Back
2011 Supreme(Kar) 611
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE ACTIING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAMAJIT SEN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
Ajit Kalyan, Bangalore
Versus
State of Karnataka & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 20792 of 2009 (GM-RC)
Decided On : 31-10-2011
For the Petitioner:H.S. Dwarakanath, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2 - K.M. Nataraj, Addl. Advocate General A/w Sri. Indiresh, Govt. Advocate, R3 - G.G. Shastri, Advocate, R4 - served.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the statutory necessity for the sale of Temple land to be exclusively for the benefit of the Temple, and the mandatory requirement for the sale to be affected only by public auction, unless permitted otherwise by the State Government with valid reasons.
Headnote:
Sale of Temple Land - Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowment Act 1997, Section 62 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition sought to quash the approval for the sale of land belonging to Sri Kadu Malleshwaraswamy Temple, granted by the Government of Karnataka under Section-62(3) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowment Act 1997.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale was not for the benefit of the Temple as required by the Act, and the approval was granted without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section-62(3). The court also rejected the argument of laches and held the sale deed to be null and void.
Issues: The main issue was whether the sale of the Temple land was in compliance with the provisions of Section-62 of the Act and whether the approval granted was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the statutory necessity for the sale to be for the exclusive benefit of the Temple and the mandatory requirement for the sale to be affected only by public auction, unless permitted otherwise by the State Government with valid reasons.
Final Decision: The court held the sale deed to be illegal and nullified the permission to sell the Temple land. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, AG.C.J.
1. This writ petition under Article-226 of the Constitution prays for quashing of Order passed by the Government of Karnataka bearing No. RD/33/Mu.Aaa.Bi/2007, Bangalore dated 01.07.2009, whereby approval had been granted for the sale of 6000 square feet of land belonging to Sri Kadu Malleshwaraswamy Temple, Malleswaram, Bangalore City. The consideration for the sale is a sum of Rs.1,44,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.2,400/- per square feet being the alleged market price. The sale has been sanctioned in favour of the Respondent Sri Sai Mandali, Bangalore. The State Government has purportedly exercised powers under the proviso to Section-62 (3) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowment Act 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1997 Act’).
2. This writ petition has already had a chequered history. It was filed before the learned Single Judge and after few hearings, it was listed before the Division Bench, consequent upon a statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that similar grievances had been ventilated in Writ Appeal No.2063/2007. The said Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and in that context, this writ petition was again directed to be posted before the learned Single Judge according to the extant roster. The said W.A.No.2063/2007 was however subsequently restored and was disposed of on merits by Order dated 08.08.2011. However, the said Appeal as well as the Writ Petition did not pertain to the sale which is impugned in the instant petition, and as such, is not relevant for the present purposes. Be that as it may, when the instant petition was listed before the learned Single Judge on 24.06.2011, it was contended that the present petition was in the nature of a public interest litigation. Hence, the learned Single Judge directed that the writ petition be listed before the Division Bench having the roster of public interest litigations. Accordingly, the instant petition is to be considered in these circumstances.
3. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned permission/approval has wrongly been granted under Section-62(3) of the said 1997 Act. This Section is reproduced for the facility of reference:
“62. Alienation of immovable property – (1) Any exchange, gift, sale or mortgage or lease of any immovable property belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any Notified Institution or a Declared Institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the State Government as being necessary or beneficial to the Institution and such sanction shall be made subject to such restrictions or conditions as may be prescribed:
Provided that before such sanction is accorded, particulars relating to the proposed transactions shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed, inviting objections and suggestions and all objections and suggestions received in that behalf shall be duly considered by the State Government.
(2) Where it is found subsequently that the permission under sub-section (1) has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation the State Government shall be competent to cancel the permission so granted, after giving due opportunity of being heard to all the concerned.
(3) Every sale of immovable property sanctioned under sub-section (1) shall be effected by public auction in the prescribed manner and subject to confirmation by the Commissioner within a period to be prescribed:
Provided that the State Government may in the interest of the Notified Institution or the Declared Institution and for reasons to be recorded in writing permit the sale of such immovable property otherwise than by public auction.
(4) Whether any alienation, transfer or other act in respect of immovable property which is not valid under sub-section (1) comes to the knowledge of the Assistant Commissioner, he may after such inquiry as he deems necessary to make issue notice to the alienee or other person in possession to rest
