Karnataka High Court
Sri N V Yoganandachar vs The Chief Secretary Government Of ... on 28 June, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:22604
WP No. 614 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 614 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI N V YOGANANDACHAR
S/O LATE N S VEERABRAHMACHAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO.207 SAI SANNIDI APARTMENTS
BEHIND BANK OF BARODA B H ROAD,
NELMANGALA TOWN-562123
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
2. SRI N V VEDAMURTHACHAR
S/O LATE N S VEERABRAHMACHAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.1678,
DEVANGA BEEDI
NELMANGALA OLD POST OFFICE ROAD
NELMANGALA TOWN-562123
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
3. N V SHRADDANANDACHAR
S/O LATE VEERABRAHMACHAR
Digitally signed
by POORNIMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
SHIVANNA
Location: HIGH R/AT NO.5246/11
COURT OF BEHIND SWANSILK
KARNATAKA
NEAR NAVAYUGA TOLL
BYPASS ROAD,
NELMANGALA-562123
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KAMALUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUZRAI)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:22604
WP No. 614 of 2023
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560001
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
(MUZRAI DEPARTMENT)
4TH FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
4. THE TAHASILDAR
NELAMANGALA TALUK
NELAMANGALA 562123
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT K SHOBHA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO FORTHWITH HANDOVER POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE
MENTIONED PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS PER THE
REPRESENTATIONS MADE AT ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned HCGP for the Respondents.
2. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are the owners of property bearing Katha No.466/459 (old No.466/483) and new No.570/483 situated at Petebidi, -3- NC: 2023:KHC:22604 WP No. 614 of 2023 Nelamangala Town, Bangalore District, consisting of a residential premises and a private temple of Anjaneya Swamy which was inherited through their grand father Sri Soorappa. That the Petitioners and their family members are residing in the said property for over 100 years and are in possession and enjoyment of the same until they were illegally dispossessed on 18.3.2013.
3. It is the further case of the Petitioners that some third parties alleging that the temple situated in the ancestral land of the Petitioners land was a public temple, were interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners and hence, they filed a suit in OS No.16/2009 for declaration and consequential injunction. That the Trial Court decreed the suit and passed the following:
"Suit filed by the Plaintiffs is partly decreed with cost. The suit of the Plaintiffs with respect of the title over the suit schedule property is dismissed.
The Defendants No.1 to 5 are restrained from disturbing the Plaintiffs of their agents, or their relatives from performing the poojas in the plaint schedule properties and also in using the dwelling houses in which the Plaintiffs are residing or shop premises that are in the possession of the Plaintiffs.
It is made clear that the Plaintiffs shall not prevent the Defendants or any public or devotees from entering into the temple and offer pooja to deity and return back from the temple.-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:22604 WP No. 614 of 2023 Draw decree accordingly."
4. That a Notification dated 5.1.2013 was issued by the State Government notifying the temple of the Petitioner under Section 28(a)(ii) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.10.2018 passed in WP No.20186/2013 allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the said Notification. The order passed in the Writ Petition was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 10.3.2021 passed in WA No.127/2020.
5. It is the contention of the Petitioners that consequent to the issuance of the Notification dated 5.1.2013, on 18.3.2013 the Respondents have taken possession of the property. That in view of the Notification dated 5.1.2013 having been quashed pursuant to the order dated 25.10.2018 passed in WP No.20186/2013 which was upheld vide order dated 10.3.2021 passed in WA No.127/2020, the Respondents were required to return the possession of the property to the Petitioners.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:22604 WP No. 614 of 2023
6. In the interregnum a notice dated 23.2.2022 was issued by the fourth Respondent - Tahsildar and pursuant to the order dated 11.3.2022 passed in WP No.5200/2022 the Petitioners gave a representation dated 18.3.2022 to the fourth Respondent, whereunder they have furnished all the records and also sought for handing over of the property, the possession of which was taken from the Petitioners. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the request made for handing over of the property has not been considered by the fourth Respondent.
7. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners have been dispossessed pursuant to the notification dated 5.1.2013. The said notification having been quashed, which order was upheld by a Division Bench as noticed above, the possession of the property which was taken from the Petitioners ought to have been returned to them.
8. It is always open for the relevant authorities to initiate such action against the Petitioners in respect of the said property as may be permissible under law. However, in the absence of initiation of any such proceedings, it is -6- NC: 2023:KHC:22604 WP No. 614 of 2023 impermissible for the authorities to retain possession of the property which possession was taken from the petitioners pursuant to the notification dated 5.1.2013.
9. In view of the aforementioned, the relief sought for by the Petitioners is liable to be granted and the fourth Respondent is required to consider the request made by the Petitioners vide representation dated 18.3.2022 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) for return of property within a specific time frame.
10. In view of the aforementioned, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Writ Petition is partly allowed; ii. A writ of mandamus is issued to the fourth Respondent to consider the representation dated 18.3.2022 (Annexure-A to the Writ Petition) including considering the request of the Petitioners for return of the property as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:22604 WP No. 614 of 2023 iii. In the event the fourth Respondent requires the presence of the Petitioners, the same shall be notified and the fourth Respondent shall pass necessary orders, in accordance with law and intimate the orders so passed to the Petitioners immediately thereafter. iv. In the event the fourth Respondent is of the opinion that another authority is required to decide upon the request of the Petitioners for handing over the property, he shall forward the representation dated 18.3.2022 together with a copy of this order to the concerned authority and intimate the Petitioners regarding the authority which is authorized to pass suitable orders. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE ND List No.: 38 Sl No.: 26