1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 3-11-2010 passed in M.A. No. 25001 of 2008 whereby the order dated 6-11-2007 passed by the Competent Authority under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 ( ˜the Actfor 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 in-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 6-11-2007 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 of 2008. The Appellate Court by the order dated 3-11-2010 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 Kaidra 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.
4. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Suhas H. Pophale v Oriental Insurance Company Limited and its Estate Officer (AIR 2014 SC 1509 : (2014) 4 SCC 657 : 2014 AIR SCW 1171) and in the case of M/s. Band Box Private Limited v Estate Officer, Punjab and Sind Bank and Another.(2014 AIR SCW 1846).
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents and the learned Government Advocate would however seek to sustain the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Appellant Court. It is contended that though the petitioners contend to remain as the owners of the property, no document in that regard has been produced. It is their further case that the order dated 29-10-1986 is clear that the entire management as well as the properties has been taken over by the Government and the temple in any event has been subsequently notified on 30-4-2003 by issue of a notification as contemplated under Section 23 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. Hence, it is contended that the orders are justified and the same do not call for interference.
6. Having taken note of the rival contentions, what cannot be lost sight is that prior to the instant proceedings under the Act 1974 was initiated before the Estate Officer, the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S. No. 8126 of 2000. In the said suit, the petitioner herein claiming to be the owner had contended that the interference with her possession of the property in question is not justified and therefore an order of injunction had been sought from the Court below. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 11-8-2003. When the petitioners were before this Court in RFA No. 1292 of 2003, this Court by the judgment dated 22-6-2004 was of the opinion that in a suit for bare injunction, the Court below was not justified in adverting to the issue relating to the title to the property and all that was required to be noticed is as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the property as on the date of the suit and to that extent, having taken note that the plaintiffs are shown to be in settled possession of the property in question, the injunction to the extent not to interfere with their possession till they are proceeded in accordance with law to take juridical possession of the property was granted. It is subsequent to the same, the proceedings under the Act 1974 has been initiated.
7. In that light, even if the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are kept in view, in the said cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a situation where the property belonging to the insurance company had been transferred, in that context, it was held with regard to the nature in which the property could be considered to be a public premises. In the instant case, as noticed, neither in the earlier suit nor in the present proceedings, the ownership though claimed by the petitioners, the same has been conclusively established. What has been taken into consideration in the earlier appeal is only to the extent that they are in settled possession and therefore the possession is to be taken in accordance with law.
8. Keeping that aspect in view, a perusal of the communication addressed by the Trustees of the temple to the Tahsildar, Endowment Board, handing over the possession of the temple and in that light, the Government Order dated 29-10-1986 passed in that regard would indicate that not only the management of the temple, but the properties belonging to the temple have been taken over by the Government which is thereafter being administered by the Muzrai Department.
9. Though along with the objection statement, the notification dated 30-4-2003 has not been produced, the contention on behalf of the respondents that the temple has been notified under Section 23 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, cannot be doubted. If that be the position, to the extent that the premises wherein the petitioners are residing belongs to the temple cannot be in dispute. In the instant facts, in a circumstance where the Government has taken over the premises belonging to the temple and the same is being administered except for the fact that the petitioners are in possession of a portion of the premises, it cannot be disputed that the premises in question is a public premises.
10. In that view, the question for consideration is also as to whether the Competent Authority and the Appellate Court were justified in their conclusion that the petitioners herein are the unauthorised occupants and therefore, they are liable to be evicted?
11. To take note of that aspect, notice issued in Form A by the Competent Authority as at Annexure “ D1 becomes relevant. From the communication under which the property of the temple was handed over to the Endowment Board, it is clear that the name of the husband of the petitioner is shown as the Dharmakartha being one of the Trustees. In that light, if the petitioners claim to be in possession under him and thereafter they have continued in possession of the premises and when the premises in question has become public premises, though the petitioners cannot claim to be the owners of the property, the possession has continued from a point prior to the take over. Hence, the manner in which their possession was taken into consideration by the respondents prior to initiation of the proceedings and in what circumstance they were considered to be the unauthorised occupants of the premises for which they are liable to be evicted, are all to be depicted in the grounds for eviction based on the termination of such occupation made by the respondents who were in-charge of the public premises. The reason for which these aspects of the matter are to be indicated in the grounds in Form A is for the reason that when such notice is issued by the Competent Authority, the person in occupation should have an appropriate opportunity to reply to the same and controvert the position, if it is otherwise.
12. Taking into consideration the long time for which the petitioners were in possession of the property and in the earlier proceedings when this Court has recognised the very juridical possession of the property by the petitioners, an appropriate opportunity should be granted to the petitioners before treating them as unauthorised occupants. If the grounds as indicated in Annexure “D1 viz., the notice in Form A issued by the Competent Authority is perused, it is extremely vague though the above aspects were also required to be indicated.
13. That apart in the objections filed in response to the said notice, the petitioner had raised a contention with regard to the ownership of the property. The order passed by the Competent Authority at that point was required to take note of the said contention and should have answered instead of stating that it is undisputedly a public premises. In any event, presently since the said issue has been urged before this Court and this Court has held that the property in question to be public premises, the procedural aspect with regard to eviction by considering the manner in which the petitioners have been termed to be unauthorised occupants of the premises requires detailed consideration.
14. To that extent, a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 3-11-2010 would indicate that the learned Appellate Judge has not adverted to this aspect of the matter except to take note of the fact that the property belongs to Muzrai Department and therefore, the possession of the petitioners has been considered to be an unauthorised one without reference to the earlier possession. Hence, to the said extent, I am of the opinion that the manner in which the Competent Authority has proceeded without specifying the appropriate grounds to term the petitioner as unauthorised occupant cannot be sustained, nor can the order of the Appellate Court be sustained.
15. Accordingly, the order dated 6-11-2007 passed in No. P.P. A:CR “ 24/06-07 and the order dated 3-11-2010 passed in M.A. No. 25001 of 2008 are set aside. Liberty is granted to the respondents to issue an appropriate notice indicating the manner in which the possession of the petitioner has been treated to be as an authorised occupant and proceedings afresh be initiated before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority while issuing notice in Form A shall also specify the grounds elaborately, if the need arises to issue such notice and thereafter proceed further in the matter in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the petitioners.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.