SHIVAYOGESHWARA Vs. KENNAMETAL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. It is stated that Sri. Ramalingeshwara Mutt, Harnahalli, Shimoga District was established in the year 1492 by the Kings of Keladi Samsthana and they had endowed several properties located in several Districts of Karnataka to the Mutt. The Mutt has been administered by Mathadhipathis. The details of the properties endowed were mentioned in the joint inspection report conducted by the Deputy Commissioner and the Revenue Commissioner, Bangalore as early as in the year 1910. The petitioner namely, one Shri. Shivayogeshwara Shivacharya Mahaswamigalu claims to be the Mathadhipathi and Sarvadhikari of the said Mutt. It is the claim of the petitioner that he had been recognized as the Mathadhipathi by the State Government as early as in the year 1996. However, the said order was sought to be withdrawn by the State Government in the year 2003 which was the subject-matter of challenge a writ petition in WP No. 41918/2003 and it further transpires that on 22.12.2004 the State Government appointed the fifth respondent, one Sri. Chandra Mouleshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu as Mathadhipathi, which again was challenged by another writ petition in WP No. 9307/2005. Both the writ petitions were allowed by a common Order dated 2.3.2009, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-E. It is further stated that one Sri. Channaveera Shivacharya Swamigalu had filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 559/2001 seeking a declaration as to his alleged status as the Mathadhipathi and that came to be dismissed on merits as on 21.4.2007, wherein the present petitioner had participated and there was a further suit in O.S. No. 17/1996 filed by one Channappa and others, wherein the petitioner is stated to have been recognized as Mathadhipathi.

(2.) Therefore, it is contended that there are valuable properties which were endowed to the Mutt and which were the subject-matter of acquisition for the Metro rail project in course of time and that there is huge amount of compensation of 5.56 Crore which is awarded by the State in favour of the land owner. There are rival claims to the compensation in deposit. There is a claim on behalf of the Mutt of which the petitioner claims to be the Mathadhipathi, as well as by respondent No. 1, who is stated to have purchased the land in the year 1965. The proceedings are pending before the Special Land Acquisition Officer as regards disbursement of compensation. It further transpires that the present petitioner had not participated in those proceedings as representing the Mutt. However, certain other people have also claimed themselves as Mathadhipathis and are participating through counsel in a laconic manner as evident from the order-sheet of those proceedings, produced before this Court and there is also suspicion of those persons having colluded with the first respondent and therefore, the interest of the Mutt is seriously jeopardized.

(3.) The respondent No. 1, who claims to have purchased the land in question in the year 1965 and therefore, seeking to claim compensation as the rightful owner, has challenged the decision on reference in WP No. 23045/2012 and in the said writ petition, the present petitioner had filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 seeking to implead himself as a party respondent, which application was allowed and the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 18.3.2013 directing the authority to expedite the reference within an outer limit of six months and incidentally observed that the present petitioner is also permitted to participate therein. The petitioner, having appeared before the Court, had sought to file an application, to formally bring himself on record. Notwithstanding the direction issued by this Court, the Reference Court has rejected the application while referring to several judgments which have laid down the law that, a party who has not filed any objection before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, is not enabled to appear before the Reference Court and seek to implead himself as a party, which is indeed the settled position of law. Therefore, notwithstanding the direction issued by this Court that the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the proceedings, the decision of the Reference Court cannot be faulted. It is on the rejection of the petitioner's application to participate before the Reference Court that the present writ petition is filed.