Karnataka High Court
Sarvamangala Kala vs The Deputy Commissioner on 8 February, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5447
WP No. 26858 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.26858 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SARVAMANGALA KALA
MANTAPA SAMITHI (REGD)
A CHARITABLE TRUST,
SHIVALLI VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK & DIST-576101
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY MS.GAYATHIR UPADHYA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANMOHAN P N (NOC), ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed by
KRISHNAPPA LAXMI UDUPI DISTRICT,
YASHODA UDUPI-576101
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
UDUPI SUB DIVISION
UDUPI-576101
3. THE TAHSILDAR
UDUPI TALUK
UDUPI-576101
4. K.SHREESHA UPADHYA
SECRETARY,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5447
WP No. 26858 of 2016
SRI KSHETRA KADIYALI
HITA RAKSHANA SAMITHI
KUNJIBETTU, UDUPI-576101
5. THE PRESIDENT
MANAGING COMMITTEE,
SRI MAHISHAMARDINI TEMPLE
KADIYALI, UDUPI-576101
6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
SRI MAHISHAMARDINI TEMPLE
KADIYALI, UDUPI-576101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. HAREESH BHANDAY T., ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5
SRI. S.K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD.26.2.2016 PASSED BY THE R-3 AND THE ORDER
PASSED DTD.30.3.2015 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEX-A &
B RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner, a charitable Trust is aggrieved of the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B passed by the Tahasildar, Udupi Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District, respectively.-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:5447 WP No. 26858 of 2016
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner Trust acquired the land in question measuring 22 cents in Sy.No.128/41 and ½ cents in Sy.No.128/42, situated at Shivalli Village, Udupi Taluk under a registered Sale Deed dated 27.11.1972. The revenue records have been mutated in the name of the petitioner Trust. However, at the instance of the 4th respondent, who claims to be the Secretary of Sri Kshetra Kadiyali Hita Rakshana Samithi, proceedings were initiated under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 challenging the mutation entries made in the land records in favour of the petitioner Trust. It is the contention of the 4th respondent that the land though purchased in the name of the petitioner Trust, it was for the benefit of Sri Mahishamardini Temple, Kadiyali, which is represented by respondents No.5 and 6.
3. The Assistant Commissioner had initially directed an enquiry to find out whether the land was purchased in violation of the provisions contained in -4- NC: 2024:KHC:5447 WP No. 26858 of 2016 Sections 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. In fact Annexure-B is also an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner formulating similar issues as to whether the land was purchased in contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and whether revenue entries could be continued in the name of the petitioner Trust. Consequent to the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 26.02.2016 was passed by the Tahasildar, Udupi Taluk. The Tahasildar directed that since there is violation of the provisions contained in Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the name of the petitioner Trust should be removed from the revenue records and it should be restored as it was prior to the acquisition of the land at the hands of the petitioner Trust.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after the orders were passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 30.03.2015, the petitioner Trust filed a -5- NC: 2024:KHC:5447 WP No. 26858 of 2016 review petition before the Deputy Commissioner and when the same was pending consideration, the Tahasildar passed the impugned order on 26.02.2016.
5. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent would however submit that the petitioner Trust has also challenged the impugned order passed by the Tahasildar by filing an appeal under Section 136(2) before the Assistant Commissioner, Udupi Sub-division.
6. Today, the learned counsel for the respondents No.5 and 6 has filed a memo dated 08.02.2024 along with an affidavit of the 5th respondent - President of the Committee of management of Sri Mahishamardini Temple, stating that respondents No.5 and 6 have settled the matter out of Court and respondents No.5 and 6 have no objection to allow the writ petition.
7. Having regard to the facts narrated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that primarily the Deputy Commissioner could not have directed the Tahasildar to consider whether the acquisition of property -6- NC: 2024:KHC:5447 WP No. 26858 of 2016 at the hands of the petitioner Trust was in violation of the provisions contained in Sections 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The proceedings were initially initiated at the hands of the 4th respondent while invoking Section 136 of the Act, 1964, questioning the revenue entries. When the authorities are considering the revenue entries, it is impermissible for them to consider the matter in terms of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. If there was any violation of the provisions contained in Sections 79A and B of the Act, 1961, the competent authority namely the Assistant Commissioner could have initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the said Act and not under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is relevant to notice that the provisions contained in Sections 79A and B of the Act have since been deleted and omitted from the statute book from July, 2020. Moreover, the 4th respondent did not have any locus standi to question the revenue entries that were made in favour of the petitioner Trust. On the other hand, if there was any -7- NC: 2024:KHC:5447 WP No. 26858 of 2016 dispute touching upon the title of the property as to whether the lands was purchased for the benefit of Sri Mahishamardini Temple, then the competent civil court alone can decide such disputed questions of title.
8. It is relevant to note that the land in question was purchased in the year 1972 while the provisions contained in Sections 79A and B was inserted in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act w.e.f., 01.03.1974 and therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the question of contravention of Sections 79A and B at the hands of the petitioner while purchasing the land in the year 1972 would not arise.
9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders at Annexures -A and B passed by the Tahasildar and the Deputy Commissioner are hereby quashed and set aside. The revenue entries which were earlier standing in the name of the petitioner Trust shall stand restored. The Tahasildar shall ensure that the name of the petitioner Trust is restored in the revenue -8- NC: 2024:KHC:5447 WP No. 26858 of 2016 records as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY CT: JL