Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 23004
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G. UMA, J
TRIKUTESHWAR DEVASTHANA, – Appellant
Versus
RAMACHANDRA KARISHNAJI PATIL, – Respondent
WP 65345/2011
SRI SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE, SRI H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO 1(D); SRI M. KEHSAVA REDDY, AAG AND SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R2 AND R3
The court emphasized the necessity for the Tribunal to determine whether Form No.1 was filed in individual capacity or as a representative, impacting the legitimacy of occupancy rights conferred.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 - Jurisdiction of Land Tribunal - The petitioner seeks to quash the Tribunal's order dated 23.11.2010, contending it acted beyond its jurisdiction in conferring occupancy rights. The Tribunal's assumption of jurisdiction was challenged based on prior decisions regarding Form No.1. (Paras 1-19)
(B) Legal Representatives - The issue of whether the original applicant filed Form No.1 in an individual capacity or as a representative of the Temple Trust was pivotal. The court found the Tribunal failed to adequately address this issue before conferring rights. (Paras 19-20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Temple Trust, argues the Tribunal's order is illegal as it overlooked the original applicant's capacity in filing Form No.1. The original applicant's legal representatives were brought on record without valid rights.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's decision to confer rights without proper jurisdiction and consideration of the original application was flawed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the original applicant filed Form No.1 in his personal capacity or as Chairman of the Trust, affecting the legitimacy of the occupancy rights conferred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal's failure to consider the capacity in which Form No.1 was filed warranted the quashing of the order, necessitating a fresh review.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the Tribunal's order set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
1. The petitioner Sri Trikuteshwar Devasthan Trust represented by its Trustees, is seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.11.2010, produced as pr Annexure-D passed by the Land Tribunal, Saundatti (for short, “the Tribunal”).
2. Heard Sri Shrikant T.Patil learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.M.Dharigond learned counsel for respondent No.1(A) to (1D) and Sri.M.Keshava Reddy, Additional Advocate General for Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the Temple Trust represented by its trustees. Husband of respondent No.1(a) had filed Form No.1 as per Annexure-A describing himself as the Chairman of the petitioner-Trust but not in his individual capacity. He died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal.
Ignoring the fact that respondent No.1 had filed Form No.1 in his capacity as a Chairman of the petitioner-Trust, his wife and children were brought on record as his legal representatives. In fact, the legal representatives of the original applicant were not having any manner of right title or interest over the property. However, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the legal representatives of the applicant and passed the order on 14.08.2001, conferring occupancy right in favour of the temple trust. Respondent No.1 challenged the said order before this Court by filing W.P.No.32845/2001. The said writ petition was came to be allowed, specifically holding that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the request of the parties for grant of occupancy right, wherein Form No.1 has been filed and it is only the competent authority i.e., Special Deputy Commissioner or the Authorized Officer of the Government is authorized to consider Form No.1 filed by the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed directing the Special Deputy Commissioner/Authorized Officer of the Government to consider Form No.1 and the impugned order was set aside, directing the Tribunal to transmit the entire records with respect to the application, to the Special Deputy Commissioner (Inam), within four weeks. In-spite of that the Tribunal assumed jurisdiction in itself and passed the impugned order as per Annexure-D. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have never sought for any clarification by this Court while assuming jurisdiction on the basis of the letter corresponds made by the Government and proceeded to pass the order, which is perverse and illegal and hence the same is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel Sri H.M.Dharigond for respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) submits that these respondents are the legal representatives of the applicant before the Tribunal and they have produced all the materials for consideration. The Tribunal has passed a speaking order considering the contentions taken by both the parties. There are no reasons to quash the said order or to remit the matter once again to the Land Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have tampered Form No.1 by subsequently inserting the word “Chairman” below the name of the applicant.
Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that, Form No.1 was filed by Late Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil, was in his capacity as Chairperson of the petitioner-Trust, cannot be accepted. The Tribunal considered all these aspects of the matter and proceeded to pass the order, which is in accordance with law. There are no reasons to interfere with the same and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the question as to whether late Ramachandra Krishnaji Patil had filed Form No.1 in his individual capacity or as chairperson of the Temple Trust was never an issue for consideration before the Tribunal. It is for the first time before this Court, the said question was raised by the petitioner
