Karnataka High Court
Ma.Ni.Pra Channabasavaswamy vs The Secretary on 1 October, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553
WP No. 202656 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 202656 OF 2014 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MA.NI.PRA CHANNABASAVASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
(SRI SHIVAKUMAR SWAMIGALU)
S/O LINGAIAH SWAMY)
VIRAKTHAMATHA KODEKAL VILLAGE
SURPUR TALUKA
YADGIRI DISTRICT
MATHADIKARI/PEETHADHIKARI
NARADAGADDE MATH
RAICHUR
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA AND:
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
1. THE SECRETARY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE
2. THE COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
& CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553
WP No. 202656 of 2014
4. THE TAHASILDAR
RAICHUR TALUKA
5. SHREE JAGADGURU CHANNABASAVA
RAJENDRA SWAMYGALU
S/O CHANNABASAVASWAMY URUVAKONDA
AGE: 72 YEARS, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT
(ANDHRA PRADESH)
6. DR.SIDDALINGA SWAMIGALU
URUVAKONDA ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT
(ANDHRA PRADESH)
(PRESENTLY FALSELY CLAIMING AS
MATHADIPATI OF NARADAGADDE MATH
IN CASE NO. KUM E01/MUDAPRA/2014
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAKUMAR R.TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI.MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5;
NOTICE TO R6 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE
IMPUGNED ORDER AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
BEARING COME 01/MUDRAPA/2014 DATED 14.03.2014 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E. ISSUE A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE
WITH AFFAIRS OF NARADAGADDE MATH, WHEREIN THE
PETITIONER IS THE MATHADIPATHI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553
WP No. 202656 of 2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Call for records from the 1st respondent relating to the impugned order and quash the impugned order bearing come 01/Mudrapa/2014 dated 14.03.2014 st issued by the 1 respondent vide Annexure-E. b. Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents not to interfere with affairs of Naradagadde Math, wherein the petitioner is the Mathadipathi.
2. Vide the impugned order dated 14.03.2014, the respondent No.1, Secretary, Revenue Department had appointed an Administrator in respect of Sri.Naradagadde Math, the petitioner claiming that he is the Mathadhipathi appointed under the will of the earlier Mathadhipathi, respondent No.5 claiming that he would be Mathadhipathi since the said property and the temples come within the domain of the respondent No.5's Math.
-4-NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014
3. The dispute between the parties has been going on for a long time traceable to 14.08.1987, when the Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments in Karnataka vide its order dated 14.08.1987 taking into consideration the interest of the Maths and its properties, the properties were taken over by the government until Mathadhipathi was appointed.
4. Subsequently, the petitioner having been filed an application on the ground that he is appointed as Mathadhipathi under a will on 02.12.2013, issued a direction by the Deputy Commissioner to transfer the property to the petitioner immediately thereafter, a challenge was made by the respondent No.5 who was not a party before the Deputy Commissioner claiming that he was an aggrieved party and that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not proper.
-5-NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014
5. This matter being taken up for consideration by the Secretary, Revenue Department in the appeal on 14.03.2014, directed the Tahsildar to be an Administrator of the said Math in view of the earlier order dated 14.08.1987. It is challenging the said order that the petitioner is before this Court.
6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.05.2024, had passed the following order:
The dispute in this petition relates to the administration of Sukshetra Sri.Naradagadde Mutt. The petitioner claims that the erstwhile Matadhipathi had executed a Will dated 13.09.2011 anointing him as 'Matadhipathi'.
However, the respondent No.5 claims that Naradagadde Mutt was attached to the Uruvakonda Mutt and that Matadhipathi of Uruvakonda Mutt had to appoint Matadhipathi of Naradagadde Mutt. The Deputy Commissioner in terms of his order dated 02.12.2013 had directed the Mutt and its properties to be handed over to the petitioner, which was challenged by the respondent No.5 before the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments. The Commissioner in terms of his Order dated 31.12.2013 rejected the appeal, which then was challenged before the Secretary of the Revenue Department. The Secretary in terms of his Order dated 14.03.2014 held that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 regarding right to administer the Mutt, which was pending consideration in -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014 O.S.No.422/2014. The Secretary therefore, directed the Tahsildar to take care, control and custody of the Mutt and its properties until the resolution of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.5. It is this order, which is challenged in this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Mutt is involved in spiritual, religious, social and cultural activities and is also endowed with large extent of land and therefore, it is imminent that the petitioner is appointed as the Matadhipathi of the Mutt to keep alive the spiritual, religious, social and cultural activities in the Mutt and also to take care of the properties.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 on the other hand submits that the petitioner is yet to establish his right to be a Matadhipathi under the Will executed by the erstwhile Matadhipathi. He contends that the Matadhipathi of Naradagadde Mutt has to be appointed by the Uruvakonda Mutt headed by the respondent No.5 and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any precedence over the respondent No.5.
4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Mutt is the centre of all religious, spiritual, social and cultural activities and these activities have to be kept alive. However, in the murky dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.5, the interest of the devotees of the Mutt is put at stake and the properties of the Mutt is at risk of being appropriated by strangers and trespassers. Therefore, to consider the interest of the devotees of the Mutt, it is imminent that the respondent No.3 be directed to conduct a meeting of the devotees of the Mutt, where a referendum could be held to decide the future course of action pending disposal of the suit -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014 filed by the respondent No.5 against the petitioner.
5. Hence, the following interim order is passed:
i) The respondent No.3 shall hold a meeting of the devotees of the Mutt on 30.06.2024 at the Mutt premises, after giving due publicity of the said meeting to all the devotees. If need be, the respondent No.3 shall affix a copy of this Order on the outer wall of the Mutt along with a pamphlet in Kannada language about the meeting and its purpose. It is open for the respondent No.3 to issue appropriate press note for information to the devotees, which may be published in any newspaper having wide circulation in the locality.
ii) The respondent No.3 may avail the
services of the District Legal
Services Authority for any
incidental purpose.
iii) The report of the meeting shall be
placed before this Court by or
before 08.07.2024.
iv) Learned Additional Government
Advocate is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the respondent No.3 for future needful action.
5. List this petition on 10.07.2024."
-8-NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014
7. Pursuant thereto, the meeting not being held in a proper manner, this Court had passed the following order on 13.09.2024:
1. Learned AGA had filed a report of the Deputy Commissioner as regards the meeting held in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 30-5-2024. The Deputy Commissioner had indicated that 415 people had participated in the meeting on 10-8-2024, out of which 352 persons had indicated that they want Respondent No.5 to administer the present temple, whereas 63 favoured the petitioner.
2. Objections have been filed by the petitioner to the said report categorically stating and making serious allegations that the police personnel who were posted at site prevented the devotees of the petitioner from participating in the said meeting. Since the temple is located on an island, they being required to be ferried through boats, boats were not made available and as such, the devotees of the petitioner could not participate in the meeting held on the island.
3. Along with the said objection, a representation signed by 353 persons has been produced indicating that those 353 persons were prevented from participating in the meeting.
4. Apart from this representation, a pen-drive containing videographs has been produced.
The said videographs were played in Open Court today for the benefit of the counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA as also counsel for Respondent No.5. The videographs show the sorry state of affairs inasmuch as hundreds of people were prevented by the police personnel from going to the island on the ground that there were no boats available. Some of the people have made a categorical statement -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014 that they have waited for more than 3 hours waiting for the boat towards which no steps were taken by the police personnel.
5. These police personnel were also acting under the instruction of the Deputy Commissioner who was appointed as the Chairman of the meeting by this Court. It was therefore required of the Deputy Commissioner to have conducted the meeting in a proper manner by enabling the participation of each and every one without taking any sides either towards petitioner or respondent No.5. The manner in which the present meeting has been conducted leaves much to be desired and I can only stop now from imputing malafides to the officer concerned.
6. There appears to be a selective choice made of who can participate in the meeting and who cannot, which would also indicate that there is discrimination made in favour of respondent No.5 and adversely to the petitioner, There being an overwhelming majority of 352 favouring respondent No.5 whereas 63 were favouring the petitioner. However, the representation indicates 353 people being prevented from attending the meeting, if these 353 persons were to be taken into account then the majority would be with the petitioner.
7. Though there may technically not be a requirement to hold a meeting, but however, the representation having been given subsequently, it cannot be said that they were present as on the date of the meeting. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that a fresh meeting would have to be held, wherein the supporters of both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 could participate as directed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 30-5-2024. Hence a meeting is directed to be held this time at
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014 Convention Hall, Deputy Commissioner Office Compound, Yadgiri, commencing from 10.30 am on 22-09-2024. The Deputy Commissioner, Yadagir, is directed to conduct the meeting as directed by this Court on 30-5- 2024.
8. Since the earlier meeting conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur has not been conducted properly, the Regional Commissioner is directed to cause an inquiry into the manner in which the meeting was conducted and take action against the persons who have prevented the supporters of the petitioner from participating in the meeting as also to ascertain under whose instructions those police personnel were acting when they prevented the supporters of the petitioner so as to take action against those persons also. An inquiry report of the Regional Commissioner to be placed on record on or before 22-10-2024.
9. A report of the Deputy Commissioner, Yadagir, as regards the meeting directed to be now held on 22-09-2024 to be submitted by 26-09- 2024. The Deputy Commissioner, Yadagir, shall video record the entire meeting with multiple cameras, one camera being at the entrance of the venue, some cameras being installed within the venue and any other camera as deemed fit by the Deputy Commissioner to be installed at locations chosen by him so that the allegations as made now are not repeated in respect to that meeting.
10.The Deputy Commissioner is also directed to issue necessary and proper instruction to all the police personnel and those assisting in conducting of the meeting to facilitate the participation of any person interested in the meeting while maintaining law and order in the said meeting. The directions issued by the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014 Coordinate Bench on 30-05-2024 will also have to be complied by the Deputy Commissioner, Yadagir. In addition, an Attendance Register shall be maintained of all the persons attending the meeting by verifying the identity of those persons after collecting a copy of their Aadhaar Card or Electoral ID Card or Motor Vehicle Driving License.
11.Re-list on 30-09-2024.
8. In pursuance of the said order dated 13.09.2024, a meeting was held and a memo dated 28.09.2024 has been filed enclosing the proceedings of the meeting.
Both the counsels for respondent No.5 and learned counsel for the petitioner confirm the receipt of memo dated 28.09.2024 along with documents. The said memo is taken on record and made part of these proceedings.
9. A perusal of the report of the meeting would indicate that the followers of the petitioner had participated in the said meeting, however, the followers of respondent No.5 did not participate in the meeting claiming that the location of the meeting was not conducive for them to attend. However, the fact
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014 remains that 1192 persons supporting the petitioners had attended the meeting and none supporting the respondent No.5 had attended the meeting.
10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 30.05.2024 had directed the said meeting and referendums to be conducted in order to pass further orders. Today, both the counsels have submitted that there is a suit in O.S.No.422/2014 which was filed by respondent No.5 before the II Additional JMFC Court Raichur. The said suit earlier having been dismissed on the ground of maintainability, a counter claim filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. A regular appeal having been filed, the suit and the counter claim have been restored and now pending consideration before the aforesaid Court.
11. On the basis of submissions which have been made by both the counsels which impinges upon the right of both the petitioner and respondent No.5, which is required to be decided after a full-fledged trial by
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014 taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties more so, since the will has been disputed and the claim made that the properties subject matter of Naradgadde math comes within the purview of Uruvakonda Math, I am of the considered opinion that this matter touching upon the faith and belief of thousands of persons as could be seen from the persons who have attended the meeting would have to be expeditiously decided by the Trial Court.
12. The submission of Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.5 is that the matter being posted for evidence on 16.10.2024, evidence would be led by respondent No.5 on 16.10.2024 without seeking for any adjournment, his submission is placed on record. Needless to say, if evidence is not led by respondent No.5 on that day, the Trial Court would be at liberty to dismiss the suit and take up the counter claim of the petitioner, in which event the date could be fixed by the Court for the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014 petitioner/defendant counter claimant to lead his evidence.
13. In the event of respondent No.5 leading evidence on 16.10.2024, the matter would have to be necessarily psoted for cross-examination of such witness which Smt.Ratna N.Shivayogimath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits would be conducted on the date on which it is fixed for such cross-examination without seeking for any adjournment. Needless to say if any adjournment is sought for, the Trial Court would be at liberty to close the cross-examination and proceed with the matter.
14. The Trial Court is at liberty to fix a calendar of events taking into account the pendency of the matters before the Trial Court by giving due priority to the present matter and ensure that the necessary action on the part of each of the parties for each of the stages which has been fixed on the date to which the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014 matter is adjourned is compiled with by each of the parties.
15. No adjournment is required to be granted as per the submission made by both the counsels for petitioner and the respondent No.5.
16. Both the counsels submit that they will not be filing any interlocutory application seeking for any interlocutory order/directions in the matter but would go on with the trial.
17. The submission of Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 that he would examine maximum of 15 witnesses is placed on record. A list of witnesses to be furnished by 16.10.2024 to the Trial Court.
18. The submission of Smt.Ratna N.Shivayogimath, learned counsel for the petitioner that she would examine maximum of 15 witnesses is placed on record. A list of witnesses to be submitted by 16.10.2024 to the Trial Court.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014
19. In the event of any document to be summoned from any State authorities, the said authorities shall produce the said documents at the earliest as and when summoned by the Trial Court.
20. Any document to be obtained by the petitioner or respondent No.5 from any authority shall be so obtained before 16.10.2024 and no adjournment would be granted on the ground that certified copies are yet to be furnished by the concerned authorities.
The concerned authorities are also directed to furnish the said certified copies within the time frame. Both the parties would be entitled to furnish a copy of this order to such authority to ensure timely furnishing of the documents.
21. In terms of the above observations, the directions and recordal of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.5, the petition stands disposed of.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7553 WP No. 202656 of 2014
22. Registry is directed to issue certified copies, if applied for at the earliest.
23. Needless to say, all contentions of the parties are kept open and Trial Court shall decide the matter on its own merit, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4