M PUNDALIKAPRABHU Vs. ADDITIONAL LAND TRIBUNAL BANTWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these petitions are directed against an order made by the land tribunal on 3-1-1979. In that proceedings, there were two applicants who had filed form no. 7 claiming registration of occupancy rights in respect of certain lands. The tribunal enquired into the matter and held that the claim of one Smt. K. Sharada ganesh bhat cannot be granted and her application was rejected while the claim of respondent no. 5-k. Anantha shenoy (in W.P. no. 9623 of 1988 who is respondent 3 .in W.P. no. 4952 of 1988) was allowed and directed registration of occupancy rights in respect of various items of lands. W.P. no. 9623 of 1988 is filed by certain persons claiming to be the devotees of the respondent no. 4-temple. It is alleged that the said temple is governed by the provisions of Madras hindu religious and charitable endowments act. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the temple is under the management of hereditary trustee by members of 'karthika' family to which the fifth respondent belongs and he is one of the members of the said family and there was a partition in the year 1963 and the rights of hereditary trusteeship fell to the joint shares of amrutha shenoy and the fifth respondent and the said amrutha shenoy is none other than the paternal uncle of the fifth respondent. He died on 10-4-1978 and he was ill for a long time and therefore was unable to manage the temple affairs or its properties and in fact the fifth respondent himself was managing the affairs of the temple. After the death of the said amrutha shenoy, the fifth respondent made a representation to the endowment department that he should be appointed as a hereditary trustee. In the year 1986, the devotees elected a board of trustees and a new board of trustees came into existence and that one vaman prabhu was appointed as a managing trustee and the fifth respondent is also one of the members of the new board of trustees.

(2.) it is further contended that the lands in question were being cultivated by the hereditary trustee for and on behalf of the deity and its income was utilised solely for the purpose of viniyogas' and performance of 'sevas' to the lord of the temple and at no time the lands had been leased to the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent, taking advantage of his position, filed form no. 7 in respect of the lands in question and submitted that the properties were under the management of his uncle as hereditary trustee though there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and his uncle. The fifth respondent himself represented the said amrutha shenoy and thus obtained the order impugned herein. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the fifth respondent has played fraud in not only usurping the properties of the temple but also in participating in the proceedings both as a claimant and also as a landowner representing the temple in question. It is therefore submitted that the entire proceedings before the tribunal deserves to be quashed, including the impugned order. It is also submitted that the application of the petitioners claiming occupancy rights itself was rejected.

(3.) on behalf of the fifth respondent, statement of objections have been filed denying the allegation that he was managing the affairs of the temple and that he was appointed as a hereditary trustee. Though he had made a claim to be appointed as a hereditary trustee, he had never been appointed as a hereditary trustee. It is submitted the fact that he belonged to the family of hereditary trustees of the temple or there was partition in the family, are not relevant for the purpose of the present case. The fifth respondent disputes that the petitioners are the devotees of the fourth respondent-temple. The fifth respondent contendsthat the managing trustee had the power to lease the lands and in that capacity, lands had been leased to him while he was not in the management of the temple in question and therefore the allegation of fraud alleged against him cannot be accepted. It is contended that the petitioners are strangers to the proceedings before the tribunal and such persons cannot maintain a writ petition before this court and relies upon a decision of this court in ramanna v State of Karnataka and in W.P. no. 16437 of 1989, which followed the said decision.