Sri B.P.Mahendra vs State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2010

[Cites 5, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Sri B.P.Mahendra vs State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2010

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

IN Tina: HIGH cooar OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 23"' day of August, 2010

Before

THE 'HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI  it

Writ Petitions 1 7575 -- 17575 /zajoj; (gm;  "   'V  B? B if

Between:

Sri B P Mahendra, 45 yrs

S/o late Sri B M Puttaswamy  -
R/a # 32, Lakshman M_odaliar Street  
Bangalore 560 001   3 "  Petitioner
(By Sri J ayakumar S Patil, Sr.Coun--sel "  . ..
for Sri L K Srinivasfa l'f.4nrt;hy, Ad\{.)--.    ..

And:

1 State of Karnatalca  ' {Fri  Secretary
Revenue'Department;. .V"ika_.s;a Soudha
Dr B R Ambetlkar vVe'e'dhi; Bangalore

   -. A C3h'air5r'nan;i~ Petition "Cornmittee

» V "K_arnataka«l;egi_slative Assembly
" _Vidhai1a_ Soud_If1a., Bangalore 1

  3 AS_pl. Depﬁtjiﬁomnnssioner

Bangalore' Urban District
 Dist'i'ict'3~Offices Compound 7
" Kempegowda Road, Bangalore

  '7--B'Sri:A Manju,MLA

 Arkalgud Legislative Constituency
" Hanyala Anandur Post
Ramanathapura Hobli, Arkalgud Tq
Hassan District



Also at: # 25, 7"' Cross
Lavelle Road, Bangalore

5 Vokkaligara Sangha - by its Gen.Secy.
K R Road, V V Purarn, Bangalore

6 Tahsildar 
Bangalore North Taluk     " _ ~  
K G Road, Bangalore 9  I   Respondents

(By Sri R Om Kumar, AGA for Rl--3 Sri Ravivarma Kurnar, Sr.Counsel for Sri M R Vijaya Kumar, Adv.vfor..R5; _ , Sri K K Vasanth, Adv. for R4)" ~ 1 _ j.

These Writ 'Petition ::if1leid~...i:'tunde-r .rrlsaa.226/227 of the Constitution praying to:quash7_thego1*derS datedv..I.5.5.20l0 -- annexure Z by the I" respon__d«en't,_etc_., "

These Wriit"P1eti_tions h_aiv~i.n_g been reserved for Orders on 30"' J Lane, 2010, '=the'Court_ niade the 'following:

i7i5RDER ' ii . 'Petitioner't~has souigihtifor issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash order -- annexure Z by the 1" respondent and the official»gnernoraniduiiri dated 20.5.20E0 - annexure A issued by the 3"! .. respondent for a mandamus directing the l" and 6"' respondents to "-eonti'nu_e_A.the RTC and mutation and other revenue records in respect of Sy,.N~o.l5 measuring about 44.33 acres situate at Sajjepalya, V Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, in the name_..of the petitioner and others as it stood then.

According to the petitioner, one .S'r1'it»..Ran«gamiiia~l:.'W/o._B K Krishnappa who is the maternal aunt of the"'fatb.eri' of _Vpetitionc:r; executed a Will bequeathingl her iminovable prop__erti.eAs in 8,."

9, 10 and 13 in all, measuring about 9,6;3f~,,,.;'i:crels~-.g).f Saj}:epalAya;l§Bangalore North Taluk and the lands in llSjk.lf&To.l4.3,l':and rneasuring about 96.36 acres situate at Malagaltt Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The Will isifsaidto;i1ave,jg«heen__e§tecuted on 29.3.1962, The said Rangammaaji died" _ _* According to the petitioner, dispositions has taken' p1ace'Aas:_iiit.ended in the Will after her death. ato petitioner, Mariyappa, I-(empachennaiah, Nlanjappa«and'iGgopa'l-ahrishnegowda had ﬁled Form 7 before the Land Tribunal, Baiigalore North Taluk claiming occupancy rights over the ':1".4A'propert,iges .on--:30.4.1974. However, father of the petitioner B N had executed a Trust Deed in favour of Vokkaligara Sangha ':l_on-~l--9:.I0.1978. According to him, Vokkaligara Sangha had filed an "application before the Land Tribunal VF 1477/1974-75. It is stated,

-by order dated 23.2.1979, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the applicants to an extent of 72 acres and 25 acres was resumed to the government. It was also observed, the transacti_on covered under the Trust Deed dated 19.10.1978 is not bait' also void ab initio, and the alienations effected by his'fa'ther'_Puttaswamy 9' "

is declared null and void, thereby, the7.app'licaition._iof jtheibanigha requesting to implead the Trust had beeri--~rejecte'd. VThe oirder._'of..the3Land--. . 5' Tribunal dated 23.2.1979 has not bee_n._uchallenged.by me Ylokkaligara Sangha. The father of the i"'peti-tion_er§,i1f.ad"chalienged the order in No. 15 17/1974975 before this chart in ifv'a'j'75'9é'. {Q7599/1979 and there is an interim orderof staiy, f3ub;3e_q:,1e1_';t to the amendment of the Land Reforms Act, the matter 9 was to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority' a:,._LRA Once again, it is treated as writ petition quashed the order of the Land Tribunal and rernandeditheiinatterfor fresh inquiry. Thereafter, this B M Puttaswamy 55 had ﬁled Feim»r'l as per 8.66 of the Land Reforms Act in LRF (66)

5. On 5.1.1985, B M Puttaswarny executed a Will heqzleathing his properties in favour of his son 8 P Mahendra, the 9 -«i..:pe_t'itioner. B M Puttaswamy died on 27.3.1986 leaving behind the Will. 3 dated 5.1.1985.

The Bangalore Development Authority issued a preliminary notiﬁcation on 6.7.l987 and final notification on 24.5.1996 for the formation of Sajjepalya Layout. The interlocutory applicatiotifileld the Vokkaligara Sangha for impleading itself as party resp;'o;ndent'.i"n' l5 £7/1974-75 and connected matters, came .to~be_ yalloivvedvléaitd if if rights were granted in favour of of the legalzrepresentatlives'of in respect of Sy.No.8, 13 of Sajjepa.l:yat_pandA.Vpart'ofllbttthehfjroperty inn' Sy.No.43 and 44 of Malagalu; .\x;vhile'V.rej*ect_ing'the claim of .V§olr;l<;aligara Sangha. The Land Tribunal pass_e'dl'an}*order=Vdirec:i_ng the Sangha to approach the civil court to work ou_t..:its.4rer,ne.die's.1It is also observed by the Land rrrihttne1oletet--tat.,V_ '-s._79 13 of the Land Reforms Act, the Sangha could not here'sahyagetettlitutei land as on 1.3.1974 and, even if it is eligible 'torlhold theses provided under S63 (7) or the Land Reforms itVlottgI;it:AAto_Vilha,ve declared all its holdings and obtain permission as prescribed "in""1aw'fjSimilar orders were passed conferring occupancy if rights in favf_ourvo'f Kernpachennaiah, Nanjappa and Gopalakrishnegowda 18.17.1998; in respect of the lands in Sy.No.9, 10, part of Sy.No.l3 of l_l_1Sajjepaly«a and also part of Sy.No.43 and 44 of Malagalu village, while i 'rejecting the claim of Vokkaligara Sangha.

A56"

On 3.7.1999, the Bangalore Development Authority passed resolution Nos. 105/1999 and 109/1999. Later, the Sangha filed writ petitions 30963 & 31053/1998 c/w 30249 to 30252 / 1998 chvaiiienging a the orders of the Land Tribunal dated 21.3.1998 and 1s._:r;ti~9'9s prayer to quash the said orders. The writ petitions.':.-rerﬁtiivsrriissed as --., withdrawn, as such, the orders of the Land Tribnnalbbecaniei'final.9.,Bgy the judgment and decree in osf -5796/2'OQ'l" tired»"'i'lhVyi§4'gtheiegaif. representatives of B M Puttaswamy beibre the claim of ownership by the Vokka1igara--._:S:an_ghia ~to»be'~rejected. Once again, the Sangha filed WP 2870.3/13999, the resolution No.lO5/1999 dated'ivi2t4._d_.'dAi999« 17,1999 respectively passed by the Bangalore Development VAutl1ori«t.yi." The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, Upon, insistentze by the BDA in respect of Sy.No.15 for ﬁpetitioner and others approached the Deputy Comrn-issionver; ..,Banga1"0re Urban District for grant of conversion of the 99 said land. for'n'on}agricu1tural purposes, which was granted. In 313/2002 filed by the Vokkaligara Sangha challenging and decree of the trial court, by order dated 19.12.2003 the was allowed and the mat?'/vvas remanded back to the trial court )§<' for recording the terms of compromise reported by the parties. Even WP 22761~765,I1996 filed by the legal representatives of B Mppprarreeearrry and the petitioner in WP 28210/1996 filed by the wherein they have challenged the acquisitioniiby' withdrawn since the BDA agreed to Vitinplernent lithe" .;e:5ol'ut1on's~.VV N6.105/1999 and 109/1999 as petrrrﬂtrre government: 'egrer dated 0' 17.11.1995. Later, cornprofnise pe'tiiti'o11Ve.:'Wgts"filed rrr"os"5796/1001, which was allowed. On 7.7.2oo16,_ n'FA:'96.5.(2oo4i'pri1ed by Dr Appaji Gowda claiming to be Executigve.r~Co'rnﬁi--ttee_.l§flfernber challenging the compromise entered-4"i_nto'"'betw'e'enz't§1re1-- legal' representatives of B M Puttaswamy andVok§{:aligara'«Sar1gl1a came to be dismissed stating that he has no locus 4'star1di»..to"the compromise. While dismissing, this Court' directed the_respondents therein to appear before the trial court 0' 'r.on:'2.f§.j.''20(}'st';f determination of appropriate court fee and payment of the' sarne.wi'thinv_tlre'VV'tirne limit fixed. It is stated further that no one has 0 00 appeared onhehalf of the Vokkaligara Sangha before the trial court on 0' '24t8e.2r006. However, the trial court ordered to pay court fee on actual value for 6.20 acres of nodagricultural land in Sy.No.l5 of 0 Sajjepalya as provided under S.24 (a) of the Court Fees & Suit Valuation 00 "Act, on or before 30.9.2006. Sine? 30.9.2006 none appeared and for aiso non--payment of court fee, the triai court rejected the pi'a.i_nt of Vokkaligara Sangha in os 5796/2001. The Special t,eaeefpt+etttttee 21661 / 2006 before the Supreme Court by Appaji Gowria the judgment passed in RFA 965/2004, caziéeﬂtobe ettimtopet _eh_set«vih'g that there was no necessity to go into the tjuestion invoiyedt as fried by the IS' respondent had been di's«rfﬁ'ssed for' court if fee and no decree has, thus been _«drawn;incorporatin§ the terms of settlement entered into between the i"iréSp0.nfi'é§iI therein 011 thﬁ 0116 hand and 2"" and 4'h'i'e:spponde_ntsg the The members of the Executive ciehtthitteeiet thev3eTyffoii<teeittgat;tt Sangha had filed a petition before the Chairnian.,.V_i:Petit.io'n,,__ Committee, Karnataka Legistative Assembty that the by the BDA to the petitioner for formation oft.1ayout"»i.ni Sy.No.15 measuring about 38.13 acres situate at iffeshvxanthpur Hobii, as illegal. The said petition was endors-edp.Aby' :°th,e ~*ii?'ve"respondent which was made out to the Petition _Committee.»__'. 14.5.2010, by a D O Eetter, the Secretary to the W"'Kart2ataka iigegislative Assembiy intimated the 15' respondent that i_i_pifetitiio'n"No.58/2009 had been heard and, based on the information ifurniished before it, found that the katha made in respect of Sy.No.15 "situate at Sajjepalya measuring 44.33 acres is opposed to the terms of M Will of the owner and as such, it was necessary to make the Vkatha in respect of the said property in favour of Krishnappa Education Trust. Also, the 1" respondent had been requestedet.to' about the action being taken on the subject'.--, Aceo_rdingly,: the respondent called upon the 3"' respondent tot. takeiofurthetr Pursuant to the direction issued on 14.5.,s4p20.1>0, the 3'."li*espondenlt 'directed 0' the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore_.Northr'Ta:lu:i; 'make entri'es"in the RTC and mutation in respect of fheasiiring 44.33 acres situate at Sajjepalya ingvtlfie Education Trust, within three' iecai'ds on the ground that the katha made in f2i_A\}ou't§. of the 1'epi'esetatatives of B N Puttaswamy viz., Smt Puttathayamrn.alarid~ 30.51998 was opposed to law. according to the petitioner, the 5"' respondent is not an aggrieved to thegrant of permission for formation of layout in the iisaid survey r.i__=.1r'nbe'r as they have no right, title or interest therein. The 0' :peti'tioner and» others are the legal representatives of B M Puttaswamy, ltlieabso-lute owner of the land. They have not been notified about the .:iilting---of the petition before the Petition Committee in the Legislative 'Assembly. In pursuance of the direction issued on 14.5.2010, the 3"' 10 respondent directing the Tahsiidar, Bangalore North Taluk to take__action to make entries in the RTC and Mutation in respect of they Sy.No.l5 measuring about 44.33 acres in the name ot'"---- Rangappa Education Trust by remoVing~tthey '' ii representatives of B M Puttaswamy i.e., Pi:Ittathayiamrri--a_Viiand opposed to law, as such, they have soughtpfor duashinygiithe"o:rdei*t passed" i by the 1" respondent at annexure Z and .a1soi the ofﬁcial-..men1orandum issued b the 3" res ondent as iiiertannexijtre .

The grounds 'is~='that, in View of the proceedings' held Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk regarding ciairn of tenanciy'--o:yeri:"the land at Sajjepaiya and Malagalu Village Qf--YueSh\i\tiat1.tlf1pHI'i Hoblii by one Mariyappa and others, which the petitioner and others who are the legal represe.ntativefs--«.ofi}3~M Puttaswarny, and the alleged Trust Deed dated M 19.10.1978, thheh after the appointed date i.e., 1.3.1974 and, the :7ii't/oklravligara'V-Sangha cannot be recognised to have any matter of right, i_'t:Ltle--V_or--iriterest over the lands in dispute. Hence, the Land Tribunal '::i_4tej~ec-ted the claim of the Sangha. In view of the order in WP ""30963/1998 challenging the finding of the Land Tribunal dated \>/ 2l.3.l998 and 18.7.1998, the Sangha having realised that it has no case on merits, has withdrawn the petition on 23.3.2001. The S.ang'naf'has suppressed various facts like filing of writ petitions cr1:allengi{ng,the,ll-- orders of the Land Tribunal and the resolutionof they and .a_gain., if reagitated the issue unnecessarily. The San'gha1'i_s total strangerrv land in question and its office bearers have castan e ye o»ier"'tl1e'rrproperty " 9 of the petitioner. The resolution ofquestioned,,..E§3y the 5"' respondent before the Petitioi'i'l'Corn.miitté:e 'proper and lawful resolution in as n1uch_as,,__own'er"of 'property? right to approach the BDA for the:forinatiAon';'.of'the__layoutf an undertaking to the BDA as per the tefrins,andconriiftiovns put forth by it. The petitioner has already deposited'Rs.2 crores for extension of time to pay the balance aiiiount and-.the' Cioyernnaent had directed the BDA to extend mile to the pE"e't:iti_o'rr~s;r to pay the remaining amount. ._ 'Furthe1':'"ac_cor'di'ng to the petitioner, the alleged Trust Deed Mvexecutefd' by <ft:he'vfather of the petitioner on 19.10.1978, is void and V ,{1her1fo:*eeable'. The claim of the 5"' respondent on the basis of the void _':lp'r.us't.:I')eed as per S."/'4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act which prohiljits alienation of the land held by a person, by way of sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, is not tenable. It is also stated, the Karnataka Legislative Assembly has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition'.file:dv,by the Sangha endorsed by the 4"' respondent, who is also a.':rhe;nhe'r"oft..th'e Petition Committee and, when the 4"' respon'de.nt i.nteiresteVd-iii: the subject matter of the petition and no opportunity 'given,to..Vith'e_g petitioner nor was he heard by the Petition gCom.mitteCt..before issuance of V direction. The respondent also.__failerd"t"o'noticetliat thellandvin question has already been converted from !ag1'iicuitu'ral_.to'--neniéagricultural purpose during December 2.06-2,. VSthow_ing the mlitatienventries in respect of lands which are conv5erte_d"as"agricultural"lands illegal and opposed to S95 of the Karpatakaiilyand_Re.yen:i:e"~Act _ar_1.:l, the question of entries so being made in theiiieyenue records :_iCio.es'n.ot raise at all. As per S.i29 of the Karr1ata;k'a"LAand l?even'ue Act, it is the duty of the concerned authority to V" issuenotice interested persons. Hence, change in the revenue records is'in 'Vio1ati~on~~.o_t t.he.~principles of natural justice and also in violation of T if _R.89 of the;"Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. The entries in the H and the "mutation in favour of the Krishnappa Rangarnma Education heeffrtisti"isiillegal as it is defunct Trust. The Sm respondent had not filed aniyapplication for change of katha in respect of the property in question i before the competent authority. The Sm respondent is approbating and W, reprobating the existence of the Trust Deed dated l9.i_{)_,1978. Accordingly, on various grounds, the petitioner has sought for the petition.

{ll} in the statement of objections ﬁled.by».the -_ respondeiiztgit ll contended that the writ petition is not rnaintainablell on facts. and law and the petition is liable to be disiriipssed for iton--joinder'of "r1ecessary"' parties as the applicants before the Vretitionl'€onunittee--..are': not made necessary parties as also the llliricshnapgliaiivRangarnma Education Trust which is the actual owner ofitheliland .infqt1estion« under the registered Trust Deediin whosei'1--1arne«the«rntxtation' entries are made. The petitioner has no locus sta_ndi_tolchailengelithedirection issued by the 1" respondent on the recoivnrnendation 'rnadeV'by the Petition Committee to the House as it,_the"legislati\}e:' members enjoy immunity, as the proceedings are held in defiance of niandatoiry-:'provisions under Art.212 of the Constitution. On represerttation' 'made by some of the elected representatives of the 5"' ll l"1'espondent seeking corrections made by the 6"' respondent in respect of l':'3y.lN_o.~1.S..i*iof Sajjepalya which belongs to the 5"' respondent, to the ':'?etition Committee constituted under the Rules for internal working of i""'the Committee on Petition of the Legislative Assembly, any person \}/ aggrieved of the irregularities in the procedure followed by the Department can seek redressal either directly or through the member of the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Secretariat, upon4vreceipt_ of the petition, shall examine to see that it conforms_.-toll't'hej"--I{ules' . prescribed and if found admissible, the same, shall the"

House by the member or by the Secretaryfsasv the 'case may Thereafter, the House (Legislative'iAs--sembly')- shal_lﬂfloi=,vs/ard, to theuti' Department concerned for c_ommentys._.xf'A150, the Secretariat of the Legislative Assembly shall prepare on the petition for the consideration of the .Com,mitt'ee:'indicating Vbri.-elfvly the grievance and prayer of the perish; andthe ground of the case and the remedy suggested. The 'Coinrr;.ittee'con'sis'ts"of the Chairman, who is the Deputy Speaker ; and . fifteen _ gmembers "nominated by the Speaker who shall crhnments of the concerned Departments and, if the Co"3nmfittee" sativsﬁed with the explanation given by the concerned _Depart"ment,_"tliehrepresentative of the concerned Department shall be H H " 4."'c,alled, guporr-'by the Member of the Secretariat to explain the matter and the .Department will be represented by the Secretary or the Head of the :l_4:Department. After the procedure is followed, the Secretariat shall ll "prepare the draft report containing the recommendations which, after the E5 approval by the Chairman, shall be placed before the Committee for adoption and the report of the Committee shali be presented invtheilouse by the Chairman. As soon as the presentation of the report, be sent to the Department for irnplementa_tion._of the.recorrtmendatior2s.iiV' The Legislative Assembly Secretariat s'hall1'_'_'inr"orrn_ 'the' Department with regard to the recornr1tendation'-n1ade_by.the_Corn;i1ittee.'wV ' Accordingly, annexure 2 Carrie to the._AA1$f,irespondent directing the 3rd respondent theitifeeiommendations of the Committee. In 'V accordanceiii' ..ii~mpii.enientation of the recommendations'; respondent to carry out necessary entrieissignipytriepre«vpehue records which is in accordance with law. As such,_it is statedgtheipetitioner cannot find any irregularity or iitegality; in the order passed at annexure Z and AA.

it is stated,-----at' the instance of the father of the petitioner late 'Bi the 53' respondent made an application to implead i V' = in the proceeditrgstbefore the Land Tribunal as, the executor late B M F:;ttaswamyii'had handed over the entire land belonging to late Srnt Ra'r1ga1n"ma to the 5"' respondent by creating a Trust in the name of ..__i}{irisl'2nappa Rangamma Education Trust appointing himself as one of the 16 Trustee and nominating one Balakrishnna S/o Lakshman and his son in law Dr M K Venkatesh Hegde entrusting the 5"' respondent~Sa:'ngl_h~a_ to administer the Trust by nominating its twelve executive'mernbefs--.o'iice in three years under the registered deed dated_4l9.i'0.lll97:§3';v»viihich.gis=-path' annexure R}. B M Puttaswainy who is"=.the1'_donor:iand Trust, nominated his son who is the petitioner;" in his 1plVac'e,_Va's~a Trustee V after his lifetime. I-iowever, .withou_t...aii3r_ authorilty"'of_lavi-l, the Land Tribunal in its order dated of the land to the Trust under thgqfftist ildeing aggrieved by the said order, Vlhittaswamy challenged the same before this respondent as one of the respondents aspsuch, it is clear-tphat B M Puttaswamy delivered vacant V possession' of the land under the Will dated 15.3.1962 to this ihgrespondentzlli registered Trust Deed to fulfil the desire of the testater__ f.iorigli'rial of land). After setting aside the order of the V Land ll'i"ribti'nal'v "and rernanding the matter to the Tribunal in WP

5..l_.l992;' this Court has ordered to consider the application of this l.l_1res'pondent. The Land Tribunal after being satisfied with the claim of

-«..:thi's'irespondent, ailowed the application to implead to come on record wbut, rejected the claim of this respondent stating that it has no xx jurisdiction to decide the ownership claimed under the Trust and left it open to the parties to approach the competent court.

It is further stated, with reference to para 8 of the M Puttaswamy executed the Will in favour of the petitioirteyr, 'is*false." if was never brought to the notice of any court or 'tc,.tlte or before any authority. It is only whengthe petitioner filedihgisijs'taterriein'ttofu. objections during 2009 to the petition itittogit by one 'Ap.pajii*{';owda, the petitioner came out with a new~~..version Creating a fabricated Will to mislead the Court. While E1dII'li'KEIl,_IV1§-;,'i..'V_tViV'1{%.i fact.'that__iti1e 5"' respondent challengedgthe _order"v::f..t_hie.Lanydiﬁlibunal by filing a writ petition before this Court and, which later,"c,ain':e:iito be withdrawn under the facts and circumstance.' that th,is"petitvioner has joined hands with the alleged Lwtenantgsvibefore thelnand Tribunal and has taken a U turn contrary to the staterrteiltiligiveti.t,by.his" father late B M Puttaswatny in collusion with the V if tenantsiiand .-got-recorded the statement before the Land Tribunal stating i 'that they arethe tenants cultivating the lands, on account of which, the 5%" respondent and the Ttust, are the sufferers at the hands of the Land Tribunal by its order in favour of the tenants. In the circumstances, the bi alleged tenants came forward voluntarily to hand over portion of the land \tx/' 18 to this respondent as such, a memo for withdrawal came to be fiied as stated in para 9 of the writ petition.

Further according to the respondent, it had chai.ijeng"ed"'--the acquisition which came to be withdrawn arid, another challenging the resolution of the BDA obtained. by the it authorities by the petitioner and his fainily rnenibers"--a_lso withdrawn with liberty to approacli.,_Vp:'tiie appropria.te It is".

submitted that the Scheme of ,-the govemm'ent; stated by he petitioner, regarding permission to developlbtiie was struck down by this Court andﬁthe re_spon.dent:'had«reserved_'}iberty to take appropriate steps in accordance law. s_peciifically stated that the petitioner and his family i;ne'rnbers,a withan intention to knock off the valuable property beilongilng owner late Sm.t Rangamma, with the help of unruly'._eyler'nefits_, plotted in coliusion with the executive directors of the V 5"' res'pondent,'a'r:1d by misleading the authorities claiming themselves to . idhave inherited the lands by way of Will executed by Smt Rangamrna, ._jpressu'ri'z:ed the respondent institution to succumb to their demands. 'W'h'ile admitting the fact that the 4"' respondent -- MLA is also a director it of the 5'" respondent, they have denield/ire fact that the 4"' respondent 9 instigated some of the Directors of the present Committee to file a petition against the petitioner. It is stated, rather, the,aggrice_yed members of the 5"' respondent are filing cases and applicationsvto:-protect' _ the property belonging to the Trust which b€l'GIigS.:'::E0ailiéltﬁa » Rangamma. Some of the Directors feeling aggrie:ved_by..the aoit-tr.of%:he petitioner and his family members trying to of valuable_Hpro§perty,.at F filed a petition against the Revenue _iZ:5epa:'t:nent.'and:not against the petitioner before the Petition "C'ornniittee' in' "respect, of irregularities by the revenue officials in rnal<ii1~g'cntries'in"tthe the petitioner and his family mernbers in re_spec,tl of"Sy.No.15 of Sajjepalya, without any aL1_thorityao.f submitted, the direction issued by the 1" respondent,at.annexu're' Z,""i.s_"in accordance with law and the 5m respondent' having absolute right and title over the property in question, in List liherty"l'to challenge and question the unlawful act of the authorities, toilsafefguardv the_iIiterest of the Trust and also, seek to interfere regarding the perrniss«ion»granted by the BDA to the petitioner and his family if V' r lmeinbers who are having no right or nexus in whatsoever manner in the 'property' belonging to late Smt Rangarnrna. It is further submitted that,

-rl_,:peti'tioner has all along been claiming the property in question by way of if inheritance of late B M Puttaswamy. It is specifically stated rather, B M 20 Puttaswamy was only appointed as executor by the testator /,or_iginal owtter of the land in question under the Will dated__'ii:li5'.i3'.'l§62 bequeathing the property to the executor with clear'i"terrns'tt.thati property therein shall be utilised for charity' «purpose .io'f«spvreadinig education in and around rural areas in memoryiof her late ,husban'tﬁliB Krishnappa. To achieve the objeQt--v.,,Q:f«--,the Wi'll_,_ was i entrusted to the father of the "ipet_ition'er"w1~ro, vi/as._qthe executor. Having been satisfied with the yeomen service','render-edhby 5"' respondent in spreading education'"particularly, to "the ffvoklgaliga community, the executor felt it riecessary property bequeathed to him by his aunt Srnt Rangan1i1"rta_under..:a"1'£:gistered Trust Deed dated 19.10.1978 as per anneiturelil ifil'.[l'l"t'.',i'ItE,1f..l;l"e'5,r(5fi; Krishnappa Rangamma Education Trust as per the terr'r.s_and conditions stipulated therein. Accordingly, it in ?.is subtriittedi, tiieproperty in question vests with the Trust ever since the Trust carne"irito,,exi.s'te'nce. Unless the said registered Trust is declared to V be noneest ir.1'th'c"eye of law by a competent court, the petitioner or any it " ' bother personclaiming under him cannot be said to be the owners having __any"t.rightii or interest overt the property in question. As such, some

--«.,irre'rribers rightly exercising their right over the property in question, ﬁled petition before the Petition Committee. After detail inquiry by the 3%"

Petition Committee through the concerned head of departments as regards the aliegations and after having received the revportikrthe Committee having found some irreguiarities in the ent:;ies"1'eg'ardi:2.g' . permission granted in favour of the petitioner and his Hfiamiiiy mevrnbers,"

forwarded the representation to the 1" respond'erlt'i'to1act"in"accor-danisé with law, to implement the recornn1e'ndation'v~made iit{_an.d,, the respondent issued Annexure directing}: toiirectify the entries made in the revenue records, Accordingly, as per the official mem_orandum"a't"anneit'u.1je_{i.i5i_', t:S;.':":'»'respondent effected revenue entriesjt; Errhg iérishnapoaﬂiillangamma Education Trust in the rejspect of Sy.No.I5 of Sajjepalya Village. It alsotisuhmitted, the writ petition was filed, the 6m respondent has "affected the mutation entries in the RTC i.e., on 'Liater, they approached this Court and obtained an interim__order.i'it isfivvfurther stated that petitioner is having an alternative V remedj/'tinder tne"'Land Revenue Act.

According to the 5"' respondent, as per the facts, originaliy lands in Sy.No.8,9,lO,l3 and E5 of Sajjepalya and Sy.No.-43 of Malagalu Village of Y pura Hobli, Bangalore North 22 Taluk to an extent of 96.36 acres belong to late Smt Rangamma w/o B K ta Kiishnappa and she had executed a registered Will on l5.3.l962:angd all these lands and other properties were bequeathed in favoupof iB_,:l"»1 Puttaswamy in memory of her late husband B and appointed B M Puttaswamy as executor under tp1'_}_(.'ur""t""7-,7i;l'1778.I.i}'("il' heiwaspigiyen' the right to utilise the property for: perpetuating thesgtneniory (if 'her', husband. The said Rangamma died 966iian.d:after death, B M Puttaswamy was in possession eﬁjioyinient of the property as executor under the Will and hewwVasi.yalsoi :jjyi1ig.,to'«1Lai.ti*se the property to fuifil the purpose Sorne petfsons" like Chikkanarasimhaiah s/o Nanjappa_ j S/o Channappa, residents of Kamakshipalyao,dfiledi appli.cat:io'n.s_"'before the Land Tribunal in Form 7 under S.{+8"A_of the"£iandiReﬁ)rms Act claiming that they are tenants in iresifpeeptjpiiof pEro:perty..._in Sy.No.8,9,l0,I3, t4 and 15 of Sajjepalya Village and also__ 44 of Malagalu Village to the extent of 96.36 V acres, u'nder.--.i3'M"Puttaswamy and Kate Rangamma. x _pAic:_:ording to the 5"' respondent, it came into existence in the year .l;90'_i_5i'unning various educational institutions and other courses and also number of hostels and coileges doing public service in the fieid and they 35*"

are not making any profit and the Sangha is meant, at large, for the public and also for the vokkaliga community in particularp The Sangha has got various activities all over the State to uplift the conditionsof the community and for the cause of education and also runniifi'g---free___hostel~s to accommodate rural students, prosecuting their studi.es.,i_:f¥t_is'=stated, the to Sangha has got laudable object and on Puttaswamy executed registered Trust 'Deed i "l9. l0ti§'{'' , the lands in favour of the Sangha, viFi'th:'some conaditionsfg Also, the executor is said to have filed-._afdecLl_ara;ion' ll under the Land Reforms Act and alsQ_considered_ himself a'i.i"l'rtis'tee "of these lands and the yield itvherefroimi:or.__the mo_i'i'ey that may be derived in the event of these landsibeiing tal<en"«iiip competent authority for a public purpose; 'l'O;'t.furtherin_githe objective of the erstwhile owner for the cause in ofieducatioiiiiaridalso, it is specifically mentioned in the Trust Deed that the.don_or ~g_0tVic'oIifidence that the 5" respondent's if requested and V _entrusted w'ith=tlie responsibility will put the property and the income H it__for the fulfillment of the donor's cherished objective. Late 8 M Puttaswamy had resisted the claims made before the V Land Tribunal and also to state that the Vokkaligara Sangha is a 22¢ necessary and proper party in the land reforms proceedings and'.the..land was already taken over by the Sangha under the Trus;t"";)'eer_l__:' 19.10.1978. The application so filed was dismisas-ed:':'»hvy::.the._ 1.anu.. Tribunal and occupancy rights were granted in..faV.ohrg glthehltenaantgoi' all survey numbers except Sy.No.l,'S* to anlextent of oyeif'. which the tenants had given up theiruvclaiurns that they are surrendering the land to thad land. On 23.2.1979, the Land Tribunalvpgrahtedrights in favour of the tenants in respectof occupancy rights was challenged by This life time by filing writ petition before irnpleaded the Vokkaligara Sangha as a respondent. 53.2.1997, this Court remanded the matter b;acl<..to the"~L_and Tribunal to consider the application of the V"V.Vrespe.r1dlent"Sanglia._ On such remand, in respect of other properties in other in Sajjepalya and Malagala village, there was a V grant iin~--fav.our'vo;f the tenants and, occupancy rights was rejected in H " "1re.sipecat._of Sy".No.l5 stating that there is no claim over the property. It is alsostated that, petitioner herein was a party before the Land Tribunal.

-.:Th'e"petitioner who was the power of attorney holder for his mother and he sister, deposed before the Land Tribunal stating that tenants were W"

26

respondent as such, the respondent has fenced the property. Meanwhile, the petitioner and his family members started harassing this respondent in collusion with some interested persons claiming to be thefowners alleged to have got right under the Will dated 15.3.1962 ion 29.3.1962 in respect of Sy.No.lS of Sajjepalya Village,..e§tecuited' ., Rangamrna who was the original owner ofmlthe "'property;-.yT._hel respondent has asserted that in thegwill Ranygainrna; appointed late B M Puttaswamy fatherlof the petitioner only an Executor of the Will and no;t4_."eeque;ath_ed" a_ny_i property to him as an absolute owner to carry out the intent of ja-slam Executor and, property has been un.d_er..._t_lie Trust Deed in favour of the Trust and in turn, favour'*of"th'eSt"-.syrespondent. B M Puttaswamy never bequeathed' the inlfavour of the petitioner and his family 9' 't.rnen1be_rs and could not have any right over the property in question as 'legal.__representatives of B M Puttaswarny by inheritance. The 5"' V respondent was not in a position to implement all the conditions of the it 9' ' . '1"rost since so far, as there is a dispute pending since 1999 in one or the other. The Sangha has received the property trying to improve the

-«.lan'd"land tried to improve the conditions and terms of the Trust Deed executed by late B M Puttaswamy. In this context, the petitioner is 3599/ 27 trying to assert title over the property and trying to dispossessatthis respondent from the property with the help of some of §"t.i";'C4l_y'tvpi.'(,_(l$i'Cl:§'1t_.i_\Al/1?. members of the 53' respondent only with a view to knock _off_the:va_luaible., by property for their personal beneﬁt. Despite this,j.respondent'..Ih.ade_.ar. effort to convince the petitioner regarding their status the prlgipueityl' , in question and allow them to carry outzthe;iobjectlandlintent the donor late B M Puttaswamy who is ot:heri«'than.ygthe"father of the petitioner, as per the desire of the.testator,.Srnt jggiginal owner of the land in question 'arid lother family members are also trustees'_polf.t., petitioner and his family members asserting right over the property as absolute owners alrlegingl insheriitaniceilwithout there being any authority of law. Eygen the petitioner' and his family members misrepresented to the Towners of Sy.No.l5 of Sajjepalya village, obtained the}?-DA to form layout. On coming to know of the V same, ipetitivon has been filed before this Court stating that BDA has no if V' ' 'tight: to grant permission to form Layout on such misrepresentation. The ._p1s_.aild. petition was admitted by this Court and interim stay was granted. Meanwhile, since the scheme which was approved by the BDA .4 "was abolished by this Court in WP 334/2001, this respondent withdrew \é<,/ 28 the writ petition to approach the government seeking to withdraw the permission granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of Sajjepalya Village. Also, on such persuasion, this liberty to this respondent to approach the _governme'nt"v'o§%*_».atjpropriate forum. At the instance of the petitioner and, hisfherichinen, there:is._ aiso harassment to this respondent by way of._encroach1nent*{_ A1nftvhisHVregard,--i * OS 5796/2001 has been filed against the petitioner seeking for the relief of permanent injunction and ua1sdo--.sougi::1t:.declaration to receive compensation in respect of 'Schedule property and also for posses'si.o1iA§..ofj.the:.prop.erty."in[ Sy.No.i15. The said suit was rejected under_Qrder.v\[l§ivRu1eC"l..l_, CFC against which, an appeal has been preferred is pending before this Court.

During pperidencyaof the'1appeal,T petitioner and his family members, in in gcollusior. with the executive members of the respondent, in the guise of 'seitt1ing__the"vdi*s,puteg;v.arrived at a settlement against the interest of the C if _respondent,..__by a resolution. Without adopting the procedure in C ."'accord.anceV'with the bye--1aws of the Sangha, the petitioner and some of .Ex'echtive Members of the then Committee of the Sangha, managed to-prefer a compromise petition in RFA 313/2002. The judgment passed it if if in OS 5796/2001 was set aside and matter was remitted to the trial court W/ 29 reserving liberty to the parties to seek disposal in the suit in terms of the compromise filed before this Court. Accordingly, the said appeal came to be disposed of with a speciﬁc observation and direction to .t'he trial court that it shall examine the question of passing a the compromise arrived at by the parties, in accordance it It was also directed therein, if the Court' for lany:'reasoi;,.Vgfirzds it permissible for compromise, the suit ﬁlletbby proceeded on merits in accordance with_.l'aw. The._cornproriiise petition filed came to be returnedv fie,s1ej"eeenee; irwiui libertyiii to file the compromise beforeiv--"the "trial..,Vcouri. j This gives a clear indication, according tolthe 5"' responde,nt';--.that this Court has felt it necessary that V cornpro;-3_nisee..cannot be arrived at between the parties as the schedule property alreiaéyivested in the Trust. As such, a direction was given to thetrialsyeourt"on_1y.i':§;o".consider the compromise if it is permissible and, in .accordhancev'-.with"law before passing a decree in terms of the compromise. 'The trial court however, accepted the compromise and passed an order When things stood thus, one of the member of the "-.,VllE:iecutive Committee, felt it necessary to bring it to the notice of the court the compromise so arrived was totally against the interest of the WM 30 Trust and the Sangha and also challenged the compromise resoilvepd in the Executive Committee Meeting held on 9.l2.2003 authority of law stating that, it requires sanction in...aV__specia3/general, body meeting in terms of the bye law Further, it is contended that while.r'dealingV"with imrtiovabilei prbpert}/_ belonging to the Committee, the Comrriitteehad power to enter into compromise. when placed before the General Body forvidiscussioni not approve nor gave sanction to according to the respondent, in respect of the Trust properties wish of the Executor late B M Puttaswamyinol right'§1as".bcen*----given to sell or part with the property V which was' handed over to the Trust or to make application in the suit in "~Without considering the same, the application for coinpro_mise alloiwed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said .compro'mise,A one of the Executive Member having noted the mal- ll l'atiminis'tratiion by some of the Executive Members for their personal ispibeneliiiilquestioned the legality of the said compromise in RFA "£965/2004. However, this Court dismissed the RFA stating that the executive member has no locus standi to challenge the compromise. pt?"

However, this Court has directed the parties to appear before the trial court in OS 5796/2001 for determination of the court fee. Aggxieved by the dismissal of RFA 965/2004, one of the Executive Membei'jpreferr'ed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court whichxwasv C' in CA 2166]/2006. During pendency of th-te"'Civi,1 /5-_»,i[3I3;C_.ViEliil:,i.'thexori.ginal.& it suit came to be rejected by the trial court forynoni payment of ._ court fee on 30.9.2006. The Civi1iA-ppeal behfore the Court." 0 came to be disposed of on 7,8..2009 w'here_i'n the Apex 'C'ourt held that, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever tliat in the -e"vent~a case made up as regard mal administration of 'r'.;u's~:"_jwo; ' otherwise, appropriate remedies can be .avai£'ed.,_ "An 'originating summons can be taken out, if otherwise permissible in law' before' the High Court. Thus, according to the 5"' égrespondent; . the case is made out as regarding rnal V'V.adrriinistration.p of"t1<1_e Trust property, the same can be questioned. The SuprenieppCourt_~valso::'observed, as submitted, OS 5796/2001 came to be 0 rejected"and~.fnotpending and also the compromise entered into between .. _, titre patttjes fails. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Apex Court felt it ._not°:1eces:sa1'y to go into the aforementioned question of locus standi. 0 Event it is further submitted that the Apex Court has observed that they have not considered the legality of the order of the Land Tribunal and W 33 out, which is still pending adjudication. It is also stated, there is Vniorsuch Trust being registered by the 5"' respondent but, rather,,...the_»iastlis_ already registered by one B M Puttaswamy and alsofilled,garifarrigended statement of objections. Certain of the circurnstances'1narrated__above« made the respondent not to impiementéthe intentof theregis'teired*:Trust"»r created by B M Puttaswarriy. The 4%' reispoiident and also a director of the respondent, ._safeguarding interest of the respondent and to the Secretary and also some of igfllliithél Committee filed a petition to the hylithe Deputy Speaker of the Legislative House' the'revenueiiiofficials in incorporating the names of the peititioner arid hi's~«.__fai1iily members without any basis, in respect of the pi*oper'ty belonging to the Krishnappa Rangamma '._Bducation Trustliiadrriinistered by the respondent. Most of the members res"piolnd.ent:"also filed an application to protect the property V belonging to the Trust and accordingly, on various grounds, it is ."iE'i1,'iil)i3f1lT.[_.Cd that the 1." respondent issued an order at annexure Z directing the".3"" respondent to rectify the entries made in the revenue records in ullorder to implement the orders of the Petition Committee; Even the i it smutation entries for the year 2010- ll is produced at annexure R34 i.e., JAV"

35

Heard the counsel representing the parties. To avoid repetition, wherever it is necessary, I will refer to the arguments advanc,ed._l5y_wthe counsel for the parties in the course of my discussion. The main grievance of the petitioneriis, orderkﬁatedi issued by the 1*" respondent at annexure Z is illegal" an--€i.th'e i'or<:5er"has'Vi, been made in violation of the principlesofinaturaljusticef The original owner Srnt none other than the maternal aunt of this Puttaswamyi'had--xcreated a Will, bequeathing all immo\}?able_ propet:ti.es:"in S.y_.l¥1,o.l.5,' 8, 9 & 13 in all measuring about 96.36 acresiofiSajjiepalyap' and Sy.No.-43 & 44 of Malagalu Village; iAs.per the property has to be utilised for philanthropic purposes and_this--._B M Puttaswamy was named as the Executor. In su'chi'a..,situation, proinptly the father of the petitioner B M Puttaswamy V . had eit'ecuteda'v'l'rust Deed in favour of the Sangha on 19.10.1978. Apart if if * i"wfrorn.sthﬂat, even in respect of application filed in form 7 under the Land Act by some of the applicants, occupancy rights were granted l,[fcvei~ some of the properties in question as on 30.4.1974 and B M A Puttaswamy defended the cases before the Land Tribunal. An attempt ll'/"

was also made by the Sangha before the Land Tribunal to defend the case. Though the Land Tribunal has ordered resumption of the7i.li_a'nd to the government rejecting the claim of the Sangha and"'tljg;..._fl_"rusit;.y ultimately it appears on such remand by this Court_.,--«. "who stood as an Executor as per the Will of_-iSrri;t iRangamrina,:'i-a.i_n petitions filed by him, has defendedatheitnatteirthroughout'. The Very contention of th'e_pe_titio11er"ist -that ._the order passed by the Land Tribunal resuming th'e"larid to the was challenged only by his father. late Putt_asi.yam__},*V thieiprayer of the Sangha to implead itself l1as"be_en rejected by the Tribunal and, the Sangha has not made any"a.ttcm'pt_"toJchallenge the said order. According __to the. petitioner, hisjﬂfathern alone had challenged the Land Tribunal Hproceedings beforevthis Court and the matter came to be remanded by settingaside _oi'%.;;ler.of the Land Tribunal. It is also his contention that late Bllvl Puttasvuamy had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner on it it 31985. B" M Puttaswarny died on 27.3.1986 leaving behind the Will.

--i..1Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he approached the BDA and "-uimoived for formation of the layout. It is also the speciﬁc case of the petitioner that on the death of his father, be contested the matter before .ll»/ 37 the Tribunal. Survey Nos.8 & 13 of Sajjepalya Village and part of the property in Sy.Nos.43 & 44 of Malagalu Village were granted' iri..favour of the tenants. Even the claim of the Sangha has been;"'rej'ec_te_d_l5a;id~.A according to the petitioner, the Sangha cannot hold properties, a's.,par --« .. B of the Land Reforms Act. A contention also raised. .'tha't'-there,,,_ou«gh.t to be permission from the goverrrrncnt underl"S.t33{7)l' Reforms Act by declaring all the holdings. ._Further,l:iaccorVciling to the petitioner, there was grant of vocciuparicy respect of some of the applicants by order. datedv.ri--8,7l.:Er998in "and 10 and part of Sy.No.l3 and also in al1(;:lV.44. §i%;1v:aiag'aiu Village. As per the cont'e.nti'on of"th_e'5"' respondent, what is not in dispute _ is B M-..l7futtaswamy"'wliois the Executor named in the Will and, father of Hthe petitioiier, i*.ad'«car1*ied out the activities by not only creating the Trust Sangha for philanthrophic purpose but, he V also ciontinueidvto defend the cases before the Land Tribunal and his if if ' ~4"deieds.awould' go a long way to show that he had intended to carry out the '_l""$pl17ll'iOfA' the Will, after its execution. The very order of the Land

--«l.,:'l°ribu:ial initially rejecting the claim of the Sangha and granting if i occupancy rights in favour of other applicants, subsequently has been ,ll*"""

39

to be at the connivance of the petitioner, as is contended by the respondents and according to the petitioner, he himself came forward to part with only 6.02 acres to the Sangha and the remaining eX'ten't«.to be retained by him. In this context, at the first instance, p,et'itioners:'hav"ittg asserted his right, has not proved the Wil'l»-.exec--i;ted,'inVL favour.' Further, on the representation forwarded vth:e._l-4"' respondent, member of the Sangha, to the Petitiiong Committee and'~--,the"'Petition"

Committee taking a decision .directing' the ll"-»responde'nAt who, in turn, has directed the 3"' respondent to malterentry' ~h.o'f.. the name of the Trust and the Sangha, such,,:a'--~direé§tion, appears to be,as is explained after having followed the legislative process. Might be the 4"' respondenttwotild be the member of the Committee or not; V accordirig"to,the contention of the respondent, some of the members of the 'Sanghai .have'«.forwarded their grievances to the Petition Committee and t'h.e_«Petit'i_on 'Committee headed by the Deputy Chairman of the _Legislatt1re=--.consi'sting of several members in both the Houses, hastaken "aggdecisionlalnd, in implementing the decision, after verification of the ._1records,'Athe 1" respondent issued a direction and that direction has been 'ﬂcarried out by the 3" respondent. Also, by the time the writ petition was ﬁled, there was already entries made in the revenue records and the 40 'mutation register way back in the month of May 2010. Stay order was also granted conditionally stating that if no such entries are ma€ie;_"n_ot*.to make such entries. As such, the petition has become infru--ct'aot1s;' = H On merits, even considering the argument that the pe:ti.tio'ner<-is not " » given opportunity before the Committee, it is,-seeri theiCornn1ittee has taken a decision directin the 3"" rest ondent lth.rourr_h tiielif' r.e_s o_ndent,. if > g P a. .. , -

to make entries after verifying the rec_o_rds.,g_ 'IThere is no question of the Committee hearing the grievance of7_the{_petitievner; Apart from that, if the petitioner is having any,grieva'nce',._he has ,tofurge the same else where. As could bes.e_en, theggirespondent also has taken steps to defend the property lbelpongingrtto over which there is said to be fraud V playedby the petitioner setting up claim to the extent of 44.33 acres '¥.ganld'a,l_so, :cont"ra_vention to the polices, the petitioner also is said to have th'evw'BDA seeking implementation of the Scheme which is irnpe"r--mis--sible;'as is contended.

"itjis specifically stated in the statement of objections filed by the 'rirespondent that BM Puttaswamy, the father of the petitioner, apart i from creating the Trust in the name of his maternal aunt and her husband 34?' 42 before the Land Tribunal in respect of some of the properties, as contended by the respondent, favouring the tenants to confer occupancy rights. What is also noticed is, based on the admission of this petitiofner before the Land Tribunal, contrary to the stand taken by father = M Puttaswarny, in respect of some of the "lands, therevipiiwtas grant, of occupancy rights. According to the respondent,petitioner'joirredrhandsip with the tenants contrary to the staternen'r~.given"by_ hisppfatherpbefore the " V Land Tribunal. It is the contentien of.tthc--.r_espondent that..pe.titioner has joined hands with some of the niernbers the Sangiha to knock off the property under the alleged Will itofthe executed in favour of late B M Puttasw.an1VyA:'«byvthe.._testator namely Srnt Rangamrna and under the said Will dated M Puttaswamy was appointed as vexecutorgandtheentire' property was conveyed by B M Puttaswarny in favour of the Trust on 19.10.1978 . Apart from that,._it'._i_s. stated,,_ Puttaswamy, according to the spirit of the Will, V perforrried of the obligation and the petitioner being the son of if 1 Pupttasvwamy, his obligation was to continue the spirit of the Will. to the same, when the petitioner approached the BDA for W fdeveflopment of the land contrary to the object of the Will dated H29..3.l962, opposing such resolution to be passed by the BDA 35/ 43 permitting the petitioner to form a layout, efforts have been made by the 5"" respondent to defend the property. This Court has also abolished the scheme that was approved by the BDA earlier, as such, the _respo_n'dent also withdrew the writ petition filed by them stating that__th.eir:

served. Further, what is noticed is, withoutthere being" 'a.generaile.bo'<i_yit' resolution, the petitioner in connivance with.&so;?net~o_f the nierlnbersof ' the Executive Committee, in the guise of .settling the dispute, to have» ' entered into a settlement by a__resoluti,o.n adopting procedure which was challenged by the 5""'lresponden.t sonteof the members of the 5"' respondent.' 4..-it'originfaltisnir-'wags 'also. fit-edzseeking for injunction against the act oftythe-peititionerané aithough the said suit came to be dismissed on technicalities,tAhow"eyer in appeal, the order of the trial court _ was set _{aside and ti.te__Vmatter was remanded to the trial court reserving ijliberty, to parties, to seek disposal. Some of the active members of the Satrighay,alstyifhaveirlh"approached the Supreme Court challenging the .misdee.ds of the members who were acting contrary to the interest of the " iSan'gha__as regards the so called compromise with the petitioner only to 6.02 acres in favour of the Sangha and petitioner retaining ''-..more than 35 acres of land and, certain observations have been made by i «the Apex Court in this regard.

44

Through out, what is noticed is, after execution of the Will by B M Puttaswamy to carry out the intention of the Will made by Smt Rangamma, he effectively executed the property in favour of_.-Trast created in the name of his maternal aunt which was founded 5'97 » respondent and, even after execution of the .'_l_'r*ust,'iiie""defended.the_ property belonging to the Trust before Tribunal' COUITS.

The 4"' respondent who" aviiiirector of the 5"

respondent also acted: in safeguarding' t«h:vC.v_il'it€I'{t',Si of the Trust and forwarded la pe_tition'vto..,the.yseeretary of the Petition Committee headed by the Deputy=Speal<er'=of i§e--gisiative House and the said Committee _ consisting ofmore thaniifteen members nominated by the Speaker, on iA'~.no-iricing the,igfact«..,_that without there being any basis the property bel'ongi.n g to the_ has been entered in the name of the petitioner, on such representation given by the members of the 5* respondent to "thei"p¢roperty belonging to the Trust, after deliberation and a ._ifes°o.lution passed after hearing the concerned department officials, gyldirected the 1" respondent who, in turn issued a direction to the 3"' if if respondent to rectify the entries made in the revenue records, which had 45 been done earlier contrary to the rights of the parties and without any inquiry on behalf of the Trust.

The claim of the petitioner is based on the alleged_.Will ' on 5.1.1935 by B M Puttaswatny. Belatedly_.the.s_aid tgeatgntibn is tal<;en, if if by him only during 1999 and not earlier to that. the Will 'y and petitioner is claiming right under tlrejsaid Will,_thatVcould..;h'ave been i' subject to proof. Apart from that, whether...t'heip~roperty has reinained in tact so as to bequeath to the petit.ioner_h'y:3B Ptittaswamy is also a question which requires:co.nsideration'...

In the idecisionof Ishappa @ Ishwarappa Vs Kalakappc;i& ,0rs KL] 301, it is held, since the donor had 'aEreadyy;lii\'eslted herself of the title to her property by gifting it away unde'r._re"giyster*e&i~v.,gift;'deed, she was left with no right or interest in lfpL'opertyli'to mal<e'b'equest of same to another. As such, it is held the Will _fV"'e$ie.cuted _ subsequently is invalid and does not convey any title to the liegat°ee.i"1t also held that the suit filed by the legatee for injunction and declaration of title on the basis of such Will is not maintainable. Ur"

Further, the submission of the petitioner's counsel that.g'the 5"' respondent cannot hold property as per the provisions of the_ii<Zai*i;:at;aI<a. Land Reforms Act is concerned, it is for the 5"' respoiide'nt_to:,i_rr:ove the _ it i government seeking for such exemption by';.ifo11owing«the' pr_oc--edure,hfor retention of the property as is provided in ta-wiif any 'queri'eS"'are'--.. there. The petitioner has no locus staridito question ithei-isanie, he being one of the trustee of the Trusttiiid he canti'o.t_act~-contraryiito the interest and object of the 5"'A,respondent'. contended, already property is convertéid fi{ir»r'non--iagrii;_uitur.a1 In the case' haiid, ffetition Committee has taken steps to make proper' inciuiryi byisiin:irio.riirigi the department officials who made entries thenanie 'ofthei petitioner first in point of time and the basis on ?.pwhich_isuch' eiit_ri'e.s_ were made, after receiving several representations, after Secretary of -the Committee has, as per the V _instructions._'iofwthe Committee, instructed the Deputy Commissioner '"{'.OI1CEvI'[}6d to make necessary entries in the revenue records in the name the Trust in whose name the Deed was executed and property was " conveyed by B M Puttaswariiy who was the Executor, as per the wishes ii of the testator. Though the property was the subject matter of alleged 48 favour of the petitioner. if at all a Will, as contended, is executed, the so called Wiii does not have any sanctity in the eye of law. Even regarding certain properties said to have been knocked off by unscrupuloas persons at the instance of the petitioner, it is _,seen,_4vs<hile contesting the matter the petitioner's admission that there' available to some of the tenants, appears to._becontra_=:y' to spirit" of the "

Wiii which was executed in favour of the ':17rust,}"}r1V such 'a situationfany such understanding entered into between the'v-petitioner i=n"connivance..i' with some of the member of __the Sanyghaﬁo'retain.pr-operty_:3on1y to the extent of 15.02 acres-Vand?.the--.rest__to_ be left in favour of the petitioner, would be non_-_est_aS, no availabie either to the petitioner or to some of tire members of the Sangha to enter into a settlement. A p noticed from the documents produced aiong with the statement of objections is, during May 2010, even before fiiing of the if petitions', the Petition Committee, on the representations given by asorn_e"of7the members of the Sangha, after verification with the Revenue ..'_4lDepartment officials, passed an order directing the concerned V departments to make entries in the name of the Sangha/T rust, which W are aecordingl.y dismissed. ' 49 order appears to be appropriate and in my considered opinion, does not Cali for interference. Steps if any, to be taken by the active of the Sangha to protect the property, as is observed by the-Ape}:. appears petitioner himself being one of thevtrtisteep of-'_'the,tr{1st'pereate;i on the death of his father late B M Puttaswiamy;-it property in connivance with some of-v.,the._n1ernbe_rs' of 'the"~-Siahgha and"

because of petitioner's conseritin fa}'0{i1"'(§f tenants, Sm' respondent lost most valuable properties as contended t-arid,' it_appfe_ars -to be a case of mat administration. If_so'n1_Ve'_-of the me1_:n«bersA'of'_jtheSangha have taken steps to protect the prbpeiify.,_"thai, can1jjo,t'i;e_ be not maintainable. With the above'Vobser-.;a'titon',' the petitions being devoid of merits, Sd/~ JIJDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court