Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 279 (KAR)

KODANDA RAMASWAMY DEITY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2007-04-17

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2007
ORDER Writ petition by the parupattegar of Sri Kodandaramaswamy Deity, located at Kengal Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Vandaraguppe Village, Channapatna Taluk, questioning the legality of the order dated 28-4-2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District in No. LRF INM 21/2004-05 (copy at Annexure-Q to the writ petition), conferring occupancy rights in favour of sixth respondent in respect of house property bearing municipal No. 1183 and attached shop No. 1184, located within the municipal limits of Channapatna Town being owned by the petitioner-temple, on an application filed by the sixth respondent under the provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act.). 2. It is, inter alia, contended by the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner has virtually ignored the evidence on record that the property was not an agricultural property; that the sixth respondent admittedly the tenant of the property owned by the temple and paying rent could have never invoked the provisions of the Act; that the property in question was not even an inam in favour of the petitioner temple and therefore the order is one without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 3. This matter was heard in part earlier and on noticing the controversy involved in the writ petition and the question arose, an order as under has been passed on 5-4-2007.- Basic question in this writ petition is as to whether the provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, was applicable at all to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. 2. Though it is contended by Sri Suresh S. Lokre, learned Counsel for the 6th respondent that in earlier proceedings there was a finding to the effect that the temple is having some inam lands. Question is one as to whether the precise property a house bearing No. 1183 and a shop premises bearing No. 1844 located in the Town Municipal Limits of Channapatna Taluk was an inam in favour of the Kodandarama Swamy Temple. It is the submission of Sri S.S. Lokre that in terms of an order dated 21-11-1986 passed by the Land Tribunal, Channapatna in No. LRA.IANA. 1.82-83 it has been held so. 3. It is not known as to whether this order has survived the scrutiny of time and writ petitions and it is rather doubtful as to whether the property in question was an inam at all. 1.82-83 it has been held so. 3. It is not known as to whether this order has survived the scrutiny of time and writ petitions and it is rather doubtful as to whether the property in question was an inam at all. If the property was not an inam in favour of Kodandarama Swamy Temple then no proceedings whether under Section 7(4) or any other provision of the Act could have been initiated either by the respondent 6 or any other person. The order is basically one without jurisdiction as the provisions of the Act itself is not applicable, if the property in question was not even an inam in favour of the Temple. On the other hand it is the version of the writ petitioner that the property was gifted in favour of the Temple even prior to 1931 by a disciple of the deity one by name Chikkegowda S/o. Venkategowda. 4. Though, on this ground alone, writ petition deserves to be dismissed, as Sri Suresh S. Lokre, learned Counsel for the 6th respondent seeks some time to make submissions on this aspect, list for further hearing on 12-4-2007. 4. The matter is taken up for further hearing. I have perused the records and heard the learned Counsel for the appearing parties. 5. It can be noticed from the order of the Deputy Commissioner that as many as six persons were competing to get the property in question, which undisputedly belongs to the petitioner-temple. 6. The Deputy Commissioner while rejected the claims of other persons, proceeded to confer occupancy rights in favour of the sixth respondent for the reason that the sixth respondent was found to be in possession and occupation of the subject properties and was paying rents to the temple and was also remitting municipal taxes to the municipality. It was also noticed that the predecessors of the sixth respondent had got into possession of this property in terms of the lease deed dated 4-2-1931 and had all along continued to be in possession as lessees and had been paying rent and the sixth respondent being the successor had continued to be in possession and had become a lessee of the petitioner-temple. 7. The property admittedly is an immovable house property and shop and the land appurtenant to this property. 8. 7. The property admittedly is an immovable house property and shop and the land appurtenant to this property. 8. The overwhelming evidence on record clearly indicated that the subject properties were in the ownership of the temple, having been gifted in favour of the deity by a devotee in terms of the gift deed of the year 1931. The property thereafter had become the property of the temple and was never an inam in favour of the temple. If the property is in the ownership of the petitioner-temple and not an inam property, the provisions of the Act do not apply nor can any person invoke the provisions of the Act for grant of occupancy rights in his/her favour. 9. It is not in dispute that the sixth respondent is in possession and occupation of the property, but that does not mean any person in occupation (of a property) can file an application under the provisions of the Act seeking for conferment of occupancy rights in his favour. The very Act being not applicable to the property in question and the Deputy Commissioner notwithstanding such situation having proceeded to confer occupancy rights on an application filed by the sixth respondent under the provisions of the Act, the impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction and illegal and not sustainable and it is accordingly quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. It is made clear that it is open to the petitioner-temple to take such action as is available in law, if it is so advised, to seek eviction of the sixth respondent from the property in question, but this order does not ipso facto be construed as dispossessing the sixth respondent from the property in question. As the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is quashed, any interim orders granted by the Deputy Commissioner staying any other proceedings under any other provisions of law, stands vacated and it is open for the petitioner to pursue those proceedings in accordance with law. 10. With the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute.