village Accountant and the Revenue

sinspectvor. What: is material is Annexure~C. an official

docunient dated 14.07.2009 indicating that the auction

“Will take place in the office of the first respondent. The

I/i

/K’

(7
said auction notice is coupled with the conditions of the

auetion. The petitioner at this point of time cannot. be
heard to say that the auction could not have taken place

in the office of the first respondent. Indeed, a of

A11I1€XuI’€”F discloses that the scheduled

27.07.2009 was postponed to 30o.07.o2009″ioi-£ho”ori’;toovr.or.

the first respondent. Indeed tlie :l_fotii’t:l1

respondent other family melrr-ihe.1fs also.__ pa1fti«oip:f1t.’ed in the V

said auction. The -fotirth Vresppondent. the highest
bidder at Rs.33.000/-ll iodood; ‘the other family

members inlthe said auction, it is not
open the pe–tit’io:ne”1~t;o—.e:o.nt.end that he was not notified

and the a1ti;£:t,io’n did..not take place amongst the family

inem-bei”s. The”-Vsvgtfiieqtieiit. eveiits do indicate that the

autztionl hasf”–t.Vake11 place and the other family members

Ahave Indeed, it is only the petitioner who is

que_stioni11lg*-pethe auction process. {9

‘X,

I