Karnataka High Court Rejects Land Claim Against Siddaganga Mutt
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single-bench order and dismissed a claim over 14 acres of land in Kadaranahalli, Dasanapura hobli, in Bengaluru North taluk, ruling in favor of the state government and the Siddaganga Mutt of Tumakuru.
A division bench comprising Justices DK Singh and TM Nadaf ruled that the claimants had engineered fraudulent documents to falsely show the land had been granted to them in 1982.
The disputed land, measuring 14 acres and 25 guntas, was granted by the Karnataka government to the Siddaganga Mutt in August 2010. The mutt intended to use the property to establish a Dasoha Prasada Centre.
However, a group of petitioners led by an individual named Manjesh challenged the grant. They argued that the special deputy commissioner had previously granted the land to them on October 11, 1982. The petitioners approached the High Court after the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) originally dismissed their claim.
In 2018, a single-bench judge of the High Court ruled in favor of Manjesh and the other petitioners, setting aside the KAT order. The single bench had opined that the mutt failed to prove the petitioners' 1982 grant certificate was fake. This decision prompted both the state government and the Siddaganga Mutt to file separate writ appeals.
Upon reviewing the appeals, the division bench of Justices DK Singh and TM Nadaf discovered that the grant certificate produced by the petitioners was fraudulent. The court noted that revenue authority reports prior to the dispute showed the land was vacant, and the fake certificate only emerged with the involvement of Manjesh.
The bench observed that unseen hands appeared to be working behind the scenes to seize state property. The judges stated that such fraudulent acts deserve to be dealt with using an iron hand.
Despite the fraud, the High Court decided not to impose financial penalties on the petitioners. The bench noted that because the petitioners are villagers and considering their financial status, it would refrain from imposing costs.
