THANGAMMAL AND ORS. Vs. THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS VIDHANA SOUDHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 03.11.2010 passed in M.A. No. 25001/2008 whereby the order dated 06.11.2007 passed by the Competent Authority under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short) is upheld and the petitioner is directed to vacate from the premises in question.

(2.) The petitioner who originally filed the petition claims to be the wife of late Kadira Vadivelu Pillai. On the death of the petitioner, her L.Rs. have been brought on record who are none other than the sons of late Kadira Vadivelu Pillai. The said late Kadira Vadivelu Pillai was the Dharmakartha of Sri Shadakshara Gnana Shiva Subramanya Temple, Kamaraj Road, Bengaluru. The Trustees who were m-charge of the temple have through their communication as at Annexure-R4 made over the temple property and its affairs to the Endowment Board (Muzrai). Pursuant thereto, the Government Order dated 29.10.1986 is issued whereby the temple along with its movable and immovable properties have been taken over by the Government. In that view, the respondents claiming that the property in question is a public premises have initiated proceedings against the petitioners seeking to evict them from the premises. The Competent Authority on taking note of the same has by the order dated 06.11.2007 directed the petitioner to vacate from the premises in question failing which the petitioner would be evicted. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same was before the Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No. 25001/2008. The Appellate Court by the order dated 03.11.2010 has upheld the order passed by the Competent Authority.

(3.) While assailing the orders impugned, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the property in question does not answer the requirement of public premises as contained under Section 2(e) of the Act. It is contended that the property in question should have belonged to the public authority as on the date of the Act coming into force and should have continued to be so. It is the further case of the petitioner that the temple property in fact had not been handed over to the Government, but all that was made over was the management of the temple since few of the Trustees as indicated in the communication had expired and the management of the affairs of the temple was not feasible to be carried out by the remaining Trustees at that point. Hence, it is contended that the legal heirs of the petitioner had continued to remain in possession after the death of Kadira Vadivelu Pillai and have enjoyed the same as owners of the property. Despite the said objection being raised before the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority without adverting to the same has arrived at the conclusion that the property is undisputedly a public premises and has thereafter proceeded to pass the order. In that light, it is contended that the order passed by the Competent Authority as well as the Appellate Court is not justified.