Karnataka High Court
Managing Committee Of vs The Deputy Commissioner on 25 May, 2022
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.7458 /2020(LR)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.7347/2020(LR)
IN W.P.NO.7458/2020:
BETWEEN:
MANAGING COMMITTEE OF
BHAVANESHWARI AND ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLES
BHAVANI NAGARA, LADAPURA,
SIRA TOWN, TUMKURU-572 137.
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE
SRI. UDAYAKUMAR R.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
TUMKURU DISTIRCT,
TUMKURU-572 137.
R T RAMANNA,
S/O LADAR R THIMMAIAH,
SINCE DEAD REPREENTED BY HIS LRS
2. S R SANJEEA MURTHY
S/O LATE RT RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT SREE RAMA COFFEE WORKS,
BHAVANAMMA & ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
LADAPURA, SIRA TOWN - 572 713.
2
3. S R RAGHAVENDRA RAHUTH,
S/O R T RAMANNA,
R/AT DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
SIRA TOWN,
SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LR'S
R3(A) SHREE MALA S N,
W/O LATE RAGHAVENDRA S R,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R3(B) RAJATH R,
S/O LATE RAGHAVENDRA S R,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
R3(C) AMITH R,
S/O LATE RAGHAVENDRA S R,
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
SINCE APPLICANT NO.02 & 03 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER,
THE APPLICANT NO.1,
SHREE MALA S N,
W/O LATE RAGHAVENDRA S R,
RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 ARE
R/AT "SHRI HARI NILAYA",
BEHIND SRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY TEMPLE,
OLD BUS STAND, SIRA - 572 137.
TUMKURU DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI. S.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. VEERABHADRASWAMY H P, ADVOCATE FOR LR'S OF
R3(A TO C))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DTD 09.09.2019 PASSED BY THE R.1 DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, TUMKURU DISTRICT, TUMKURU IN INA (A)
2/2012-13 (OLD NO. INA CR NO.54/1983-84) VIDE ANNEX-
D.
3
IN W.P.NO.7347/2020:
BETWEEN:
MANAGING COMMITTEE OF
BHAVANESHWARI AND ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLES
BHAVANI NAGARA, LADAPURA,
SIRA TOWN, TUMKURU - 572 137
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE
SRI UDAYAKUMAR R.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKURU DISTRICT,
TUMKURU - 572 137.
2. SRI BHAVANAMMA TEMPLE
SIRA TOWN,
TUMKURU DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE TAHSILDAR
SIRA TALUK, SIRA TOWN
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 137.
3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
SIRA TOWN, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 137.
4. SRI. S N KRISHNAIAH,
PRESIDENT
AKHILA KARNATAKA LADARA SANGHA
(REGISTERED)
BHAVANI NAGARA, LADAPURA,
SIRA TOWN, TUMKURU - 572 137
5. SRI. B V VENKATESH,
SECRETARY,
AKHILA KARNATAKA LADARA SANGHA
(REGISTERED)
BHAVANI NAGARA LADAPURA
SIRA TOWN, TUMKURU - 572 137.
4
6. SRI S R SANJEEVA MURTHY
S/O LATE R T RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
SRI RAMA COFFEE WORKS,
SIRA TOWN, TUMKURU - 572 137 .
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DTD 19.07.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1
DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER, TUMKURU DISTRICT, TUMKURU IN
INA (A) 4/2002-03 VIDE ANNX-D.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The applications seeking impleadment of petitioners as respondents has been rejected vide first respondent - Deputy Commissioner's order and the said order is under challenge in these petitions. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein were appointed as Trustees by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, in O.S. No.21/1949-50 by an order dated 16.08.2016. The operative portion of the said order which is relevant for the purpose of adjudication of these cases reads as under:
5
"ORDER Two persons by name Sri Udaykumar S/o S. Ramanna and Sri. B.s.Vijayakumar S/o Seebaiah are inducted as trustees of the managing committee to manage affairs of temples ie., Sri. Bhavaneshwari Temple and Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple and properties attached to those temples apart from the Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri.
In view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.56746- 747/2014 (GM-CPC) and WP No.58257-259/2014 (GM-CPC), the parties can submit their scheme for the proper administration of the management of two temples ie., Sri Bhavaneshwari Temple and sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple including the properties attached to those temples.
Office to send a copy of the order to the Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri."
2. As could be seen from the above order, the petitioners herein have been inducted as Trustees of the Managing Committee to manage affairs of the Temples in question and also the properties attached to those Temples apart from the Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri. It is therefore, clear that the petitioners are under an obligation to discharge their function as Trustees of the Temples and thereby safeguard the properties attached to those Temples. 6
3. The first petitioner in his application vide Annexure-R2 to the Statement of Objections filed by the second respondent has stated as follows:
"F PɼÀUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ²æà ¥ÉÆÃPÀ¯ï¥ÀÄj ªÀÄoÀzÀ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z À À ¥ÀÆeÁ¢ PÉÊAPÀAiÀÄðUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß ¤ªÀð»¹PÉÆAqÀÄ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z À À d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À PÀAzÁAiÀĪÀ£ÄÀ ß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ j¸Àªð À ¥sA À qÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ F PɼU À É £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ E£ÁAw d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ C£Á¢¬ÄAzÀ®Æ £ÀªÀÄä ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsª À ÁzÀ°z è ÄÀ Ý FUÀ®Æ £À£Àß ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsª À z À À°gè ÀÄvÀz Û É."
4. It is thus clear that the petitioner is making a claim over the properties attached to the Temple.
5. Since the petitioners have been inducted as Trustees as per the order of the Civil Court and are under a legal obligation to safeguard the interest of the Temples in question, it would be necessary to permit them to be impleaded as additional respondents.
6. However, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contends that the petitioners have no legal right to be impleaded as respondents and at best, they may be permitted to assist the State Government under whom the land stood vested absolutely free from all encumbrances. No doubt, it is true that on the coming into 7 force of Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, the subject lands have stood vested with the State. However, since the Civil Court has inducted the petitioners as Trustees to safeguard the properties belonging to the Temples in question, in my view, the petitioners would be entitled for impleadment as a matter of right to participate in the subject proceedings and oppose the claim of the second respondent.
7. It has to be kept in mind that under Section 9 of the 1955 Act, the Tribunal is statutorily obliged to examine the nature and history of all the lands in respect of which claim under Section 4, 5, (5-A, 6-A) and 8 is made. In that View of the matter, the presence of the petitioners as Trustees would be vital and necessary for the adjudication and determination of the nature and history of all the lands that are attached to both the Temples.
The first respondent - Deputy Commissioner, in my view, has committed a serious error in rejecting the impleading application filed by the petitioners on the ground that there is no provision of the 1955 Act which entitles their impleadment. As stated above, the Tribunal is obliged to 8 examine the nature and history of all the lands belonging to the Temples and the petitioners being Trustees of the Temples, have a legal right to participate in the proceedings and assist the Tribunal to determine the claims made against the Temples and the refusal by the Deputy Commissioner to come on record is illegal. The impugned order is therefore set aside. The impleading applications filed by the Petitioners shall stand allowed. Petitioners are permitted to appear as additional respondents before the Deputy Commissioner and participate in the proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner shall hear all the parties, including the newly added respondents, i.e., the petitioners herein and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the claim of the respondent.
Ordered accordingly, these petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv