K.G. Rajaram vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—By order dated 08.10.2015, though time upto 28.10.2015 was extended to the petitioner to file an application for amendment of the memorandum of writ petition, nevertheless was not complied with. Therefore, on 30.10.2015, having noticed the non-compliance, it was observed that no useful purpose will be served by permitting the petitioner to file an application at that stage. Thereafterwards, it is said that an application filed on 31.10.2015 was numbered as I.A. No. 2/2015.

In the light of the aforesaid two orders, I.A. No. 2/2015 is rejected. Consequentially, I.A. No. 3/2015 for permission is rejected. Statement of objections dated 29.10.2015 of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3-BDA is taken on record.

Suffice it to extract the order dated 08.10.2015 allowing I.A. No. 1/2015 filed by the fifth respondent to vacate the interim order dated 30.08.2013 which reads thus:

"This petition presented on 26th August 2013 by a person claiming to be the son of one K.R. Govind, since deceased, is for a direction to quash the preliminary notification dated 13.04.1989, Annexure-A, final notification dated 09.05.1994, of the 2nd respondent/Bangalore Development Authority (for short ''BDA'') in respect of land measuring 43 acres 15 guntas in old Sy. No. 26, Re Sy. No. 55 (Field Book No. 40) of Vasanthpura village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and direct respondents to restore possession of the land to the petitioner. The interim prayer is for an order of stay of the impugned notification and to direct the 5th respondent/International Society for Krishna Consciousness (for short ''ISKCON'') not to put up further construction in the land till disposal of the writ petition in order to preserve the land in question in status quo. Petition is grounded on the premise that petitioner''s father K.R. Govind purchased 48 acres 23 guntas of land in Sy. No. 26 of Vasanthpura village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, from one M.S. Linge Gowda, under sale deed dated 07.02.1957, Annexure-C. By Notification dated 13.01.1959, Jodi Vasanthapura stood vested in the Government by virtue of Section 1(4) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, whence, petitioner''s father said to have applied for grant of occupancy being the successor-in-interest of the Jodidar, registered as case No. 28/1959-60, following which occupancy rights was granted to the petitioner''s father by order dated 26.11.1963, and katha registered. Petitioner''s father is reported to have died on 11.12.1993, whence petitioner continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is said, during the year 2007, petitioner became aware that respondent No. 5/ISKCON was trying to level the land to put up construction and on enquiry learnt that 28 acres 15 guntas of land was leased to 5th respondent from out of the total extent of 48 Acres 23 guntas by the 4th respondent, by order dated 20th August 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner is said to have preferred appeal No. 698/2007 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short ''KAT).

According to the petitioner, order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 26.11.1963 was not recalled or set-aside, while on verification, it was noticed that Sy. No. 26 comprised on 50 acres 23 guntas and when assigned new Re Sy. No. 55 measured 43 acres 15 guntas and an endorsement dated 03.10.2009 issued. In paragraph 9, it is stated that petitioner became aware that the land was acquired by the Government for BDA for formation of Banashankari V Stage layout, under preliminary and final notifications. At paragraph 10, it is stated that 5th respondent/ISKCON is squatting over the land in question on the strength of the lease and since acquisition is illegal and State has not taken possession of the land, lease is also illegal. In addition, it is stated that respondent No. 5 is taking advantage of the grant of lease and carrying on unauthorized construction in a portion of the land without petitioner''s consent. Hence the State and the 4th respondent/Deputy Commissioner may be directed to restore possession of the land to the petitioner. Petitioner is said to have caused a show cause notice dated 27.02.2013 on the 5th respondent not to put up construction or carry on unauthorized construction. At paragraph 11, it is stated that no award is passed over acquisition of the property and therefore, there is fraud committed by the State in violation of Article 300 A of the Constitution.

At paragraph 12, it is stated that if the property belongs to the State, there is no need for acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act or under the BDA Act. At paragraph 13, it is stated that 4th respondent/Deputy Commissioner illegally granted land by way of lease for political consideration under pressure from the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh to the Chief Minister of Karnataka (though without making two Chief Ministers as parties to the petition). At paragraph 14, it is stated that lease of the land in question for certain period and in quick succession converted into an absolute grant for a market price which is claimed to be unreasonably low, causing financial loss to the State exchequer. It is reiterated that it is only for political and extraneous consideration, the grant was made. In addition, it is stated that 5th respondent held vast tracks of land at various destinations and is indulging in various commercial activities rather than religious activities, not in public good. It is further alleged that the action is sinister, under the colour of arbitrariness. It is alleged that the grant in favour of 5th respondent was for construction of an Information and Technology School based on Indian culture. At paragraph 17, it is asserted that petitioner is in de jure possession of the land which is tress passed upon by the 5th respondent.

The learned single Judge on 30.08.2013 directed thus: "Parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding the nature and possession of the petition schedule property."

The 5th respondent filed statement of objections dated 02.07.2014, inter alia, pointing out that petition is not maintainable. According to 5th respondent, petitioner''s father suffered an order declining to register him as occupant of land in Sy. No. 26, new Re Sy. No. 55 which when called in question in W.P. No. 1843/1969, was dismissed by order dated 11.07.1972, however, observing that the petitioner would be entitled to have recourse to such remedy as is available to him to enforce the rights saved under Section 14. Following the said order, the State Government is said to have issued notice dated 25.09.1978 to the father of the petitioner to show cause as to why the right claimed by him should not be terminated on the expiry of 3 months from the date of notice to which the father of the petitioner filed objection and thereafter, State Government, by order dated 07.03.1979 terminated the right of the petitioner. That order, when called in question in W.P. No. 6656/1979, was dismissed by order dated 12.12.1986 followed by dismissal of W.A. No. 1069/1987 on 30.10.1990.

According to the learned counsel for 5th respondent, petitioner having suppressed the relevant material particulars and information relating to the unsuccessful challenges made by his father in proceedings before this Court, petition must be dismissed for Suppressio Veri Supressio Falsi.

Petitioner filed I.A. No. 1/2014 for amendment of the writ petition on 20.11.2014, invoking Order VI Rule 17 CPC to proposing to insert paragraphs 5A, 6A, 16A and 16B and to amend paragraph 19, 23 and the reliefs on the premise, that the petitioner became aware of the judgment in W.A. No. 1069/1987 only after statement of objection was filed by the 5th respondent and hence, application for amendment.

Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior counsel on instructions from the instructing counsel submits that the applicant be permitted to withdraw I.A. No. 1/2014 as not pressed with liberty to file a fresh application as the amendments to the petition and the reliefs sought for in the application are not precise.

Since an amendment to the application for amendment is impermissible in law, it is appropriate to permit the petitioner to withdraw I.A. No. 1/2014 with liberty to file a fresh application. It is needless to state that if any application is moved by the petitioner for amendment of the petition and the relief, respondents are at liberty to file fresh statement of objections advancing all contentions available to them.

I.A. No. 1/2015 is filed by the 5th respondent to vacate the interim order dated 30.08.2013. In the affidavit of the President of the 5th respondent, the averments made in the statement of objections to the petition are reiterated, in addition to averments relating to the order dated 30.08.1961 of the Special Deputy Commissioner when challenged by one Chikkaveerappa before Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, appeal was dismissed on the ground of locus standi, while the review petition was also dismissed by the Full Bench. Those orders of the Tribunal when called in question in C.P. No. 166/1965, this Court by order dated 19.08.1966 quashed the orders of the Tribunal as well as that of the Special Deputy Commissioner and remitted the same for fresh consideration and on remand, the Special Deputy Commissioner by order dated 13.12.1967 dismissed the application filed by the father of the petitioner as affirmed by the Tribunal on 08.01.1969 and confirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 1843/1969. According to the 5th respondent, crores of rupees have been invested for construction of temple premise. On account of interim order of status quo granted on 30.08.2013, work is stalled and if interim order is not vacated, 5th respondent will be put to great hardship and justice would suffer. More over, it is stated that huge sums of money is taken as loan which need to be repaid.

In the light of the undisputed facts noticed supra, apparently, memorandum of writ petition as it stands, suffers from Suppressio Veri Supressio Falsi inducing the Court to believe to be true that the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner of the year 1961 granting occupancy right in favour of petitioner''s father is in force which infact, is false and cannot be believed to be true. Whether such suppression of material facts is willful, intentional or deliberate needs to be decided at the relevant stage of the proceeding and not for the present. Suffice it to notice that the petitioner has approached the Court by indulging in a misadventure of suggesting false facts and suppressing relevant facts hence must suffer the consequences.

In the circumstances, there is a need to dissolve the interim order dated 30.08.2013 and as a result, I.A. No. 1/2015 filed by the 5th respondent is allowed. Order dated 30.08.2013 stands vacated.

Since petitioner intends to file application for amendment of writ petition and its prayers and having permitted him to do so while rejecting I.A. No. 1/2014, if such an application is filed by 28.10.2015 after service of copies of the same on the learned counsel for respondents who are permitted to file statement of objections to the said application, relist on 29.10.2015."

The contents of the order, more appropriately at paragraph-5 relates to the rejection of the claim of the petitioner''s father over title to immovable property in question. Petitioner''s father having suffered orders denying alleged claim of right, title and interest in the immovable property in question, which when not called in question during his lifetime, this petition presented after 36 years for the reliefs noticed supra, deserves rejection.

Petition without merit is rejected.