Karnataka High Court
The Superintending Of Archeologist vs The Land Tribunal on 5 November, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
W.P.No.66221/2009 (LR)
BETWEEN:
THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHELOGIST,
ARCHELOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA,
NEAR R.N.SHEETY STADIUM, DHARWAD-580008.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.B.KANAVI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, HANGAL,
REP.BY THE SECRETARY,
HANGAL-581104 (DIST: HAVERI)
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HANGAL-581104 (DIST: HAVERI)
3. TIPPANNA PARASAPPA PARAKKANAVAR,
SINCE DIED BY HIS LR'S
3a) SMT.NAGAVA W/O YALLAPPA PARAKKANAVAR,
SINCE DECEASED,
R3(c-i) ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R3b.
3b) SRI.LAXMAN S/O YALLAPPA PARAKKANAVAR,
SINCE DECEASED,
R3(c-i) ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R3b.
3c) SMT.KALAVA TI W/O KRISHNA PARAKKANAVAR,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MYAGALAGERI, HANAGAL-581104,
TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
2
3d) SRI. MALTESH S/O YALLAPPA PARAKKANAVAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MYAGALAGERI, HANAGAL-581104,
TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
3e) SRI.GANESHA S/O YALLAPPA PARAKKANAVAR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MYAGALAGERI, HANAGAL-581104,
TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
3f) SRI.BASAVARAJ S/O YALLAPPA PARAKKANAVAR,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NEAR ANEKERI TANK, HANAGAL-581104,
TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
3g) SRI.NAGAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA PARAKKANAVAR,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NEAR ANEKERI TANK, HANAGAL-581104,
TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
3h) SRI.TIPPANNA S/O FAKKIRAPPA PARAKKANAVAR,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NEAR ANEKERI TANK, HANAGAL-581104,
TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
3i) SRI.RAGHAVENDRA S/O FAKKIRAPPA PARAKKANAVAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NEAR ANEKERI TANK, HANAGAL-581104,
TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
4. NARAYANACHARYA SUBBARACHARYA BHAVIKATTI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
R4a) SHRI SHRIDHARAMURTI NARAYANACHARYA
CANARA BANK POST, HOSANAGGAR,
HOSANAGAR-577418, DIST: SHIMOGA.
R5) RAVI S/O DHEEVENDRAO DESHPANDE,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HANAGAL-581104 (DT.HAVERI)
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINAYAK S.KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI.MAHANTESH C.KOTTURSHETTAR, ADV. FOR R3(c-i),
3
SRI.SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADV. FOR R5,
SRI.R.G.HEGDE, ADV. FOR R5
R4(a) SERVED; R3(a & b) DECEASED;
R3(c-i) ARE LRS OF DECEASED R3(a & b)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE LAND TRIBUNAL ORDER BEARING No.LRMSR
No.130/471 DATED 14.10.1981 PASSED BY RRESPONDENT No.1
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT No.2 TO
CORRECTLY MENTION THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER DEPARTMENT
IN THE RTC COLUMNS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SURVEY
No.10 AT HANGAL WHERE THE ANCIENT BILLESHWARA TEMPLE IS
SITUATED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.1981 passed by respondent No.1 bearing No.LRMSR No.130/471, this writ petition is filed.
2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that, petitioner claims that Billeshwara temple situated at Sy.No.10 in Hangal as centrally protected monument of national importance under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 and the petitioner is in possession 4 of Billeshwara temple and surrounding areas since from 1875 and the gazette notification was issued on 09.05.1918 as per Annexure-A. The said temple has been declared as ancient monument and is being preserved, conserved and maintained from time to time as per the provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sits and Ramains Act, 1958 and Rules 1959. The petitioner has produced notification disclosing list of protected ancient monument in the Bombay Presidency Area and the said list discloses that Billeshwara temple in Hangal at Serial No.509 classified as II(a) which is the monument owned and maintained by the Government.
3. Respondent No.4 is a landlord. Respondent No.3 filed form No.7 before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3 as per Annexure-L. Respondent No.3 sold the land under dispute to respondent No.5. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of Land Tribunal filed this writ petition. 5
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate.
5. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 has filed form No.7 in respect of Sy.No.10 of Hangal village. The Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.10. Further, the case of the petitioner is that Billeshwara temple is situated in Sy.No.10 and the said temple has been declared as ancient monument as per the notification dated 09.05.1918. The said notification does not disclose survey number of the land and boundaries. It is only mentioned "Old ruined temple between the fort and tank with two sides a finely sculptured doorway partly buried in accumulated earth, locally known as Billeshwar temple." Though the name of the petitioner is not appearing in the revenue records, the petitioner is challenging the order of the Land Tribunal on the ground that Billeshwara temple situated in Sy.No.10 and the Land 6 Tribunal without considering that the said temple is declared as ancient monument has passed the impugned order. Further, the petitioner is not a party in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and the order passed by the Land Tribunal is behind the back of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, petitioner is not a party before the Land Tribunal and an opportunity be given to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings by remitting the matter to the Land Tribunal to reconsider the same.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submits that impugned order may be set aside and remit the matter to the Land Tribunal for reconsideration.
7. It is not in dispute that Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.10 by impugned order. The petitioner claims that Billeshwara 7 temple is situated at Sy.No.10 and the said temple has been declared as ancient monument. As per the gazette notification dated 09.05.1918, the name of the petitioner was/is not appearing in the revenue records. The Land Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order. As the petitioner is not a party before the Land Tribunal in the said proceedings, by virtue of the impugned order the contesting respondents are claiming to be in possession of the property as tenants. The Land Tribunal has not issued notice to the petitioner and the same is passed behind the back of the petitioner.
8. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, to provide an opportunity to the parties, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Land Tribunal to reconsider the claim of respondent No.3 after hearing all the parties including the petitioner. 8
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 14.10.1981 passed by respondent No.1 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal to reconsider the claim of respondent No.3 after hearing all the parties including the petitioner.
Parties are at liberty to produce documents and other material before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law after considering the material placed by the parties.
All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Parties are directed to appear before the Land Tribunal on 04.01.2021 without awaiting any further notice from the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-