The Deputy Commissioner and Another vs P. Siddappa

N.K. Patil, J.—I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the Respondent.

By consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both sides, I have taken up the petition for final hearing though the matter has been listed in the preliminary hearing in "B" group.

The Petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 14.9.1996 vide Annexure-B. Sri. Anjaneya Swamy Devaru has owned certain agricultural lands. The revenue records also speak that the lands are standing in the name of Anjaneya Swamy Devaru. Respondent herein, who claims to be the Dharmakartharu, (Managing Trustee) has filed a declaration in Form No. 13 before 2nd Respondent-Tahsildar. The Tahsildar, after holding an enquiry and after making the spot inspection as contemplated u/s 79-B(3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the Act), has submitted a detailed report stating that the lands held by the Anjaneyaswamy Devaru, belongs to the Government. Further, he opined that the said lands may b retained for the benefit of the temple. The 1st Petitioner-Deputy Commissioner after holding an enquiry has passed an order dated 18.4.1996 forfeiting the lands held by the Anjaneyaswamy Devaru as the lands in question are not personally cultivated by the Trust and the income of those lands is not solely appropriated to the welfare of the temple or trust. Further the first Petitioner also opined that holding of the agricultural lands either by the temple or trust is violative of the provisions of Section 79-B of the Act.

The Respondent has assailed the correctness of the order passed by the 1st Petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 202 of 1996. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and after going through the records, objections filed by the Respondents and the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader appeared before the Tribunal, has allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent herein and set aside the order passed by the first Petitioner with costs of Rs. 500/- to the Respondent herein. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 14.9.1996 in Appeal No. 202 of 1996, the present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners.

The submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Tribunal has committed an error in not looking into the contention of the Petitioners and the provisions of Sections 79-B(3) and 63(7) of the Act solely on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner ought to have referred the matter to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the question as to whether the income of the lands is appropriated to the temple or not. There is no provision in the Act for vesting the lands in question to the Government even if the Appellant has not cultivated the lands personally. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, inter alia, contended that the Respondent is the Managing Trustee of Anjaneyaswamy Devaru temple. In pursuance of the notice issued by the 1st Petitioner, the Managing Trustee of the temple has filed detailed objections to the effect that the lands in question stand in the name of Sri. Anjaneyaswamy Devaru and the Managing Trustee is managing the affairs of the temple. Further he has pointed out that the Managing Trustee has been appointed by the Endowment Department and the entire financial affairs has been managed by the temple through the trustee and whatever income derived from the agricultural lands is being used for performance of pooja, religious functions, annual jatra and up-keep of the temple etc., and at no point of time it has misused the funds of the said temple for any other purpose. The Deputy Commissioner has initiated the proceedings which are wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act. Further he pointed that the Deputy Commissioner has appointed the 2nd Petitioner to make spot inspection. Accordingly, the 2nd Petitioner has made the spot inspection and submitted detailed report stating that the lands in question stand in the name of Anjaneyaswamy Devaru temple and the same may be retained to the said temple. But the Deputy Commissioner has not taken into consideration the report submitted by the 2nd Petitioner nor he has given any finding to that effect in the order passed by him forfeiting the lands to the Government by the order dated 18.4.1996. Therefore, he prayed that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act and that has rightly reversed by the appellate authority. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the entire material placed on record, has rightly held that the order passed by the Petitioner No. 1/Deputy Commissioner is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act. He has further pointed out that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was on 14.9.1996 and there is an inordinate delay of more than 4 years in approaching this Court in challenging the impugned order. The Petitioners have not given cogent and satisfactory explanation for condoning the delay in filing the writ petition and therefore he prayed for, dismissal of the writ petition.

As regards the utilisation of the income of the temple by the trust is concerned, the 1st Petitioner in the impugned order has not considered this aspect of the case that the income of the land is being used for conducting religious functions. As per Section 63(7) of the Act, the trust is entitled to hold the land if the income from the land is appropriated solely for the trust concerned. The Respondent being a trust of the temple, they are entitled to hold the lands if the income is solely appropriated exclusively and up-keep of the temple and for conducting the religious functions of the deity. Here the question arises as to whether the income of the land is appropriated solely for the trust. The said question will be decided by the Divisional Commissioner as per the provisions of Section 79-B of the Act and Rule 22 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. The first Petitioner-Deputy Commissioner has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. The first Petitioner has proceeded to pass the order solely on the ground that the lands have not been cultivated personally by the Managing Trustee and therefore they are not entitled to hold the lands in the name of the temple, and thereby forfeiting the lands to the Government which is contrary to the provisions of Sections 79-B and 63(7) of the Act. The Tribunal has rightly pointed out that if at all there is misappropriation of the funds of the temple, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have referred the matter to the Divisional Commissioner to decide as to whether the income of the land is appropriated to the temple who has held the lands in question. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner has committed an error in not referring the matter to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the question as to whether the income of the lands is appropriated to the temple or not. It is significant to note that there is no provision for vesting the land in question to the Government even if the Respondent-trust is not cultivating the land personally. This aspect of the matter is also not considered by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, taking into consideration in totality of the case, I do not find any good ground made out by the Petitioners to interfere with the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, in my considered view, the writ petition filed by the Petitioners is liable to be rejected.

Further at another ground, the writ petition may be liable to be rejected on the ground of inordinate delay of four years in approaching this Court. The said delay has not been properly explained nor any cogent and convincing reasons assigned by the Petitioners. It is seen from para-3 of the writ petition, no much credibility can be given to the said explanation offered by the Petitioner. Hence on the ground of delay and laches also, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is also liable to be rejected on merits as well on the ground of delay and laches.

Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected on the ground of delay and laches as well on merits.