MADHUSUDANANDAPURI SWAMIJI, MATADHIPATHI AND PEETADHIKARI OMKAR ASHRAM Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE TAHSILDAR AND THE KARNATAKA CHITRAKALA PARISHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore in LND(DA)CR. 159/2006 -07 as per Annexure -L1 seeking to quash the same and further direction to the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner as per Annexure -C dated 12/15 -5 -2000.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that he is the Mathadhipathi and Peethadhikari of Omkar Ashrama situated at Srinivasapura, Kengeri Hobli. Bangalore South Taluk. He submits that he was incarnated as a Mathadhipathi of the Ashrama on 9/8/2007. Previous to his incarnation the earlier Swamiji of the Math made an application in the year 2008 -09 to the Government of Karnataka for grant of 22 acres of land in Sy. No. 14 of Ganakal village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk for religious and charitable purpose. Considering his application, the Deputy Commissioner has granted 8 acres of land for a period of 30 years as per the G O No. KA42 LGB 89 dated 12/1/2000. Pursuant to the said order, the Special Deputy Commissioner by proceedings dated 5/8/2000 granted 8 acres of land in Sy. No. 40 to Sri Sri Swamiji of Omkar Ashrama. Being not satisfied with the grant of 8 acres of land, he made one more representation dated 15/5/2000 requesting the Revenue Minister for grant of 22 acres more.

(3.) AFTER considering the said representation, the Deputy Commissioner has written letter to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department about the further demand of 12 acres by the Ashrama as per Annexure -D. The Ashrama also made representation to former Chief Minister as per Annexure -E dated 8/9/2004 who by the letter dated 28/9/2004 referred the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner to take appropriate action. In the meanwhile the State Government wanted to auction the remaining property in Sy. No. 14. At the instance of the petitioner the same was stayed by office of the Chief Minister. He submits that he also made representation to the former Irrigation Minister who in turn also recommended for grant of the land.