Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Indrakshi Devi vs The Government Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2013
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION No.49024/2012
c/w. WRIT PETITION No.48421/2012 (GM-RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No.49024/2012
BETWEEN :
Mrs. Indrakshi Devi
W/o. Sri. Raja Chandra
Aged 56 years
R/a.No.241, 15th Main Road
Raj Mahal Vilas Extension
Bangalore 560 080 ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. B.M. Shyam Prasad, Adv.)
AND :
1. The Government of Karnataka
Department of Personnel and Administration
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore 560 001
Rep. by its Secretary
2. The Tahsildar
Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk
Yelahanka New Town
Bangalore ... RESPONDENTS
2
(By Sri. S. Vijay Shankar, Advocate General
For Sri. R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, HCGP)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 5.11.2012 as per Annexure-Q passed by Respondent
No.2 and etc.
IN WRIT PETITION No.48421/2012
BETWEEN :
Smt. Vishalakshi Devi
W/o. Sri. Gajendra Singh
Aged about 50 years
R/a. 'Shreeyum'
Palace Grounds
Ramana Maharishi Road
Bangalore 560 052 ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. Aditya Sondhi, Adv.)
AND :
1. The Tahsildar
Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk
Yelahanka New Town
Bangalore 560 016
2. The State of Karnataka
Department of Personnel and Administration
Reforms (DPAR)
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore 560 001
Rep. by its Principal Secretary ... RESPONDENTS
3
(By Sri. S. Vijay Shankar, Advocate General
For Sri. R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, HCGP)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 5.11.2012 as per Annexure-S passed by Respondent
No.1 and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary
hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
In these cases, the petitioners have called in question the validity of the order dated 5.11.2012 in case No.LND/CR/190/2012/12-13 passed by the Tahsildar and Taluk Executive Magistrate, Bangalore North (Additional), Taluk Yelahanka Satellite Town, Bangalore.
2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the former Ruler of erstwhile State of Mysore, Sri. Jayachamaraja Wadiyar. He was the owner of the petition schedule property. The petition schedule property amongst others 4 was sought to be acquired by the State Government vide Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996. The said enactment was challenged by the petitioners and others before this Court in W.P. No.33147/1996 and other connected writ petitions. The said writ petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 31.3.1997. In the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioners challenging the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, granted leave and the said matter came to be registered as civil appeal No.3308/1997. In the said case, the order of status quo was granted by the Supreme Court. On 30.4.1997, the said order was modified as under:
" 1. The petitioners in I.A.1 and 5 of 1997 are permitted to let the Bangalore Palace premises on temporary leave/licence/hire basis subject to the following conditions:
i) That the premises shall be let out on leave/licence basis for a fixed period only with the prior permission of the State Government;
ii) That the premises shall be let out only for the purpose which are not inconsistent with the object of the Acquisition Act;5
iii) That the petitioners shall ensure and undertake that no trees shall be cut from the portion of the premises so let out nor any other damage is caused to the landscape or environment;
iv) That the areas marked in Green in the plan, annexed hereto alone shall be so let out.
The entire area marked in Green, we are informed by the petitioners, does not exceed 30 acres;
v) That rest of the land i.e., parks and open space shall not be let out for any purpose by the petitioners;
vi) That the petitioners shall maintain an up to date account of the charges received by them in respect of letting out of the premises;
vii) That prior intimation shall be given to the State Government, while seeking permission, of the purpose for which the premises are required to be let out along with the period for which the premises are to be so let out and the particulars of the concerned parties to whom the premises would be let out;
viii) That the State Government shall not refuse permission to let out the premises, on the aforesaid terms, so long as the purpose for 6 letting out is not inconsistent with the object of the Act;
ix) That the petitioners shall also be entitled to hire out the main palace building also for the purpose of marriages etc. after giving prior intimation to the State; and
x) That the State Government shall be entitled to depute any of its officer, after prior intimation to the petitioners, to find out whether the order above made is being complied with in letter and spirit. "
3. Subsequently, Supreme Court has issued further directions for utilization of the schedule property.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been strictly carrying on the events/activities in the schedule property in terms of the permission granted by the Supreme Court. The Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk has issued notices to the petitioners on different dates alleging that they have not ensured compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court. Several structures have been raised 7 subsequently which were in utter disregard and violation of status quo passed by the Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court passed an interim order on 14.9.12 as under:
" The grievance has been raised in all these IAs that office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore North, Bangalore had issued notices in the month of September, 2012 on different dates to the different persons particularly with the allegations that the applicants have not ensured compliance of the order passed by this Court and several structures have been raised subsequently which was in utter disregard and violation of Status quo passed by this Court. The applicants have submitted that all of them have replied to the said show cause notices issued to them individually by the Tahsildar. However, no order has yet been passed by the Tahsildar and the applicants apprehend that the Tahsildar may pass an appropriate order without considering their reply and may take action forcibly and demolish the structures, if any, raised by them.
Mr. Prasava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State has 8 assured that the Tahsildar will give an opportunity of hearing to all the applicants and consider the reply submitted to the show cause notices by them within a period of two weeks from the date of filing certified copy of the order before him, which the parties are liberty to file immediately and will pass a speaking and reasoned order. The Tahsildar, however, shall not give effect to his orders, at least for a period of two weeks giving an opportunity to the applicants to raise their grievance before the appropriate forum. The Tahsildar shall pass an order strictly considering the facts of the case without being influenced by any observations made by this Court as we have not expressed any opinion on merit.
With these observations, all IAs stands disposed of. "
5. On 5.11.12 , the Tahsildar has passed an order holding that the respondents without maintaining the status quo and without obtaining permission of the competent authority have put up unauthorized structures such as marriage halls, exhibition stalls, stadium and other 9 unauthorized constructions. He ordered for demolition of the buildings, marriage halls, exhibition stalls, stadium and other unauthorized structures newly constructed, excluding the structures put up earlier to 30.4.1997.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 5.11.2012 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without application of mind. The Tahsildar who is a party to the litigation before the Supreme Court cannot usurp powers to determine the questions that emanate from its orders. Thus, the said order is without jurisdiction.
7. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that the Tahsildar has passed the order in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court dated 14.9.2012. One of the legal heirs of late Sri. Jayachamaraja Wadiyar has already filed an application before the Supreme Court in pending civil appeal challenging the said order. Since the order has been 10 passed by the Tahsildar in compliance of the interim order of the Apex Court, the petitioners cannot maintain these writ petitions. They have to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate reliefs.
8. There is considerable force in the submission of the learned Advocate General. As stated, the applications were filed in the civil appeal challenging the notices issued by the Tahsildar alleging that the petitioners have not ensured compliance of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court and several structures have been raised subsequently which are in utter disregard and violation of the order of status quo passed by the Court. That is why, the Supreme Court has directed the Tahsildar to give an opportunity of hearing to all the applicants, consider their reply to show cause notices and pass appropriate orders thereon. Admittedly, one of the legal heirs of late Sri. Jayachamaraja Wadiyar has already challenged the said order before the Apex Court. I am of the view that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, they 11 have to challenge the same before Supreme Court. Therefore, I decline to entertain these writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed with liberty as above. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Cs/-