Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1275 (KAR)

Shivayogeshwara v. Kennametal India Ltd.

2013-11-06

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2013
ORDER : Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. Heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. It is stated that Sri. Ramalingeshwara Mutt, Harnahalli, Shimoga District was established in the year 1492 by the Kings of Keladi Samsthana and they had endowed several properties located in several Districts of Karnataka to the Mutt. The Mutt has been administered by Mathadhipathis. The details of the properties endowed were mentioned in the joint inspection report conducted by the Deputy Commissioner and the Revenue Commissioner, Bangalore as early as in the year 1910. The petitioner namely, one Shri. Shivayogeshwara Shivacharya Mahaswamigalu claims to be the Mathadhipathi and Sarvadhikari of the said Mutt. It is the claim of the petitioner that he had been recognized as the Mathadhipathi by the State Government as early as in the year 1996. However, the said order was sought to be withdrawn by the State Government in the year 2003 which was the subject-matter of challenge a writ petition in WP No. 41918/2003 and it further transpires that on 22.12.2004 the State Government appointed the fifth respondent, one Sri. Chandra Mouleshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu as Mathadhipathi, which again was challenged by another writ petition in WP No. 9307/2005. Both the writ petitions were allowed by a common Order dated 2.3.2009, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-E. It is further stated that one Sri. Channaveera Shivacharya Swamigalu had filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 559/2001 seeking a declaration as to his alleged status as the Mathadhipathi and that came to be dismissed on merits as on 21.4.2007, wherein the present petitioner had participated and there was a further suit in O.S. No. 17/1996 filed by one Channappa and others, wherein the petitioner is stated to have been recognized as Mathadhipathi. 2. Therefore, it is contended that there are valuable properties which were endowed to the Mutt and which were the subject-matter of acquisition for the Metro rail project in course of time and that there is huge amount of compensation of 5.56 Crore which is awarded by the State in favour of the land owner. There are rival claims to the compensation in deposit. There are rival claims to the compensation in deposit. There is a claim on behalf of the Mutt of which the petitioner claims to be the Mathadhipathi, as well as by respondent No. 1, who is stated to have purchased the land in the year 1965. The proceedings are pending before the Special Land Acquisition Officer as regards disbursement of compensation. It further transpires that the present petitioner had not participated in those proceedings as representing the Mutt. However, certain other people have also claimed themselves as Mathadhipathis and are participating through counsel in a laconic manner as evident from the order-sheet of those proceedings, produced before this Court and there is also suspicion of those persons having colluded with the first respondent and therefore, the interest of the Mutt is seriously jeopardized. 3. The respondent No. 1, who claims to have purchased the land in question in the year 1965 and therefore, seeking to claim compensation as the rightful owner, has challenged the decision on reference in WP No. 23045/2012 and in the said writ petition, the present petitioner had filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 seeking to implead himself as a party respondent, which application was allowed and the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 18.3.2013 directing the authority to expedite the reference within an outer limit of six months and incidentally observed that the present petitioner is also permitted to participate therein. The petitioner, having appeared before the Court, had sought to file an application, to formally bring himself on record. Notwithstanding the direction issued by this Court, the Reference Court has rejected the application while referring to several judgments which have laid down the law that, a party who has not filed any objection before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, is not enabled to appear before the Reference Court and seek to implead himself as a party, which is indeed the settled position of law. Therefore, notwithstanding the direction issued by this Court that the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the proceedings, the decision of the Reference Court cannot be faulted. It is on the rejection of the petitioner's application to participate before the Reference Court that the present writ petition is filed. 4. Therefore, notwithstanding the direction issued by this Court that the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the proceedings, the decision of the Reference Court cannot be faulted. It is on the rejection of the petitioner's application to participate before the Reference Court that the present writ petition is filed. 4. The learned Senior Advocate Shri. Padmanabha Mahale would urge that it is not in dispute that there are several persons who are claiming the Mathadhipathiship of the concerned Mutt and it is also candidly admitted that the present petitioner did not take appropriate steps, at the earliest, in seeking to participate in the proceedings. It is for that reason that this Court had permitted the petitioner, after addressing the bona fides of the petitioner, to participate in the proceedings before the Reference Court. Having regard to the substantial amount of money which is involved and which rightfully belongs to the Mutt as an Institution, individual seeking to set up a claim as the Mathadhipathi and apparently seeking to make illegal gain for personal benefit, would result in a gross miscarriage of justice and it is therefore, necessary to permit the present petitioner who has been recognized as the Mathadhipathi, as evident from various documents and with reference to the various circumstances as evident from the material on record that he is the original Mathadhipathi and would be enabled to protect the interest of the Mutt. Therefore, seeks indulgence of this Court to permit the petitioner to participate in the proceedings before the Reference Court. 5. While the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 would submit that the proceedings have been inordinately delayed on account of the several persons who are setting up false claims albeit in the name of the Mutt and it is the least concern of the first respondent, whether the petitioner is indeed the lawful and true Mathadhipathi. Since there are already persons representing the Mutt, it is for the petitioner to establish his claim elsewhere and the Reference Court cannot be the forum where such a right and claim can be agitated and any such situation would lead to further procrastination at the risk and cost of the first respondent. 6. Since there are already persons representing the Mutt, it is for the petitioner to establish his claim elsewhere and the Reference Court cannot be the forum where such a right and claim can be agitated and any such situation would lead to further procrastination at the risk and cost of the first respondent. 6. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the claim which is set up by the petitioner and notwithstanding an earlier direction by this Court, as rightly held by the Reference Court, the settled legal position is otherwise and the petitioner cannot be enabled to participate in the proceedings if he was admittedly not a party before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, there cannot be any concession made in favour of the petitioner in so far as the legal position is concerned. The remedy available to the petitioner is elsewhere and not by recourse to participate before the Reference Court, which the law does not contemplate. Having regard to these rival contentions, it cannot be denied that the legal position does not enable the present petitioner to implead himself before the Reference Court if he was indeed not a party before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner has other remedies, which would also enable the petitioner to safeguard the interest of the Mutt notwithstanding that the petitioner is not in a position to implead himself before the Reference Court. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to protect the interest of the Mutt by recourse to such other remedies which are available to him in law.