UTTARADI MATH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Mutt. It is said to have been the owner of land measuring 84 acres 33 Cents in Sy.No.158 of Haraginadoni village of Ballari Taluk. Three persons claiming to be the tenants, approached the Land Tribunal, Ballari for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the said land. The Land Tribunal by its Order dtd. 26/7/2002, vide Annexure-B to the writ petition rejected the claim of the tenants and directed the jurisdiction Tahasildar to initiate appropriate proceedings under Sec. 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short "the Act, 1961"). It is noticed from the said order that, the petitioner - Mutt participated in the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenants therein preferred W.P. No.46596/2002 (LR), in which also the petitioner - Mutt has participated the proceedings, duly represented by an advocate. The said writ petition has been dismissed. It is further submitted that the tenants preferred writ appeal, which also came to be rejected and in the said writ appeal also the petitioner - Mutt was represented by an advocate. Thereafter, the proceedings under Sec. 77 of the Act, 1961 has been completed, the land has been allotted to the fourth respondent - Bellary City Corporation for disposing of the waste and an order dtd. 25/26/11/2008 has been passed by the first respondent herein, vide Annexure-E to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner by filing an application for amending the writ petition has sought to challenge the order dtd. 26/7/2002 passed by the Land Tribunal, vide Annexure-B to the writ petition, wherein, it has been ordered to initiate appropriate action under Sec. 77 of the Act, 1961.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the Mutt is situated at Bengaluru and the Peethadhipati is always at Bengaluru, it has only a Branch at Hosapete. The Peethadhipati was not aware of the proceedings and some one from Hosapete Branch has appointed an advocate to plead on behalf of the Mutt in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, thereafter in the writ petition and writ appeal before this Court. The same cannot be construed as due notice to the petitioner - Mutt herein, on that ground, it is prayed that the order passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition as well as the order passed by the Land Tribunal vide Annexure-B to the writ petition be set aside and the land be restored back to the petitioner - Mutt. It is also further submitted that even otherwise, the order passed by the Land Tribunal is not valid in law and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, the advocate for the respondents submits that, the petitioner was always knowing about the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, writ petition and writ appeal. The impugned order is passed by respondent No.1 way back in the year 2008, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and before this Court and the instant writ petition has been filed belatedly. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.