SRI TRIPURA BHAIRAVI MUTT vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

WRIT PETITION No.9173 OF 2012 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Tripura Bhairavi Mutt, Represented by its Mahanth Sri. K. Krishna, Mohananda Giri Goswamy Ashoka Road, Mysore.

…PETITIONER

(By Shri. Padubidri Mohan Rao, Advocate)

AND:

2 3. Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Zonal Office, K.R.S. Road, Mettagalli, Mysore – 16.

…RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Shri. Ravi B. Naik, Senior Advocate for M/s. Ravi B.Naik, Associates, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5)

***** This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash proceedings of the third respondent Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, No.LA(2) Cr/2011- 12/1114 dated 26.11.2011 vide Annexure-A and direct the second respondent and third respondent to refer the matter concerning the acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioner mutt to an extent of 839.22 acres of Immavou Village, spreading over the lands bearing Sy. Nos.376 to 450 and 522 to 525 of Immavou Village of Nanjangud Taluk, to the competent Civil Court for adjudication of the rights of the petitioner and the fourth

3 respondent and fifth respondent. Further direct the second respondent and third respondent to recover and deposit the amount of `10,00,00,000/- (Ten Crore), paid to the fourth respondent and also not to disburse any further amount concerning the lands bearing Sy. No. 376 to 450 and 522 to 525 of Immavu Village, Nanjangud Taluk, so acquired, till the decision of the Civil Court.

This petition, having been heard and reserved on 12.12.2012 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:-

ORDER

The present petition is filed on behalf of one Shri Tripura Bhairavi Mutt of Varanasi and Mysore. It is claimed by the Mahanth, representing the said Mutt that on the death of his predecessor one P.Krishnanandagiri Goswami, the petitioner had been installed as the Mahanth in succession, in accordance with the practice that prevailed, as on 2.10.1989.

4 of the extent of 839.22 acres of Immavu village . It is stated that earlier, the predecessor of the present Mahanth, had filed a declaration in Form No.11 under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KLR Act’ for brevity) in respect of the land holdings of the Mutt. It transpires that in the said proceedings, the fourth respondent namely, Bhishma Pithamaha claiming as the brother and family member of the said predecessor Mahanth, laid claim to the properties, belonging to the Mutt. His claim as the legal representative of the said Mahanth though had been negatived in several proceedings, the Tribunal had distributed various extents of land to the said fourth respondent, his son and daughters. The said order was challenged in a writ petition in WP 34337/1989. There was an interim order of status-quo dated 19.11.1999. The writ petition was remanded for a fresh inquiry by an order dated 18.12.2006. However, respondent no.4 and his son one Kuldeep Prakash – respondent no.5 herein, had got the entries in the record of rights made out in their favour on the basis

5 of the earlier order of the Land Tribunal, which was quashed by this court. The said entries were not reversed even after orders of the Land Tribunal were quashed. It is stated that the petitioner did take steps to have the entries reversed, but to no avail.

6 O.S.no.142/1983 and a finding was recorded that the petitioner is the rightful heir of the deceased Mahanth and accordingly, this court in the said appeal in MSA 89/1988, has held that the present petitioner was competent to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased Mahanth and the claim of the fourth respondent was negatived. Similar orders were also passed in another appeal in RFA 183/1980 on the basis of a finding in a civil suit in O.S.150/1972, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Mysore. That was a suit filed by the fourth respondent for a declaration that the present Mahanth was not the lawfully installed Mahanth and that there was no Mutt in existence and that the properties of the Mutt belonged to the deceased Mahanth in his individual capacity and therefore, on the demise of the predecessor Mahanth, the said fourth respondent became the legal representative etc., was dismissed, with a finding that all the properties belonged to the Mutt and not to any individual. An appeal filed against the dismissal of the suit was also dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 28.9.2007.

7 However, on the acquisition of the properties as aforesaid pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the KIAD Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, even after having noticed the dispute as to the properties in question, did not think it fit to refer the issue to the jurisdictional Civil Court and without notice to the present petitioner, was proceeding to disburse the compensation amount in favour of respondents and 4 and 5 and their family members purely on the basis of the order of the Land tribunal. The petitioner had, therefore, issued notices to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, of the mischief afoot and not to determine and apportion the compensation without notice to the petitioner.

However, respondents 4 and 5 in active collusion with the said Land Acquisition Officer, had made an application dated 19.7.2011, agreeing to receive the compensation amount of Rs.21.00 lakh per acre notwithstanding that the proceedings before the Land Tribunal had not attained finality and that their claim could not be sustained on the basis of an earlier order of the

8 Tribunal and had proceeded to collect Rs.10.00 Crore as part of the compensation. The subsequent order of the Land Tribunal was challenged in writ proceedings in WP 41048/2011. The petitioner had remained unaware of the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer and it is only by chance that it was brought to the petitioner’s notice in the course of the proceedings in a writ petition in WP 3647/2009 filed by the petitioner, challenging the acquisition proceedings. It is in this background that the present petition is filed.

9 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. The Price Advisory Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner of Mysore, had determined the compensation as per Section 29 of the KIAD Act. After taking into consideration the valuation of the properties, has fixed the same at Rs.22.00 lakh per acre for wet land and Rs.20.00 lakh per acre for dry land, including all the statutory benefits. The notified khatedars were called upon to indicate whether they would accept the same and on such consent being offered by the fourth respondent, who was the notified khatedar and on the basis of the order of the Land Tribunal dated 14.9.2011 in his favour, the compensation amount has been disbursed on the basis of the agreement entered into by the fourth respondent with the third respondent - Land Acquisition Officer and an indemnity bond also having been executed. It is denied that there is any collusion between the fourth and fifth respondents in the disbursal of the compensation amount. On the other hand, the petitioner has not challenged the acquisition proceedings. It is the Mahanath, in his individual

10 capacity, who has filed the writ petition in WP 3647/2009 and therefore, there is no consistency in the claim of the petitioner.

During the pendency of the execution proceedings, in view of the death of Krishnanandagiri Goswami, the fourth respondent

11 had made an application to come on record as the legal heir of the decree holder. The said application having been allowed, was challenged by way of a writ petition before this court in WP 1905/2002, which stood dismissed. Thereafter, a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. It is further stated that O.S No.489/1986 on the file of the III Additional Munsiff, Mysore was instituted by one Varadaraja Shetty against late Krishnanandagiri Goswami. In view of the death of Goswami, the present fourth respondent was brought on record as the legal heir of late Goswami.

The petitioner, on the other hand, had filed an interlocutory application to implead himself as a party-defendant, which was dismissed. This was after appreciating the fact that the petitioner had not produced any material to establish the fact that he is the Mahanth of the Mutt. An appeal filed against that order was also dismissed. It is contended by the respondents that the alleged Mahanth of the petitioner – Mutt was a saree vendor by

12 profession and they had sought his assistance since fourth and fifth respondents are both physically handicapped. Taking advantage of the situation, he had manipulated and concocted the documents to claim that he had succeeded to Krishnanandagiri Goswami. He had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.121/1991 involving the properties which are the subject matter of the present petition. The suit was decreed by judgment dated 31.1.1998. The fourth respondent had preferred an appeal, which was allowed. In those proceedings, the Mahanth had admitted that he was a saree vendor till 1989 and he was never a disciple of Krishnanandagiri Goswami.

Insofar the reliance placed on the observations by this court in MSA 89/1986 is irrelevant, for the suit out of which that appeal arose, in O.S.No.142/1983 was withdrawn by the petitioner and therefore, any observations made at the interlocutory stage would not be final. Insofar as the dismissal of the suit filed by the fourth respondent is concerned, the same has not attained finality as they

13 are pending in appeals in MSA 984 to 986 of 2010 before this court. Insofar as the writ petition in WP 3647/2009 is concerned, the petitioner had not questioned the acquisition proceedings, but only that vast extent of land was described as kharab land, though according to the petitioner, it belonged to the Mutt. That writ petition has been disposed of by an order dated 25.9.2012, directing the petitioner to approach the Land Acquisition Officer to establish his claim in that regard.

It is further stated that the petitioner, claiming as the successor of Goswami, had laid claim as a Mahanth of the Mutt in resumption proceedings initiated under Section 63 of the KIAD Act. That claim was rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 14.9.2011. The same having been challenged in writ proceedings before this court, this court had dismissed the same by an order dated 22.11.2012. It is therefore, contended that the petitioner is not in any manner concerned with the properties in question.

14 Attention is also drawn to a proceeding before the Supreme Court relating to the very Tripura Bhairavi Mutt, wherein Krishnanandagiri Goswami, the brother of the fourth respondent, was also a party to the said proceedings and it was declared that the properties are the individual properties of the holder and not that of the Mutt. The declaration made by Goswami, apparently under the provisions of the KLR Act, was in order to save the properties from resumption and also to save the tax levied by the income-tax authorities. However, it is now established that the properties were the individual properties of Goswami and that the fourth and fifth respondents are family members and the rightful legal heirs to the property.

15 attain finality. For this court to proceed on the basis of the petition averments, in the face of the divergent findings by this court as well as in civil proceedings before other courts, would result in creating further controversies. As admittedly, in proceedings under the provisions of the KLR Act, there are orders in favour of respondents 4 and 5 and which have been affirmed by this court in writ proceedings. The petitioner is left to his remedies in seeking to question those findings, in the face of which, it would be inconsistent for this bench to hold in favour of the petitioner or to consider the reliefs prayed for, which are dependent on other findings, which need to be established by the petitioner in appropriate proceedings.

Therefore, the present petition is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE