Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 64 (KAR)

Rathanamma v. R. Jayaram

2000-01-20

V.GOPALA GOWDA, Y.BHASKAR RAO

body2000
ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition in the nature of public interest litigation pointing out the alleged indifference shown by the first Respondent-Corporation of City of Bangalore, (hereinafter called as the Corporation), fourth Respondent and fifth Respondent with regard to the transfer of katha in the Property Register maintained by the first Respondent-Corporation in respect of the Temple property in the name of individuals. Hence the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuing a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the sixth Respondent herein to investigate the alleged scam of sale brought about by Mr. Hari, Mr. Gopi, Mr. Jayaram, Mrs. Saraswathamma, Mr. Narayanappa, Mr. Raja Reddy in favour of Mr. B.A. Nagaraj, Mr. Ravi Prasad, Mr. Srinivasa Gupta and further direct an enquiry into the aspects that enabled in bringing about change of official records, Registers in the Office of Corporation of City of Bangalore leading to transfer of Khatha, issue of sanctioned plan in respect of the property on 67, (Old No. 109) S.C. Road, Bangalore - 560 009 and further to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to restore the property as the property of the public trust and further sought for such other appropriate reliefs urging various facts and legal contentions. 2. It is stated that the Petitioner is the daughter of one Shri R. Ramanna who was a sole legatee of Smt. Lakshmamma, W/o. P. Subbaiah. The said Sri Subbaiah was the sole surviving heir of Mariyappa Maistry. The said Mariyappa Maistry had constructed a choultry and a temple of Lord Shiva on the land measuring 11/2 acres in Subedar Chatram Road. The said Choultry was known as "Maistry Mariyappa Choultry". and later came to be known as "Gate Muniswamappa Choultry". This Choultry situated in prime area of Bangalore City, near Majestic area, comprise in its fold a temple dedicated to Lord Eshwara. The income derived by way of rents from the Tenants in the said Choultry was utilised for upkeep, maintenance, pooja, seva Kainkarya and other religious activities related to the worship of lord Eshwara. It is contended that Smt. Lakshmamma was the sole surviving family member of Maistry Mariyappa who had dedicated the entire property i.e., the choultry as a Religious or Public Trust to develop and maintain the lord Eshwara Temple. It is contended that Smt. Lakshmamma was the sole surviving family member of Maistry Mariyappa who had dedicated the entire property i.e., the choultry as a Religious or Public Trust to develop and maintain the lord Eshwara Temple. The said Lakshmamma executed the sale deed in favour of Mr. R. Ramanna giving him after her, the reigns of the Temple and the right to manage the choultry and the property including the rights to recover rents from the tenants, to fix the rate of rents without conceding any right in favour of the said Mr. R. Ramanna, to alienate the property in part or whole. It is stated that after the demise of Smt. Lakshmamma, the legatee R. Ramanna, faithfully gave effect to the Will and administered the same by securing as the Manager of Trust and property till his last day. The said Ramanna, passed away on 25.7.1997 leaving behind him, his sons and daughters. The eldest daughter is the Petitioner. It is further contended that while Ramanna himself did not have any right to alienate the property of the choultry or in any way encumber the same, his children also did not have any right over the property. The property of the choultry was managed by the said R. Ramanna not as an Owner but as a Trustee. It is further stated that normally on the death of Ramanna, the Trust property had to be managed pursuant to the scheme framed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under directions of the Religious Endowment Commissioner. 3. It is contended that one Mr. R. Jayaram the brother of the Petitioner and one of the sons of R. Ramanna along with Mr. Gopi, S/o. M. Narayanappa, Smt. Saraswathamma, W/o. Late Govindappa, Mr. Hari, Mr. Raja Reddy, S/o. G. Shiva Reddy who claim to be the tenants in a portion of the Trust property appears to have created bogus documents such as Title Deeds, Katha in respect of the Trust property namely Choultry and got its katha transferred to the name of Smt. Saraswathamma and Mr. Narayanappa by active collusion with the officials of Bangalore City Corporation and have even sold the said property in favour of M/s. Srinivasa Guptha, S/o. Ashwathnarayana Guptha, Mr. B.A. Nagaraj, S/o. Aswathanarayana Guptha, Mr. Ravi Prasad, who were all residing at No. 16, Vanivilasa Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore - 560 004. 4. Narayanappa by active collusion with the officials of Bangalore City Corporation and have even sold the said property in favour of M/s. Srinivasa Guptha, S/o. Ashwathnarayana Guptha, Mr. B.A. Nagaraj, S/o. Aswathanarayana Guptha, Mr. Ravi Prasad, who were all residing at No. 16, Vanivilasa Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore - 560 004. 4. It is contended by the Petitioner that the area of the Gate Muniswamappa Choultry is about 1 acre 30 guntas which is bounded at the West by Ayurveda College Hospital, East by Road, North by Sandhya Lodge, and South by Road. The market value per Sq. Ft. in that area is Rs. 11,000/- while the minimum rate for registration purposes is Rs. 8,000/- per Sq. foot. The total area is about 72,250 Sq. Ft. The value is about Rs. 82,77,50,000/-. It is further contended that on the basis of the fabricated documents, several persons including political heavy weights, Administrative Officers, Corporation Officers and Officials, Estate Dealers in Bangalore have managed to sell the wholly inalienable property and registered three deeds for a total sum of Rs. 13,00,00,000/- while the actual consideration was Rs. 82,77,50,000/-. The real amount paid under the three sale deeds is Rs. 52,00,00,000/-. 5. The Petitioner further contends that the various purchasers referred to above have got the khatha of the property transferred to their names and have sought for sanction of the plan for construction of multi dimensioned super structure on the land from the Respondent-Corporation in whose register the entries pursuant to the property in question was shown as belonging to the public trust. Now it is been shown as private property. It is further contended that though the area in question has been sold by fabricated documents, the temple situated in the said property has not been demolished. It is further alleged that the Petitioner has been complaining about the misdeeds and unlawful acts adopted by her brother and his cotarie, backed up by officials of the Government of Karnataka and officials of the Corporation and backed up by the purchasers has brought to the notice of the then Chief Minister, the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore and various dignitaries requesting them to take action against squandering of the public property and the racket of making money and to prevent swallowing of the public property by private individuals, which complaint had no effect. A copy of the complaint submitted by the Petitioner against persons named at Sl. No. 1 to 8 in the complaint is produced at Annexure-A. Even though the complaint was delivered personally to them, as well as through registered post, no action had been taken by the officials. 6. Further, it is alleged that the Petitioner has made written demand on 24.12.1997 to the Chief Secretary, Religious endowment Commissioner, Commissioner of Police, Commissioner for Bangalore City Corporation and several other dignitaries named as endorsees of the complaint at Annexure-A and she has clearly demanded for taking action against all the concerned persons, by furnishing all the necessary particulars including the Sale Deeds. The addressees of the complaint have, not even acknowledged its receipt. It is further alleged that the Petitioner called on the Police Commissioner and the above said officers along with her Advocate explaining the urgency of the matter impressing on them the need to save public property and prevent misuse by forged public documents under private persons claiming public property as their private assets. It is alleged that there is a big scam where crores of rupees have changed hands passing through the fingers of willing officials to create non-existing Title Deeds for converting public property as private assets. It is alleged that the dimension of scam or depth and height of corruption or involvement of political heavy weights are matters for which a neat and tidy investigation is required through an outside agency so that the culprits could be exposed and property could be saved for the benefit of public. 7. It is contended that the real issue required to be investigated is whether Gate Muniswamappa Choultry or Maistry Mariyappa Choultry is or is not a Trust or public property capable of being alienated by individuals has been decided by the decree of the Hon'ble Civil Court in O.S. No. 587 of 1893 which was confirmed by the Chief Court of Mysore in appeals 152 and 153 of 1894-95, vide the documents produced at Annexures B, C and D. 8. Despite the Petitioner producing the said documents, all the Officials to whom complaints had been given have failed to take any action. They had even failed to take notice of the binding decisions of Civil Court and Chief Court of Mysore. Despite the Petitioner producing the said documents, all the Officials to whom complaints had been given have failed to take any action. They had even failed to take notice of the binding decisions of Civil Court and Chief Court of Mysore. It is further alleged that in the Land Acquisition proceedings, this Court has held the property as the Trust property and that there cannot be any claim by private persons in respect of acquisition of a part of the property for construction of Ayurveda College Hospital. 9. It is alleged that the money-power and the muscle-power behind the whole transaction has eliminated an enquiry inspite of several complaints filed ending with Annexure-A. It is the firm belief of the Petitioner that there is no chance of the Government authorities taking notice of the complaint, as the building plan is sanctioned. Therefore the equity would be altered making the position irreversible. Therefore, it is contended that the only remedy available to the Petitioner is to approach this Court for preventing the abuse of the public machinery and to save the trust property and not to allow the conversion of the said property into private assets. Therefore the Petitioner has sought for an investigation into the complaint and had prayed for impartial investigation into the matter by an independent agency by filing this Writ Petition. Hence this Petition is filed urging various legal grounds. 10. The fourth Respondent, the State Government has filed its Statement of Objections vehemently opposing the prayer sought for by the Petitioner and further contended that the Writ petition is devoid of merits and not maintainable in law and therefore submitted that the same is liable to be rejected. Further the petition averments in para 1 that the Respondents 1, 4 and 5 have not shown any interest is denied by them at Paragraph-3. In so far as the allegations made at Paragraph 2 of the petition, it is stated that they are aware of it and it is also not aware of the Will referred to in the petition. Further they have stated that, at Paragraph 7 of the judgment dated 31.8.1962 passed by the Hon'ble District Judge, Bangalore District in Civil Appeal Miscellaneous No. 92 of 1954 that the back of the property being a public trust was decided long back in Regular Appeal Nos. Further they have stated that, at Paragraph 7 of the judgment dated 31.8.1962 passed by the Hon'ble District Judge, Bangalore District in Civil Appeal Miscellaneous No. 92 of 1954 that the back of the property being a public trust was decided long back in Regular Appeal Nos. 153 and 154 of 1894-95 on the file of the High Court and the same was subsequently noticed in O.S. No. 33 of 1930-31. Reference is made at Para 15 of the said judgment wherein it is observed that when it is proved that the Chatram was a public trust, then Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked for getting a scheme settled. Therefore the Petitioner has an efficacious remedy under Section 92 Code of Civil Procedure for getting a Scheme settled. Without availing alternative remedy, the Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court seeking to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and various other allegations at Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied and further with reference to the written demand dated 24.12.1997 made by the Petitioner addressed to the Chief Secretary and other officers referred to at Paragraph 6, it is said that the complaint is not received by the fourth Respondent. It is not known to the Respondents whether it was sent by registered post or otherwise and he has denied that the written demand was made as per Annexure-A. It is further denied that the Petitioner and her Advocate called on Respondent 4 at any time. Therefore it is contended that the question of taking action by the Chief Secretary of the Karnataka State Government without receiving any complaint from the Petitioner as contended by her does not arise. Therefore it is prayed that the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. 11. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation contended that Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act of 1976 enables the Counsel of the Corporation either suo-motu or on receipt of representation in that regard take action with regard to the change of entries made in the Katha Register in favour of the persons. If such a petition is filed, the same would be examined and appropriate orders will be passed by the Corporation. If such a petition is filed, the same would be examined and appropriate orders will be passed by the Corporation. Therefore the learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that the Writ Petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Petitioner to file an application to change the katha made in favour of the kathadars by reviewing the order passed by the Competent authority. 12. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the Respondents 2 to 6 and the learned Counsel on behalf of the Corporation and after perusing the petition averments and the documents produced by the Petitioner and also the statement of counter filed on behalf of the Respondents 4 to 6 and after considering the submissions made by the respective Counsels, this Court proceeds to pass the following order. 13. The 4th Respondent has filed the Statement of Objections referring to the various judgments and decrees rendered by the District Judge, Bangalore in Civil Appeal Miscellaneous No. 92 of 1954 stating that the property was being decided as the public trust and also in Regular Appeal Nos. 153 and 154 of 1894-95, it had been decided long back on the file of the High Court and the same had been subsequently noticed in O.S. No. 33 of 1930-31, wherein it is observed and proved that the Chatram was a public trust, then the Petitioner can invoke Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for getting a Scheme settled. Therefore it is stated that the Writ petition has got an efficacious remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure for getting a scheme settled. Without availing the said relief, the Petitioner cannot invoke the extra-ordinary and discretionary relief at the hands of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore it is stated that the Writ petition has got an efficacious remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure for getting a scheme settled. Without availing the said relief, the Petitioner cannot invoke the extra-ordinary and discretionary relief at the hands of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of these admitted facts and also in view of the allegations made in the Writ Petition with regard to the nature of the property and the allegations made regarding the alienation of the said property by the persons who have no ownership right or title to the property in question and the further allegation that some persons are behind in fabricating documents and selling the properties in favour of the persons whose names are mentioned in the writ petition and serious allegations against various persons namely officers, politicians and other persons have been made and further it is the grievance of the Petitioner that copy of the complaint has been given to the persons mentioned therein both by Registered Post acknowledgment due and personally to them, but they have not taken any action on such complaint. Therefore it would be proper and appropriate for this Court in the interest of public to direct the C.O.D. of Karnataka State to register the complaint of the Petitioner at Annexure-A and to conduct investigation by an officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police and submit the report to the Jurisdictional Magistrate as expeditiously as possible in the interest of justice. 14. With the above said observations, the Writ petitions are disposed of. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward this copy to the C.O.D. to comply with the directions of this order.