Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1128 (KAR)

T. K. Rangappa v. Masjid-E-Bazar Trust, Tarikere

2015-09-26

A.S.BOPANNA

body2015
ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court, assailing the order dated 10-3-2015 passed in M.A. No. 8 of 2015, whereby the order dated 22-9-2014 passed by the Competent Officer in Proceedings No. PP/99/CMR/2010 has been affirmed. The respondents initiated action against the petitioners to evict them from the property in question under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 ('Act' for short). The respondents, in that regard, contended that the property bearing Survey No. 187 of Machanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tarikere Taluk, Chickmagalore District is a Wakf property belonging to the first respondent. In that regard, it is contended that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the said property and are liable to be evicted. At the first instance, though the Competent Authority had passed an order of eviction, the lower Appellate Judge had taken note of the fact that there was no determination of the tenancy and therefore, the petitioners cannot be construed as unauthorised occupants for the purpose of evicting them. 2. The first respondent-Trust had therefore, preferred Writ Petition No. 12596 of 2005 before this Court, which was disposed of on 7-3-2008. This Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, did not find it necessary to interfere with the judgment passed in M.A. No. 9 of 2003, but however, reserved liberty to determine the tenancy and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. It is thereafter, the tenancy has been determined and the proceedings have been initiated in that regard. The Competent Authority, after taking note of the rival contentions, has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners are liable to be evicted from the said property. Petitioners, claiming to be aggrieved, were before the lower Appellate Court in M.A. No. 8 of 2014. The lower Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment dated 10-3-2015 has upheld the order passed by the Competent Authority. The petitioners, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved, are before tCourt. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the judgment would contend that the Competent Authority as well as the lower Appellate Judge were not justified in their conclusion. It is the case of the learned Counsel that the Competent Authority has arrived at wrong conclusion that the property in question is shown as Wakf property at Serial No. 70 and in that light, has arrived at an erroneous conclusion. It is the case of the learned Counsel that the Competent Authority has arrived at wrong conclusion that the property in question is shown as Wakf property at Serial No. 70 and in that light, has arrived at an erroneous conclusion. It is further contended that the lower Appellate Court was also not justified in that regard and when the first respondent has not established that the property is Wakf property, the question of initiating of proceedings under the 'Act' to evict the petitioners there from does not arise. It is contended that the petitioners are in occupation of the Government property which has been notified as Wakf property and therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the Competent Authority and the lower Appellate Judge is not correct. Even otherwise, it is their case that the proceedings before the Competent Authority was not justified in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Mirza Sajjad Hussain v. Bay an Bai Wakf Laws, (KAR)-2014-2-36 (DB). 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent 1, while seeking to sustain the orders passed by the Competent Authority as well as the lower Appellate Judge, would contend that the Competent Authority as well as the lower Appellate Judge have taken into consideration that the property has been notified as Wakf property and in that regard, there is a sufficient evidence in the form of notification, which is available on record. It is further contended that the present proceedings is a second round of proceedings after the matter had been remitted by this Court and in the first round of the proceedings, such contention was not raised by the petitioners. Hence, the contentions urged to that effect at this stage by the petitioners cannot be accepted. 5. In the light of the above contentions, firstly, what is necessary to be noted is that, even though the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, relied upon by the petitioners is to be taken into consideration, what is to be take note is that the instant proceedings had been initiated much earlier. Furthermore, at the first instance, this Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 12596 of 2005 had reserved the liberty for determining the tenancy and thereafter to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Furthermore, at the first instance, this Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 12596 of 2005 had reserved the liberty for determining the tenancy and thereafter to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. If that be the position, the proceedings initiated before the same Competent Authority was in view of the leave that has been granted earlier by this Court. 6. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that the property in question is not Wakf property, both the Competent Authority as well as the lower Appellate Judge has referred to the Gazette notification and have come to the conclusion that the property in question is a Wakf property. Even otherwise, what is necessary to be take into consideration is that the petitioners who had filed their objections before the Competent Authority had essentially contended that the determination of tenancy was not justified and that the petitioners cannot be construed as unauthorised occupants, since the contention of the petitioners is that they were ready to pay the rent which was not accepted by the authorities of the first respondent. If, in that light, the earlier round of proceedings between the parties is taken into consideration, this Court in W.P. No. 12596 of 2005 while disposing of on 7-3-2008 had only indicated that the lower Appellate Judge, at that point of time, was justified in setting aside the order of the Competent Authority on the ground that the tenancy had not been determined. If that be the position, the nature of the property, the property being notified as Wakf property of the first respondent and the Competent Authority as well as the lower Appellate Judge having concluded to that extent to hold that the property in question is a Wakf property stood. The fact that the petitioners were treated as unauthorised occupants in respect of the said property had not been accepted at that juncture, since the tenancy was not determined in accordance with law, before initiating the proceedings for eviction and there was dispute to the property being Wakf property or the petitioners being tenants therein. Hence, it would be to too late in the day for the petitioners to contend that the property in question is not a Wakf property. Hence, it would be to too late in the day for the petitioners to contend that the property in question is not a Wakf property. Be that as it may, a perusal of the proceedings before the Competent Authority and more particularly the consideration made by the lower Appellate Judge would indicate that the notification has been referred to and in that light, having taken note of the fact that the property is clearly indicated in the notification, both the Competent Authority and the lower Appellate Judge have arrived at the conclusion that the property being a Wakf property, the petitioners were unauthorised occupants therein. Therefore, in a matter of the present nature where eviction of the petitioners under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 is taken into consideration, the impugned orders do not call for interference. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as being devoid of merits. In view of the disposal of the main petition, IA No. 1 of 2015 for injunction does not survive for consideration.