Hubbali Idgah: Karnataka High Court allows Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations after noting land belongs to Municipal Corporation

At a late night hearing held on Tuesday, the Dharwad bench of the Karnataka High Court allowed Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations to be held at Hubbali Idgah [Anjuman-e-Islam v Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation]..Justice Ashok S Kinagi heard the case in chambers at 10 pm and passed the order after noting that the land in question belongs to the Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation (respondent)."It is not in dispute that property belongs to respondent. Petitioner is admitted the title of respondent. From the perusal of the judgment (in a title suit), it is clear that respondent is owner of the property. The petitioner is the licencee and permitted to use (the land) only on two occasions," the Court said in its order passed at 11.30 pm.Since property is of the respondent and is being used for carrying out regular activities and has not been declared as a place of worship, no status quo can be granted with respect to the same, the Court held.Thus, the Court negatived the contention of the petitioners who had sought to draw parallels to the Bengaluru Idgah with respect to which the Supreme Court had ordered earlier today that no Ganesh Chaturthi festivities should be conducted till the title of the land is settled.Earlier in the day, Justice Kinagi had allowed the Municipal Commissioner to consider the applications received for installation of Ganesha Idol, holding religious and cultural activities in the property in question for a limited period.The single-judge had passed the order in view of a similar order passed by a division bench of the High Court with respect to Bengaluru Idgah. However, the single-judge had noted that an appeal against the division bench order was slated to be heard by the Supreme Court.The single-judge had, therefore, granted liberty to the petitioners to mention the matter again in the event of the Supreme Court passing an order. The Supreme Court had subsequently ordered status quo with respect to Bengaluru Idgah. The petitioners in the present case then mentioned the matter upon which the single-judge listed it for hearing in chambers at 10 pm. .When the matter was taken up, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the Supreme Court's interim order, the same relief should be granted in this petition also.The respondents, however, sought to distinguish this case from the Bengaluru Idgah. "The questions before the supreme court were with regard to the title to the property. Saying that the land is government land..that is a disputed question. Therefore, the Supreme Court said you must examine that POV. In this case, that question is not there at all. In this case there was a suit by private parties, which was finally affirmed in appeal. The trial court decreed the suit saying that the transaction from 1991 was a licence, not lease. It was also declared that public had a right to use the land," Additional Advocate General Dhyan Chinnappa submitted.."There's no dispute to title? So, facts are different," the judge asked. "Absolutely no dispute. They only had possession. It is the exclusive property of the corporation," the respondent-counsel submitted.The petitioners conceded that while it is the respondent's property, the Commissioner should have heard the petitioner's objections before passing order. The Court, however, disagreed and proceeded to allow Ganesh celebrations at the site.