Karnataka High Court
The State Government Of Karnataka vs Islamic Mission Of India Regd on 25 January, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 207
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
WRIT APPEAL No.578/2020 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BENGALURU
REGION/DIVISION 2ND FLOOR,
B.M.T.C. BUILDING,
SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGLAURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
5. THE ASSISANT COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
6. THE TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 009. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR SMT. ROOPA K.R., HCGP)
-2-
AND:
ISLAMIC MISSION OF INDIA REGD.,
NATIONAL PARK ROAD, HULIMAVU VILLAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 076
REPRESENTED BY IS GENERAL SECRETARY
MR. NASEER AHMED
S/O. C.K.M. HYDER,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.391, 2ND MAIN,
2ND CROSS, R.M.V. EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 094. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI A.S. PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI R.KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE INTERIM ORDER DATED 25/09/2020
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON'BLE
COURT IN W.P.NO.10214/2020.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and learned senior counsel, Sri A.S.Ponnanna appearing for caveator/respondent, it is heard finally and disposed.
2. The State has preferred this appeal assailing the interim order dated 25/09/2020, passed in W.P.No.10214/2020. By the said order, learned single -3- Judge directed that the action of the State in closing down the institution during the conduct of B.E. degree examination and taking possession on 15/09/2020 pursuant to the order of the Tahsildar dated 14/09/2020 (Annexure - A) assailed by the respondent in the writ petition was incorrect and therefore stayed the order dated 14/09/2020. Hence, this appeal is preferred on behalf of the State.
3. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and learned senior counsel, Sri A.S. Ponnanna for the caveator/respondent and perused the material on record.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General drew our attention to the fact that the impugned order dated 14/09/2020, which has been stayed by the learned single Judge is only a consequential order passed pursuant to the order dated 14/10/2010 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru. He submitted that the respondent herein being in unauthorised occupation of the land in question had been unsuccessful before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru, which resulted -4- in order dated 19/01/2010 and also before the Special Deputy Commissioner and the same resulted in order dated 14/10/2010. He submitted that the said orders have attained finality as there is no challenge to the same made by the respondent herein. The same being the basis for the order dated 14/09/2020, passed by the Tahsildar is subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.
5. That pursuant to the order dated 14/09/2020, passed by the Tahsildar, the appellants/Authorities took possession of the extent of land, which is in unauthorised possession of the respondent at National Park Road, Hulimavu Village, Bengaluru as the said land is a Government land. However, learned single Judge in exercise of his discretion and bearing in mind the interest of the students, who are appearing for third B.E. degree examination in the respondent/institution directed the State to handover possession to the respondent, but at the same time, learned single Judge has stayed operation of Annexure-A, dated 14/09/2020. He submitted that the stay of the said order has come in the way of giving effect to the earlier order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 14/10/2010. He therefore submitted -5- that the order of the learned single Judge may be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned senior counsel, Sri Ponnanna appearing for the caveator/respondent submitted that the act of taking possession during the on- going final year degree examination pursuant to the order dated 14/09/2020 which was assailed in the writ petition was not acceptable to the learned single Judge who has rightly granted interim relief to the respondent herein and stayed the order dated 14/09/2020 at Annexure - A. There is no merit in the appeal and the same may be dismissed.
7. Having heard learned Additional Advocate General for the State and learned senior counsel for the caveator/respondent on 21/01/2021, we passed the following order:
"O R D E R We have heard Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Sri.A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior counsel for the caveator/respondent.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General contended that pursuant to order dated -6- 14/09/2020 passed by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, possession of the land in question was taken on 15/09/2020. However, pursuant to the interim order of the learned single Judge dated 25/09/2020, possession was handed over to the caveator/respondent, despite that, the interim order has been assailed in this appeal. He submitted that the interim order may be set aside and the possession may be ordered to be taken back from the caveator/respondent.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent brought to our notice the fact that the application has been filed seeking grant of the disputed extent of land and the same is under consideration. Therefore, the order at Annexure-A is assailed in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge has rightly granted the interim order.
4. Be that as it may. We are of the prima facie opinion that the matter attained finality in the year 2010 itself, with the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 14/10/2010. The impugned order is only a consequential order. In the circumstances, this Court, in order to put quietus to the matter, has expressed that the possession of the disputed extent be handed over to the State, subject to consideration of the application/representation made by the caveator/respondent. Till such time, no -7- precipitative action shall be initiated by the State in regard to the said extent of land.
At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent seeks a short accommodation.
List on 25/01/2021."
Hence, the matter is listed today (25/01/2021).
8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that if this Court is inclined to give effect to the order dated 14/09/2020 and to set aside the impugned interim order of the learned single Judge in this appeal, the interest of the students may be taken into consideration as they are prosecuting their B.E. decree course in the premises constructed on the land in question. He also submitted that an application has been filed by the respondent seeking grant or allotment of the land in question to the respondent/institution. That the interest of the respondent institution may be protected having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. We have considered the submission of learned Additional Advocate General and learned senior counsel for the respondent in light of the material on record. The -8- order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, dated 14/10/2010 reads as under:
"14.10.10 Case called twice.
Advocate for the appellant not present.
It is seen from the copy of the
impugned order of the Assistant
Commissioner, Bangalore South sub
division in No.RA/S/112/09-10, dated
19.1.2010 that the land in Sy.No.63 of Hulimavu village is a Govt. land. The Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk by his order dated 27.5.2009 has ordered to evict the appellant-institution from the said land as its occupation is unauthorized occupation. As against the said order the appellant-institution preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division. The Assistant Commissioner has rejected the said appeal on 19.01.2010. As against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner the appellant preferred this appeal on one of a ground that it has made representation to Govt. seeking sanction order for 8-00 Acres of land in Sy.No.63 of Hulimavu village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and the same is pending for consideration before govt. etc. -9- Now as per the communication of the Govt. in its letter addressed to this Authority in letter No.RD 859 LGB 2009, dated 6.7.2010, the request of the appellant institution is rejected.
Under the circumstances, it is deemed not necessary to keep this appeal pending. Accordingly, rejected as devoid of merits."
The same has not been assailed by the respondent and it has attained finality.
10. The impugned order dated 14/09/2020 is only a consequential order made by the Tahsildar pursuant to order dated 14/10/2010 directing eviction of the respondent, who is in unauthorized occupation of the land in question. It may be that during the pendency of the B.E. Degree examination, on 15/09/2020, the State and its Authorities took actual possession of the encroached portion of Sy.No.63 of Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. But thereafter, pursuant to the direction issued by the learned single Judge, possession was handed over to the respondent so that the students could appear in the ensuing examination. But we find that the learned single Judge ought not to have stayed the operation of the impugned order at Annexure - A, dated
- 10 -
14/09/2020 as the same is only a consequential order, but at the same time, it is necessary to consider two aspects of the matter. Firstly, that the respondent has made an application to the State seeking allotment/grant of a portion of the land in Sy.No.63, which is in unauthorized occupation of the respondent and the latest application has not been considered as yet. Secondly, we also think that from the practical point of view and bearing in mind the interest of the students, time ought to be given till 28/02/2021 for the respondent to vacate and surrender possession to the State and its Authorities by removing all movables from the buildings on the encroached portion of Sy.No.63.
11. The said time is being granted subject to the respondent filing an affidavit of undertaking before this Court within a period of two weeks from today.
12. In the event the respondent hands over possession to the State and its Authorities on or before 28/02/2021, the appellants are directed not to take any further precipitative action such as demolition of the buildings till the application/representation dated 25/08/2020 filed by the respondent is considered in
- 11 -
accordance with law and a speaking order is passed thereon.
13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2020 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE S*