ACHARYA PATHASHALA EDUCATION TRUST Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-Education Trust has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19-6-2004 passed by the 2nd respondent in No. LND (S) CR 223. 97-98 at Annexure-G urging various grounds.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that 57 acres of land in Sy. No. 225 of Somanahalli was granted permanently and 33 acres of land in the said survey number was leased in its favour for a period of 10 years by the State Government vide Government Order No. RD 153 LBG 62, dated 3-5-1962 for the purpose of development of agriculture along with the Education Activity. Pursuant to the said grant, it has constructed various buildings for the purpose of setting up of engineering and Diploma Colleges and High Schools. On an earlier occasion, petitioner had filed W. P. No. 26259 of 1991 when under the guise of "ashraya Scheme" some people tried to enter the property of the petitioner on the ground that sites have been allotted to them by the ashraya Committee. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 29-10-1997 with a direction to the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for extension of the lease in respect of 33 acres of land. Subsequently, on the report sought for in this regard by the first respondent, the then Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, has submitted a report in favour of the petitioner recommending for extension of the lease of land in question as per Annexure-E. Thereafter, despite the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the matter is still pending consideration before the first respondent. In the meantime, the "ashraya committee" got their name entered in the record of rights for 33 acres of land in Sy. No. 225 of somanahalli and on the petition filed by the petitioner, after due enquiry the name of Ashraya committee was deleted and the name of the petitioner was restored. Once again, the 3rd respondent herein as member of Ashraya Committee, filed an application before the 2nd respondent for grant of 33 acres of land in the said survey number for their Committee and the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and filed its written submissions as per Annexure-F contending that R2 has no jurisdiction to conduct such an enquiry in respect of the land in question and that he is not the Competent Authority to initiate proceedings in the matter. Further, it is stated that even though the pendency of its representation before the first respondent and the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition were brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent, he has not considered the same and proceeded to pass an order as per Annexure-G in exercise of his power under Section 71 of the KLR Act read with Rule 97 of the KLR Rules of 1966 to appropriate 33 acres of land in Sy. No. 225 of somanahalli for the Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation and further directed the first respondent to terminate the lease. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. It is stated that after filing of this writ petition, the 2nd respondent has issued Annexure-H, dated 10-8-2004 wherein the Tahsildar is authorised to survey the land and secure possession of 33 acres of land from out of the entire campus and hand over to Rajiv Gandhi Housing Centre. Hence the petitioner has filed I. A. No. I of 2004 seeking to restrain the respondents, their officers or agents or anybody claiming under them from proceeding further pursuant to the impugned orders produced at Annexures-G and H.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. P. Shankar appearing for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has no authority to recommend the Government to terminate the lease of the land in question as it affects the valuable right of the petitioner-institution to continue in occupation as its possession is juridical after efflux of time of lease period. The learned Senior counsel contends that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar pradesh v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, AIR1989 SC 997 , jt1989 (1 )SC 118 , 1989 (1 )SCALE106 , (1989 )2 SCC505 , [1989 ]1 SCR176 , 1989 (1)UJ474 (SC ), with all four applicables to the fact situation and therefore he has submitted that the impugned orders at Annexures-G and H are liable to be quashed. It is further contended that even though by efflux of time the lease period pertaining to the land in question expired in the year 1972, the inaction on the part of the Government confers a right to the petitioner to hold over the land in question which valuable statutory right of it cannot be deprived of by the 2nd respondent by recommending to the Government to terminate the lease of the land in question. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner's institution is doing the governmental function of imparting education to the students and as such the 2nd respondent has committed an error in recommending to terminate the lease of land and de-reserve the very same land for the Ashraya Scheme and that the 2nd respondent has not heard the petitioner before passing the impugned order and as such the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, hence the same is liable to be quashed.