Karnataka High Court
Revanasiddayya vs Veerashaiva Bandu Samaj Samiti on 12 August, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1018 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
1. Revanasiddayya,
Son of Shivasharanayya Hosmani,
Major, Occ: Business,
Resident of Shaik Roza,
Gulbarga.
1a) Basawaraj,
Son of Revansiddayya Hosmath,
Age: 62 years,
Resident of H.No.9-837,
Suna Mehal,
Near Chowk Masjid Sha Bazar,
Gulbarga - 585 102.
1b) Subhash Chandra,
Son of Revansiddayya Hosmath,
Age: 58 years,
Resident of H.No.9-472, Swadhi Galli,
Near Lal Hanuman Temple,
Shahabazar, Gulbarga - 585 102.
1c) Vanmala,
Wife of Basawaraj Mathpati,
2
Age: 46 years,
Resident of H.No.4-280/2,
Guru Krupa Nilay,
Near Milan Chowk,
Gulbarga - 585 101.
1d) Basamma,
Wife of Sadanand Swamy,
Age: 45 years,
C/o. Rukmpet,
Taluk and District Paragi.
2. Sharanayya,
Son of Revasiddayya,
Age: 32 years,
Occupation : Business,
Resident of Shaikh Roza,
Gulbarga - 585 103. ... APPELLANTS
(By Shri. Shivakumar Kalloor, Advocate)
AND:
1. Veerashaiva Bandu Samaj Samiti,
Represented by its Secretary,
Chandrakanth,
Son of Sharanagouda Biradar,
Major, resident of Shaikh Roza,
Gulbarga - 585 103.
2. Basavanappa,
Son of Gundappa Shankane,
Major,
Occupation: Business,
3
[vide court order dated 23.2.2010
Appeal dismissed against
Respondent no.2]
3. Prabhu,
Son of Shivasharanappa Biradar,
Major, occupation: Business,
4. Anneppa,
Son of Sharanappa Police Patil,
Major, occupation: Business,
5. Gundappa,
Son of Saibanna Sherikar,
Major, occupation: Business,
6. Chandrakanth,
Son of Sarbannagouda,
Major, occupation: Business,
All are resident of Shaikh Roza,
Gulbarga.
7. The City Corporation Gulbarga - 585 103,
Represented by its Commissioner.
8. State of Karnataka,
Represented by Deputy Commissioner,
Gulbarga.
[Respondent No.8 impleaded
Vide court order dated 31.7.2014]
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Hanumanth Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 , 3
to 6
4
Shri. Shivakumar Tengli, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.8
Shri. P.S. Mati Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.7
Vide court order dated 23.2.2010 appeal dismissed against R-2)
*****
This Regular First Appeal filed under Sec3tion 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree
dated 20.1.2007 passed in O.S.No.161/2002 on the file of the I
Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Gulbarga, dismissing the suit for
declaration and injunction.
This Regular First Appeal having been heard and reserved
at Gulbarga Bench on 31.7.2014 and coming on for
pronouncement of Judgment at Bangalore this day, the Court
delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal by a plaintiff. He was the second plaintiff in the suit. The first plaintiff died during the pendency of this appeal.
2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The facts are as follows: Plaintiffs no.1 and 2, who had filed the suit were said to be father and son. The defendants no .1 to 6 were said to be a Society known as Veerashaiva Bandu Samaj 5 and its managing committee members, respectively. Defendant no.7, the Corporation of the City of Gulbarga, was formally arrayed as a party. Defendant no.8 is the State of Karnataka, impleaded at the instance of this court, at the final hearing of this appeal.
It was the case of the plaintiffs that property bearing CTS no.245, situated at Shaikh Roza, Gulbarga, measuring about 8204.09 Square metres, was said to be 'gouthan giran' land. The same was more fully described in the Schedule to the suit. It was claimed that the then Subedar of the State of Hyderabad had granted the above land to an ancestor of the plaintiffs, namely, Channabassaya, son of Basarachayya Jangam Hosmath, as on 23, Ardhie Behasth, 1329 Fasali, corresponding to the year 1920 of the Gregorian Calendar. It was claimed that the Revenue administration which was headed by the Sajjada of Darga Khaja Bandenawaz, Gulbarga, who was said to have been authorized by the State of Hyderabad to determine pattadari rights, had endorsed the grant made in favour of Channabassaya in the survey records. 6 This grant was claimed to be in perpetuity and that Channabassaya had been succeeded by his brother one Shivalinga Basarachayya, who was claimed to be the grandfather of Plaintiff no.1. It was also asserted that the grant was not made in the name of any deity or any institution. There was however, a condition attached to the grant namely, that the grantee and his successors were required to maintain and offer puja at the Mahadev temple comprised in an area of 20 feet by 10 feet, situate in the south western corner of the plot of land. The plaintiffs claimed they and their ancestors before them had diligently followed this dictum and had been in continuous possession of the property. That apart from the temple there was a small room constructed, facing the temple by the ancestors of the plaintiffs for performing 'anushtan' every now and then, and there were graves of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. It was claimed that there were no other structures on the premises.
With the merger of the State of Hyderabad with the Union of India and the subsequent introduction of the City Survey of Gulbarga City, the continued occupation and holding of the 7 property in question by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs, the authorities had duly recognized the occupation and holding of the land by plaintiff no.1 and had entered his name in the survey records. The said revenue entry, it was claimed continued over the decades, upto the year 1990.
It was claimed that the plaintiff no.1 was aged and was infirm and hence plaintiff no.2 is said to have continued the duties pertaining to the temple and it was claimed that plaintiff no.1 had gifted the property to plaintiff no.2.
It was alleged that during the year 1991, the defendant no.1 society represented by defendants 2 to 6, is said to have made an application to the Deputy Director of Land Records, without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, seeking the deletion of the name of plaintiff no.1 as the holder of the property in question and to enter the name of the Society. It was further alleged that, without notice to the plaintiffs and without an enquiry, the name of the plaintiff is said to have been deleted from the records and the name of the Society is said to have been entered in the land records. It was 8 also claimed that as on the date of such transfer, the Society was not even a registered body.
The plaintiffs claimed that they remained unaware of the above development till the year 2002 and were alerted only when the above said defendants are said to have commenced construction of a structure on the premises. It was then that the plaintiffs, after making enquiries, had learnt about the unilateral entry in the revenue records in favour of the Society. The plaintiffs are said to have challenged the entry made in the records in favour of the Society by recourse to a revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KLR Act', for brevity), before the competent authority. It is alleged that influence was brought on the said authority by the defendants, who is said to have dismissed the same without assigning proper reasons and overlooking glaring circumstances.
The plaintiffs are also said to have complained to the Corporation of the City of Gulbarga, as regards the illegal 9 construction activity of the defendants, and the construction had been stopped for a while. But when the defendants had again commenced construction gaining courage with the dismissal of the proceedings before the revisional authority aforesaid, the plaintiffs had brought the suit.
The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit were to declare the plaintiffs as the absolute owners of the suit property, to injunct the defendants 1 to 6 from interfering with their possession and to remove the unauthorized construction on the suit premises as well as for correction of the revenue entries showing the plaintiffs as the owners.
The suit was contested by defendant no.6 filing a written statement. It was contended that the defendant no.1 did not exist. As it was said to have been replaced by a registered 'samithi', namely, "Veerashaiva Bandhu Samaj Samiti", represented by the said defendant no.6 as its Secretary.
It was disputed that the surname of the plaintiffs was 'Hosamath' but that it was ' 'Matapathi'. It was stated that the 10 boundaries of the suit property were incorrectly shown. The plaint averments as to the history and the manner in which the suit property was claimed to have been in their possession was totally denied.
It was contended that the Mahadev temple on the suit property was situated in the north-western corner and not in the south-west. The temple comprised of an area of 30'x 40' and there was a shivalinga installed therein. That there was a Hosamath (Gadagimath) situated on the North-eastern corner. The temple and hosamath were said to be 800 years old and the entire property belonged to the deity in the temple. It was denied that the plaintiffs had any connection with the suit property or the graves existing on the property of Channabasayya or others. The further claim that the name of plaintiff no.1 finds place in an extract of the City Survey Register is ambiguous, as the name of the Mahadev temple is conspicuously shown even in the said document. The claim to ownership by the plaintiffs is without any basis. It was claimed that the plaintiffs had been confronted with 11 regard to the illegal entry in the land records and it was claimed that the plaintiff no.1 had voluntarily executed a document to declare that the temple was the property of the deity and gadagimath and that he and his family members had no right over the same. It is on the basis of the same that the Society had got the entries in the land records altered, as on 2.11.1991. And as admitted by the plaintiffs, the same has attained finality by virtue of the revision petition filed by the plaintiffs having been dismissed and having become final.
It was asserted that the claim of plaintiff no.2 that there was a gift deed executed by the plaintiff no.1 was without any substance as plaintiff no.1 had no right that could be conveyed by way of gift. It was also pointed out that the alleged gift deed was not forthcoming.
It was claimed that the suit was grossly undervalued and particulars of the actual value of the property was asserted .
It was asserted that the plaintiffs were hardly qualified to claim to be matadipathis or peetadipathis.
12
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues :
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves the correctness of the description of the suit property show in Para No.2 of the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove their relationship with Channabassayya S/o. Basarachayya Jangum Hosmath as contended in Para No.3 of the plaint?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that on 23 Ardhie Behasath 1329 Fasii the then Subedar of Government of Hyderabad has granted the suit land in favour of said Channabassayya S/o Basarachayya Jangum Hosmath?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the said Channabassayya S/o Basarachayya Jangum Hosmath was the owner of the suit property?
5. Whether the plaintiffs proves that the said Channabassayya was in lawful and actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
6. Whether the plaintiffs prove that after the death of said Channabassayya the plaintiff No.1 succeeded to the suit property?
7. Whether the plaintiffs prove the suit property is in their lawful and actual possession and enjoyment of suit property as on the date of suit?
8. Whether the plaintiff No.2 proves that the plaintiff No.1 has gifted the suit property in his favour by executing a gift deed?
9. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants No.1 to 6 have illegally and unauthorisedly raised a construction in the suit property?13
10. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants No.1 to 6 have interfered in their lawful and actual possession and enjoyment of suit property?
11. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant No.1 to 6 illegally got entered the name of the defendant No.1 in the concerned Corporation records and A.D.L.R. Office in respect of suit property?
12. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation?
13. Whether the plaintiffs prove that there arose a cause of action to file this suit against the defendants?
14. Whether the suit valuation made by the plaintiffs is proper and correct?
15. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is proper and correct?
16. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought for?
17. Whether the defendant No.1 to 6 are entitled to compensatory costs? If so, to what extent?
18. What Decree or Order?"
Of the above, Issues nos.1 and 12 to 15 were answered in the affirmative and all the other issues were answered in the negative and the suit was consequently dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
14
5. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the grant made by the State of Hyderabad in favour of Channabasayya , which is produced and marked as Exhibit -P1, which is a document more than thirty years old and therefore a presumption of its due execution and its contents arises under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But the trial court has negated and trashed the document holding that :
a. there was a serious objection by the defendants to the very marking and admission of the document in evidence and that the same had been marked subject to such objection and therefore the plaintiffs ought to have examined the translator who had furnished an English translation of the same. Hence the same was not proved.
b. that the document actually refers to an earlier grant and on an application by the grantee seeking additional land, the same was to be handed over, subject to the continued performance of performing puja and maintaining the temple. This was clearly for 15 the benefit of the Mahadev temple and the Hindu community and not for the benefit of any individual.
c. That the plaintiff no.1 had for the first time in the year 1975 approached the Revenue authorities with a misleading application, on the strength of Exhibit P1, claiming that it was an exclusive grant made in favour of Channabasayya and that he, Revansiddaya- Plaintiff no.1, was the direct descendant of Channabassaya, and had succeeded in obtaining an entry made in the Revenue records as if he was the holder and owner in possession of the suit property by succession.
The learned counsel would contend that the above reasoning has further lead the trial court to hold that the mere fact that the name of the plaintiff had continued in the revenue records, till it was deleted by the authorities, at the instance of the defendants who disputed the efficacy of Exhibit P1 or that even if any such permission to hold any portion of the property was conferred on Channabasayya Hosmath, it could not be construed 16 as conferment of title to the property and further that the plaintiffs had not established that they are the descendants or the legal heirs of Channabasayya.
It is however, highlighted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the trial court had significantly opined thus :
"xxxx As such, after making enquiry and satisfying the title by the plaintiff No.1 through his ancestors the C.T.S. authorities have mutated his name and issued Ex.P.5 the holding certificate and has got presumptive value that for over 20 years till the D.D.L.R. struck down the said order on 01.11.91 the name of the plaintiff No.1 was standing and presumption can be raised which is attached to the entries cannot be appreciated, because the entries maintained by the C.T.S, Panchayat or Revenue Department cannot be regarded as a proof of title. At the best presumption can be raised with regard to possession, in the glaring face that the defendants have denied the relationship of plaintiffs with Channabassayya and also property belonged to Mahadev Temple and Ex.P.1 itself is denied by the defendants. Therefore, merely because in the year 1975 or so, C.T.S. authorities have entered the name of plaintiff No.1 does not mean that, that itself is a proof of acquiring a title. No doubt entries in the C.T.S. records attached presumptions, but it is reputable presumption and merely production of Ex.P.3 to 17 P.5 automatically cannot dispensed with the proof of title."
(emphasis supplied) If therefore, the presumption as to possession atleast was in favour of the plaintiffs - till such time that the entry was changed, unilaterally and illegally in favour of the defendants - on the strength of which alone they were seeking to assert possession- without any better title to the property, a Society which is an entity, could not assert title or even a right to management of the property without any legal sanction and hence the right to possession of the property ought to have been protected in favour of the plaintiffs, even if there could be no conferment of title.
The learned counsel for the appellant would thus contend that the suit having been dismissed unconditionally - has however, proceeded to express findings in favour of the defendants which have the effect of conferring a right to exclusive possession on the defendants 1 to 6 constituting a so-called Society. This would also tantamount to further fortifying their 18 nebulous and veiled claim to title. In this regard, attention is drawn to the following findings of the trial court.
"But in this case, plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and possession of the open space, therefore, when it is their allegation that defendants have constructed unauthorisedly Mahadev Sabhagruha and sought for the relief of mandatory injunction quite obviously defendants have proved by way of oral evidence and documentary evidence that plaintiffs are not at all in possession of open land nor they are resided in any of portion of suit property at any point of time. In this view of the matter, the plaintiffs ought to have claimed the relief of possession. As such, the principles relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is not helpful to them, under the assumption that through Ex.P.1 to P.5 and evidence of P.W.2 to 5 plaintiffs have urged before the court that they are in possession but the appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary would go to show that plaintiffs have failed to prove their lawful possession as on the date of the suit in respect of suit property.
70. At this juncture, the evidence of D.W.1 to 3 which clarifies the position that the Veerashaiva Bandu Samaj Pancha Committee was managing the property since several decades is established and the evidence of D.W.1 and 2 are the office bearers of defendant No.1 Samaj and D.W.3 Dundappa Biradar is an independent witness of the locality whose house situated very near to the suit property has stated 19 there is not Peethadikari to Gadagimath and his house situate to the west of the suit property and one Shankarayya Swami is performing the Pooja of the temple and since his birth as far as his knowledge goes there were no Peethadikari to the said Math and he has fully supported the case of defendants that defendant No.1 Samaj was alone managing the property."
The learned counsel would thus contend that having regard to the fact that the revenue entries have already been made in favour of the Society by the revenue authorities, the above finding has the effect of enabling the defendants 1 to 6 to completely take over the property in the name of representing the general public, without any legal basis. Except on the finding that the defendants had been paying electricity charges for the premises and had succeeded in constructing a 'sabhagraha' or a stage, to conduct functions.
It is hence contended that the appeal be allowed as prayed for.
6. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 6 seeks to justify the judgment of the trial court and seeks to enlarge upon 20 the findings of the trial court. Reliance is sought to be placed on a large number of judgments in support of legal contentions. Incidentally, the learned counsel for the defendants has made it clear that the object of the defendants is only to protect the property for the benefit of the public and the Hindu community, in particular, which worships at the Mahadev temple and congregates in order to participate in other religious functions and discourses arranged on the premises, from time to time, would declare that none of the defendants are pursuing any self interest, but are only seeking to prevent the plaintiffs from usurping the property fraudulently as being their own. He would also submit that there would be no objection if the State government should bring the temple and the appurtenant property, under its control and supervision.
7. After having perused the record and having considered the rival contentions, it is to be examined whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit and in arriving at certain other findings.
21
In addressing the suit, the trial court had framed all of 15 issues and the burden of establishing all the said issues was cast on the plaintiffs. The relevant issues pertaining to the claim of the plaintiffs having been answered in the negative, it would not have the effect of vesting the defendants with any crystallized rights or claims. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the possession and the right to manage the suit property as claimed by the defendants has been blessed with a seal of approval by the trial court. A Society said to be registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act , 1960, with effect from the year 2001, could not ambiguously claim to have been in possession since the year 1991, while calling itself 'Veerashaiva Bandu Samaj Pancha Committee' , an unregistered body.
The plaintiffs have virtually given up their claim to title to the property, before this court. In any event, the 'grant' claimed by the plaintiffs by reference to Exhibit - P1 having been negated by the trial court, cannot be faulted. Since the English Translation of Exhibit P-1 provided at Exhibit P-2, by the plaintiffs did not 22 appear to be a true and accurate translation, Shri B.Jayacharya, Advocate, whose assistance was procured, during the hearing of the appeal, has furnished the following version - which appears to be closer to the contents of the document. Though there are some other particulars mentioned in Exhibit P-2 , significantly not noticed in the latest version. The said discrepancy may even be attributed to the crumbling state of the document.
"Reason for writing this Document, as per the application of Sri Channabassappa S/o Shivrachappa Jangam Hosmath, a specifically situated land, called Public Bridge Road, boundaries of which are given below is permitted to be included in the boundaries of the earlier given land in tact, on condition of performance of properly kindling the lights, keeping premises clean by sweeping etc., without giving any opportunity for complaint by Hindus.
Non compliance of the stated conditions may invite penal action by the Hindu Section of the Jagiries. Thus, with all consciousness the duties and formalities be carried out without incurring their wrath.
Map of land enclosed."23
Though there could be a hint of a possible constructive trust in respect of a religious endowment, the particulars are vague. It cannot however, be construed as a document of title to any property.
Therefore, understandably, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs restricted the claim to possession for purposes of management of the suit property, subject to the condition of maintaining the temple and offering puja there in, on the strength of being the descendants of Channabasayya. And continued to question the basis of the defendants' claim to a better right.
From the material on record, it cannot be said that there is an accurate and complete history of the property in question. The defendants are also vague in claiming a 800 year old history of the temple. The claim that the property is one which is endowed to the deity of the Mahadev temple, it is not made clear as to who has made the endowment and when. The defendants claiming to have assumed management of the property in the interest of the local Hindu community, though may be imbued with all good 24 intentions, is not assumed in a manner known or recognized in law. From the material produced on record , apart from indicating that though the revenue record was altered to indicate the name of an erstwhile Committee, aforesaid, in the place of Plaintiff no.1 - with reference to the suit property, the present Society was incorporated only in the year 2001. Hence the taking over of the management by certain individuals and thereafter by a registered body without reference to any other deed of Trust or Transfer, is certainly not regular. A plain perusal of the Order dated 2.11.1991of the Director of Land Records, directing the change of the holder's name in respect of the suit property in favour of the erstwhile committee and the further Order dated 1.4.2002, passed by the Joint Director of Land Records, christening the Society as a Managing Trustee, are clearly non-speaking orders.
Therefore, it cannot be said that though the plaintiffs may have miserably failed to establish their case, the defendants were not in any better position to claim possession and management of a religious institution and valuable land attached to it. The further 25 disturbing feature is that a registered Society is enabled to act as a legal entity and by virtue of the property being shown in the revenue records in the name of the said Society and now with the present impugned judgment in hand, the managing committee is free to deal with the property in the name of public interest and the deity. The Society is answerable to none, not even the Registrar of Societies, say for instance in respect of commercial transactions involving the land, to raise funds purportedly for the development of the temple. And more significantly, from the record it is not evident that the Society consists of any sizable number of members, except for a handful of people. They could conveniently act with unanimity in respect of any such transactions and the temptation to profit from the same may prove irresistible. Given that the members are only bound by the Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Regulations of the Society, they could hardly be treated as Trustees of any property, whose acts would be circumscribed by the principles governing Trusteeship in respect of property endowed for a 26 religious purpose. There would be no such fetter placed on them. It is not even shown on record that the said Society is regularly filing its returns before the Registrar of Societies as required in law. Hence, the seal of approval given to the defendants of their claim to be managing the property in question was out of place in a suit filed by the plaintiffs, even in the absence of an issue in that regard.
It is evident that the trial court while negating the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit property had been granted by the State of Hyderabad, has proceeded on a presumption that the property was endowed in favour of the deity of the Mahadev temple situated therein and further that the defendants were competent to represent the members of the Hindu community, for whose benefit the temple was constructed and the deity installed, to be given the reins of management. There was no basis for the same except the claim of the defendants, there was no material placed by the defendants to establish the authority or competence 27 under which they had allegedly assumed the management of the temple.
In the light of the above, while affirming the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs, it is the opinion of this court that it was out of place to reassure the defendants of their alleged authority or claim to be in a position to assume management of the property in question. It is now clear that no party is claiming ownership of the property in question, but only seeks to exercise management, the scope and extent of management, proceeding on the footing that the property stands endowed to the temple, any arrangement by which the management is entrusted to one or the other body, should be capable of supervision and subject to the authority of a body to oversee the functioning of any such managing body or to be regulated by appropriate terms and conditions imposed in accordance with law. The management of the temple and the property by the defendant Society is not subject to the supervision of any authority.
28
In the above scenario, the possible manner in which the management of the affairs of the temple could be carried on in accordance with law by an authorized body is by recourse to the following measures.
The first possibility is that, under the provisions of the Karnataka Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, there could be a determination to declare the Mahadev temple and its property as a 'Declared Institution' to be regulated under Chapter VIII of the said Act. This is subject to two limitations. Firstly, it should be found that there is no matta or mutt in existence on the property. For if there is one, the Act would not apply in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the said Act. Secondly, the validity of the said Act or atleast certain provisions thereof is pending consideration before the Apex court, how far the said proceedings would be a present bar to such determination would also have to be addressed.
The second possibility is that, since admittedly, the temple and the appurtenant property are meant to be used for the benefit 29 of the Hindu denomination of the general public, it is to be treated as public property and proceedings could be initiated under Section 67 of the KLR Act, in the State laying claim to the property. The endowment in favour of the temple if not forthcoming, if the property was original situated in the State of Hyderabad and with the merger with the Union of India and consequent Re-organization of States and the same now being in the State of Karnataka, in the absence any known owner, the land has vested in the State.
The third possibility is that there may be recourse taken to Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by such interested persons seeking to administer the suit property.
Pending the exercise of any of these options, and as the first two are possibilities that may be pursued at the behest of the State, and pending consideration of the legal options and efficacious procedure to be followed by the State government as regards the suit property and subject to the third possibility by any interested persons, it is appropriate that the State government, 30 through the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga District, take over physical possession, and the management of the suit property, pending such proceedings that may be initiated in due course. The Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga District, is hereby authorized to enter upon and take formal physical possession in accordance with law and is further authorized to take such steps or pass such orders as may be necessary, against all third-parties, as may be necessary or deemed fit, for the management and maintenance of the property. The finding of the trial court in favour of Defendants 1 to 6 as regards the possession and management of the suit property is set aside.
The appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv*