IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2012
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
Writ Petition No. 10778 of 2009 (KLR-CON)
BETWEEN
THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA
TRUST ASSOCIATION,
(REGISTERED AS A COMPANY
UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
CHENNAI REP. BY ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
RT. REV D BANGERA (BISHOP)
AND REV JATHANNA (TREASURER)
KARNATAKA SOUTHERN DIOCESAN OF
C S I DIOCESAN OFFICE, BALMATTA
MANGALORE - 2. ... PETITIONER
[By Ms Jyothi M, Adv. for
M/s Tarakaram Assts., Advs. - Absent]
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADIKERI
2. REV. G T MALEKAR
S/O MALEKAR
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT MADIKERI
KODAGU DISTRICT
CLAIMING TO BE
2
REP BY NON EXISTING ENTITY
UBMCTA ... RESPONDENTS
[By Sri R B Sathyanarayana Singh, HCGP for R1; Sri K Suryanarayana Rao, Adv. for R2 (Absent)]
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO RESTRAIN RESPONDENT-1 (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER) FROM PROCEEDING WITH THE MATTER IN (LAND CONVERSION) PROCEEDINGS NO.56/2007-08 ON HIS FILE AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 5.2.2009 IN THE AFOREMENTIONED LAND CONVERSION NO.56/2007-08 BY THE ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Writ petitioner - Church of South India Trust
Association and registered as a company under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at
Chennai and represented by its power of attorney holder Sri
Rt Rev D Bangerea (Bishop) and Rev Jathanna (Treasurer)
of CSI - has presented this writ petition on the premise that
the petitioner is a trustee and in management of several
properties including a parcel of land measuring 9.31 acres
in Sy No 52/1 of Kanangeri village, Madikeri taluk, Kodagu
district and has sought for the following prayer: 3
i) to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of a Prohibition/Mandamus restraining Respondent-1 (Deputy Commissioner) from proceeding with the matter in ¨sÀÆ ¥Àj (Land Conversion) proceedings No.56/2007-08 on his file and quash the entire proceedings including the order dated 5.2.2009 in the aforementioned land conversion (¨sÀÆ ¥Àj) No.56/2007-08 by the issue of an appropriate order at Annexure - G.
ii) to grant such further or other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit on facts and in circumstances of the case.
with the averments that the second respondent - a
busybody - though has no manner of right, interest or title
over the said property has applied to the first respondent
Deputy Commissioner seeking for conversion of such land
to non-agricultural use; that the second respondent having
no manner of right, it is not proper for the first respondent
to entertain a request of this nature in respect of the
subject land, particularly for examining the request for
conversion of such land to non-agricultural use; that he
has also erroneously conducted a spot inspection of the 4
land even when the second respondent-applicant was not
an occupant of the subject land; that the proceedings
before the first respondent is not justified; that the subject
property was also subject matter of a scheme suit in OS No
7 of 1991 and now pending in appeal before this court in
RFA No 280 of 2001 and certain interim orders are passed
therein and therefore the prayer has sought for should be
granted.
2. Notice had been issued to the respondents and first
respondent is represented by Sri R B Sathyanarayana
Singh, learned government pleader and the second
respondent is represented by Sri K Suryanarayana Rao,
Advocate.
3. Learned government pleader appearing for the first
respondent submits that as the property is subject matter
of a pending appeal arising from a scheme suit, no need for
examining the matter independently in writ jurisdiction and
therefore urges for dismissal of the writ petition. 5
4. Learned government pleader could not be more right.
If there is a dispute relating to an immovable property and
that was also subject matter of a scheme suit and is now in
further appeal before this court, that question cannot be
looked into in writ jurisdiction independently. Even
otherwise, a prayer to restrain a public authority from
performing its duty or discharging its responsibilities
cannot be granted by a writ in the nature of prohibition.
5. Viewed from any angle, this writ petition is not
tenable and is more a frivolous one and therefore dismissed
without issue of rule.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*pjk