Karnataka High Court
Sri. K. S. Narayana Iyengar vs State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16069
WP No. 14172 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 14172 OF 2023 (GM-R/C)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 13195 OF 2016 (GM-R/C)
IN WP No. 14172/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K. S. NARAYANA IYENGAR
S/O LATE SRI KARAGAM SHESHA IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
2. SRI K S RAMAPRIYA
S/O LATE SRI K S NARAYAN IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FIRST STHANEEKA MELUKOTE
SRI CHELUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE,
Digitally signed by MANDYA
R HEMALATHA
Location: High
Court of BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
Karnataka RAJA BEEDI, MELUKOTE TOWN,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571431.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN V, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P CHINNAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16069
WP No. 14172 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016
REVENUE AND MUZRAI DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE - 560018.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571401.
4. THE LOCAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MELUKOTE SRI CHELUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE,
MELUKOTE TOWN, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571431.
5. SRI CHELLAPPAN (BARABARDHAR)
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O LATE RAJ IYENGAR
2ND STHANEEKA
YOGANARASIMHASWAMY TEMPLE,
VIJAYANAGARA MYSORE - 570017.
6. SHRI THIRUNARAYAN IYENGAR
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O LATE S RANGARAJAN IYENGAR,
3RD STHANEEKA,
RAYAGOPURA BEEDI,
MELUKOTE TOWN, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571431.
7. SRI SRINIVASA NARASIMHAN
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O SRI NAGARAJ IYENGAR,
CLAIMING TO BE 4TH STHANEEKA,
OPPOSITE MELUKOTE
SRI CHELUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE,
RAJA STREET, MELUKOTE
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571431.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:16069
WP No. 14172 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. J S PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T RAJARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
R6-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/06/2023 IN CASE
NO DVS(1)/R.A/136/2015 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, MANDYA (RESPONDENT NO 3)
PURPORTEDLY UNDER SECTION 25B(6)(IV) OF THE HINDU
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1997 (ANNEXURE-A).
IN WP NO. 13195/2016
BETWEEN:
1. LATE K S NARAYANA IYENGAR
S/O LATE SRI KARAGAM SHESHA IYENGAR
1ST STHANEEKA,
SRI CHELUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE,
RAJA BEEDI, MELUKOTE TOWN,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571431
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS LR
SRI. K S RAMAPRIYA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE K S NARAYANA IYENGAR
1ST STHANEEKA
SRI. CHELUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE
RESIDING AT RAJA BEEDI,
MELUKOTE TOWN
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 431.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN V, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P CHINNAPPA., ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:16069
WP No. 14172 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE AND MUZRAI DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE - 560018.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571401.
4. THE LOCAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SRI CHELUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE
MELUKOTE, MELUKOTE TOWN
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571431.
5. SRI CHELLAPPAN (BARABARDHAR)
MAJOR IN AGES/O LATE RAJ IYENGAR
2ND STHANEEKA,
YOGANARASIMHASWAMY TEMPLE,
VIJAYNAGARA, MYSORE - 570017.
6. SRI S T THIRUNARAYAN IYENGAR
S/O LATE S RANGARAJAN IYENGAR
3RD STHANEEKA,
RAYAGOPURA BEEDI MELUKOTE TOWN,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571431.
7. SRI. R SACHITANANDA (BARABARDHAR)
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O LATE RANGACHA
4TH STHANEEKA
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:16069
WP No. 14172 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016
OPPOSITE MELUKOTE
SRI. CHELUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE
MELUKOTE, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 431.
8. LATE NAGARAJ IYENGER
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR'S
8(A) SMT. RANGANAYAKI
MAJOR IN AGE
W/O OF LATE NAGARAJ IYENGAR
8(B) SRI. SANTHANARAMAN S N
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE NAGARAJ IYENGAR
8(C) SMT. YASHODHA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
D/O LATE NAGARAJ IYENGAR
8(D) SRI. S N SHALWAPILLAY IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE NAGARAJ IYENGAR
8(E) SMT. S N ANURADHA
MAJOR IN AGE
D/O LATE NAGARAJ IYENGAR
8(F) SRI. SRINIVASANARASIMHAN S N
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O LATE NAGARAJ IYENGAR
ALL THE LEGAL REP. OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.8, RESIDE AT:
RAJA STREET, MELUKOTE
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 431.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
R5 TO R7 - SERVED
SRI. HARISHCHANDRA MOVVAR, ADVOCATE FOR
LRS OF DECEASED R8)
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:16069
WP No. 14172 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY R-3, DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT IN PROCEEDINGS
BEARING NO. DVS (1)/R.A/136/2015 AT ANNEX-P AND
HOLD THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT
JURISDICTION.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER
DICTATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The issue involved in these writ petitions pertains to the rights of the Sthaneekas to carry mudis from the District Treasury to the Shri Cheluvanarayana Swamy Temple at Melukote in Mandya District. Respondent No. 3 - the Deputy Commissioner - has passed an order permitting all four Sthaneekas to perform the right to carry mudis to the temple in rotation. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
1.1 The parties are referred to by their ranking in W.P. No. 13195/2016 for the sake of convenience.
1.2 The petitioner in both writ petitions--W.P. No. 13195/2016 and W.P. No. 14172/2023--is the same individual (Petitioner No. 1-A), who has filed the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 second writ petition on the ground that, despite the grant of an interim order dated 14.03.2016 in W.P. No. 13195/2016--which directed that only those religious practices previously followed with respect to accompanying the mudis during earlier years should be continued for the Vairamudi festival scheduled on 19.03.2016--Respondent No. 3 proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 02.06.2023. This order permitted all four Sthaneekas, on a rotational basis, to carry the mudis from the District Treasury at Mandya to the temple for the calendar year 2023.
2. In W.P. No. 13195/2016, the sole petitioner (the legal representative of the deceased, first Sthaneeka - Petitioner No. 1) seeks a writ in the nature of prohibition, to quash the impugned proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 3 in Case No. DVS(1)/R.A/136/2015. These proceedings were initiated pursuant to the order dated 28.03.2015 passed by Respondent No. 2 - the Endowment Commissioner - whereby Respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner of Mandya District, was directed to adjudicate upon the rights of all Sthaneekas (particularly the purported rights of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Sthaneekas) to carry the mudis from the District Treasury to the temple and back. In the interim, it was -8- NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 directed that the settled custom of permitting only the deceased Petitioner No. 1 - the first Sthaneeka - to carry the mudis be followed.
2.1 The initiation of the impugned proceedings is challenged as being ultra vires the jurisdiction conferred under Section 25-B(6)(iv) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, in light of the observations made by this Court in its earlier decision in W.P. No. 4143/2008 dated 24.11.2009.
3. The second writ petition, W.P. No. 14172/2023, has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 02.06.2023 passed in Case No. DVS(1)/R.A/136/2015 by Respondent No. 3 - the Deputy Commissioner of Mandya District - in the exercise of powers conferred under Section 25(6)(iv) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. By the said order, all four Sthaneekas were permitted, on a rotational basis, to carry the mudis from the District Treasury, Mandya, to the temple and back for the calendar year 2023 (produced at Annexure-A in W.P. No. 14172/2023).
-9-NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 3.1. The petitioner challenges the said order on two grounds: first, that it was passed without jurisdiction; and second, that it contravenes the interim order dated 14.03.2016 passed in W.P. No. 13195/2016, wherein this Court had directed the respondents to adhere to the settled religious practices previously followed with respect to accompanying the mudis to the temple during the festivals.
4. The late Petitioner No. 1 was the first Sthaneeka holding office at the Melukote Shri Cheluvanarayanaswamy Temple in Melukote, Mandya District. Upon his demise, he has been substituted by his son - Petitioner No. 1-A. Respondents No. 5 and 6 are the purported second and third Sthaneekas, respectively, while Respondents No. 7 and 8 each claim to be the fourth Sthaneeka, to the exclusion of the other. The deceased Respondent No. 8 is now represented by six legal representatives - Respondents No. 8(a) to 8(f).
Submissions
5. Shri V.S. Srinivas Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel, and Shri P. Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 3 does not fall within the scope of Section 25-B(6)(iv) of the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, and therefore lacks legal authority. They further submitted that the said order was passed without conducting an enquiry as contemplated under the aforementioned provision. It was also contended that Respondent No. 4 had not made any claim since 1967, and hence, the claim is barred by delay and laches. Since the claim was not made within a reasonable period, the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 3 is not legally sustainable.
In support of their contentions, reliance was placed on the following decisions:
(i) Executive Officer of Arulmigu Kallagar Devasthanam, Alagar Koil v. P.R. Seetharaman and Ors. (1990) ILW 110, paras 6 and 7.
(ii) Pandurang Dhoni Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav, MANU/SC/033/1965, para 11.
(iii) Kamalesh Babu and Ors. v. Lajpat Rai Sharma and Ors., MANU/SC/2257/2008, para 22.
(iv) K. Subbaroya Mudali and Ors. v. K. Velappa Mudali and Ors., MANU/TN/0137/1958, paras 9-12.
(v) V. Solamalayan Poojari and Ors. v. The Commissioner, HRCE and Ors., MANU/TN/0449/1967, para 3.
(vi) Athan Sadagopa Chariar Swamigal v. Eliavalli Srinivasa Chariar, MANU/TN/0500/1913, para 10.
(vii) Arun Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., MANU/SC/3995/2006, paras 12-14.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016
6. Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel, appeared for Respondents No. 5 to 7, and the learned Additional Government Advocate appeared for Respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri T. Raja Ram, learned counsel for Respondent No. 7, submitted that the position of Sthaneeka is a hereditary post and that the right to carry the mudis to the temple is not the exclusive right of the 1st Sthaneeka, but a collective right exercisable by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Sthaneekas, as per the Temple Manual. He further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide the rights of the Sthaneekas, and that although the Amending Act of 2011 was struck down by this Court, the said decision has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has stayed the operation of this Court's judgment.
6.1. Shri Harishchandra Mavvar, appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 8(b), 8(d), and 8(f)--legal heirs of the deceased Respondent No. 8, the alleged 4th Sthaneeka--submitted that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is sustainable under Section 25-B(6)(iv) of the Act, 1997, and that it was passed after duly considering the relevant material on record. He contended that the Temple Manual provides comprehensive details about the prevailing
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 practices and procedures in the temple, and that the petitioner does not hold an exclusive right to carry the mudis to the temple. He further submitted that, pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner on 28.03.2015, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Endowment Commissioner, who affirmed the said order. Therefore, he contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the following:
(i) M.D. Kalasappa v. Thripuranthraiah and Ors., D.D. 13.06.2024 (W.P. No. 32349/2018 C/w W.P. No. 32349/2018).
(ii) Gosegowda and Anr. v. Boregowda and Ors., D.D. 16.01.2012 (R.F.A. No. 2129/2021).
(iii) Lokesh v. Government of Karnataka, (2015) 3 KLJ 214.
(iv) Mr. Subash Chandra Naik v. State of Karnataka and Ors., ILR 2011 KAR 824.
Issues
7. Heard the submissions made by the learned Counsels of both parties.
7.1. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by Respondent No. 3 is ultra vires the authority conferred on the Deputy Commissioner of Mandya District under Section 25-
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 B(6)(iv) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, and whether it warrants interference by this Court.
Discussion
8. The ranks of the parties herein have been adequately described in the preceding paragraphs. Petitioner No. 1 previously held the post of Barabardhar, and upon his demise, the Sthaneekam was transferred to his son, the sole Petitioner No. 1-A. It is contended by the petitioner that his ancestors have held the position of 1st Sthaneeka for generations, and that the customary right performed by the 1st Sthaneeka includes bringing the Mudis to the temple, adorning the deity with the Mudis, and securely returning them to the District Treasury. This customary right is claimed to be hereditary.
9. When the administration of the temple was taken over by the Maharaja of Mysore, the 1st Sthaneeka was recognized as having the responsibility of handling the Mudis. This was later affirmed by an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Mandya dated 17.02.1976 (Annexure-B). Further, on 03.11.2000, an order was issued by the Endowment Commissioner stating that during all festivals and occasions, the 1st
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 Sthaneeka shall be the one to bring, accompany, and take back the Mudis (Annexure-C).
10. On 11.03.2003, based on a representation submitted by the petitioner (Annexure-D), the Government accepted the practice of the 1st Sthaneeka bringing the Mudis to the temple. Subsequently, the 4th Sthaneeka approached this Court in W.P. No. 4143/2008 seeking the right to accompany and carry the Mudis to the temple. However, the Court dismissed the petition by order dated 24.11.2009, holding that the 4th Sthaneeka must approach a Civil Court to assert his rights. It is contended by the petitioner that the 4th Sthaneeka has not approached any Civil Court to claim his right (Annexure-G).
11. On 31.03.2012, the Local Executive Officer passed an order in response to a petition filed by the 1st Sthaneeka, directing adherence to the well- established practice. This order directed the other Sthaneekas to accompany the Mudis. It is contended that this order was passed without providing an opportunity for a hearing.
12. Thereafter, based on a complaint filed by the petitioner with the Endowment Commissioner, an order dated 01.04.2012 was passed directing the Local
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 Executive Officer not to deviate from the established practice. In W.P. No. 13743/2013, this Court issued interim orders dated 20.03.2013 and 26.07.2013, directing the authorities to adhere to the practice of the 1st Sthaneeka alone carrying the Mudis. On 16.07.2014, this Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the Endowment Commissioner to independently decide the matter, where the petitioner's application was pending. For the Krishnaraja Mudi festival held on 17.07.2014, the petitioners were allowed to accompany the Mudis, and the 4th Sthaneeka was permitted to follow in a separate vehicle.
13. Based on the order passed by the Commissioner dated 28.03.2015, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Endowment Commissioner. In the said appeal, the Endowment Commissioner, having partly allowed the appeal, directed the Sthaneekas to approach the Deputy Commissioner or the appropriate authorities under the Act, 1997, for adjudication of their respective rights. In the meantime, the practice that was prevalent on earlier occasions was to be followed (Annexure R-2).
13.1. Subsequently, on 17.11.2015, a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P. Nos. 64805/2011 struck
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 down the Amendment Act, 2011, which had introduced Section 25-B into the Act. On 19.03.2016, prior to the Vairamudi festival, the Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings under Section 25-B(6) of the Act. Petitioner No. 1 filed W.P. No. 13195/2016, challenging the issuance of notice by the Deputy Commissioner and questioning the maintainability and jurisdiction of the said proceedings. This Court passed an interim order directing the authorities to follow the same religious practices that had been followed on previous occasions.
14. On 30.03.2023, Petitioner No. 1 sent a legal notice to the Deputy Commissioner, urging compliance with the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 13195/2016. The notice stated that no further orders should be passed in the proceedings until the pending writ petition was decided. Despite this, the Deputy Commissioner issued the impugned order on 02.06.2023, stating that from the calendar year 2023 onwards, the right to bring the Mudis to the temple, adorn the deity with the Mudis, and return them would be performed in rotation by the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Sthaneekas.
14.1. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the second writ petition, W.P. No. 14172/2023.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016
15. At this point, it is important to refer to the following relevant provisions of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997:
Section 2 (21) - 'Person having interest' includes.-
(a) in the case of a charitable endowment or Hindu religious institution a person who is entitled to attend to the performance of service, charity or worship or is entitled to partake in the benefit of any charity or distribution of gifts thereat;
(b) in the case of a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, any member of such society;
(c) in the case of an association not organised for profit registered or deemed to be registered under the Companies Act, 1956 any member of such association;
(d) in the case of any other Hindu religious institution or Charitable Endowment, any beneficiary;
Section 4 - Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioner.-
(1) Subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, the State Government may appoint an Officer not below the rank of a Group 'A' Senior Scale to be Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments for one or more districts. The Deputy Commissioner shall subject to the authority of the Commissioner and subject to the powers and jurisdiction of Zilla Dharmika Parishad have powers of general superintendence and control for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act in respect of all Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments in his Jurisdiction.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 (2) The State Government may appoint an Officer not below the rank of Group-A Junior scale to be Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious Section 25B - Power of the Deputy Commissioner to settle scheme for the administration of Charitable endowments and to decide certain other disputes.-
(1) When the Deputy Commissioner has reason to believe that in the interest of the proper administration of Charitable endowments or an endowment attached to any notified institution or declared institution, a scheme shall be settled for such endowment or when not less than five persons having interest make an application in writing stating that in the interest of the proper administration of the endowment, a scheme shall be settled for it, the Deputy Commissioner shall on consultation with the Trustee or the Committee of Management or the persons having interest and if, after such consultation he is satisfied that is it necessary or desirable to do so, he shall by order, settle a scheme of administration of such Charitable endowment or endowment.
(2) The scheme settled under this section for the administration of Charitable endowments may include certain provision for,- (i) constitution of a body for the purpose of assisting in the administration of such Charitable endowments;
(ii) (iii) the method of selection of members for such committee from the persons having interest in such endowments; defining the powers and duties of the committee;
(3) The Deputy Commissioner may determine the properties of the endowment and the list of such properties shall be appended to the scheme as a schedule.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 (4) The Deputy Commissioner may at any time after consulting trustees or committee by order modify or cancel any scheme in respect of an endowment which is in force and settled under sub-section (1) or any scheme in force settled or modified by any courts or any earlier enactments:
Provided that such cancellation or modification of a scheme in force settled or modified earlier shall be made only subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be imposed by the Deputy Commissioner.
(5) If the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that any such scheme referred to in sub-section (1) is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and rules made thereunder he may, at any time modify it in such a manner as may be necessary to bring it into conformity with the provisions of this Act and rules made there under.
(6) Whenever any question arises as to,- (i) whether a particular property is the property of a notified institutions or declared institution under the Act; or
(ii) whether any property or money is either a religious endowment or specific endowment; or
(iii) whether any Archak or temple servant holds or held an office in any notified institution or declared institution on the basis of a hereditary right; or
(iv) whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what is the existing usage of a notified or declared institution; or
(v) whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a religious or of secular character and whether any property or money has been given wholly or partly for religious or secular purpose; or
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016
(vi) where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character or the performance of any service or charity connected with such an institution or the performance of a charity which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to religious and partly to secular purposes, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to religious purpose; or
(vii) to accord sanction of dittam and seva list in respect of notified institutions having gross annual income of rupees one lakh and above but below Rupees ten lakhs; or
(viii) any dispute between the servant of a notified institution and the committee of management. - the Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties concerned shall by order decide it.
(7) Any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under any of the foregoing provisions, shall appeal within one month of the date of receipt of the order to the Commissioner.
(8) The Commissioner may after hearing the aggrieved person and other contending parties, pass appropriate order in accordance with law.]".
(Emphasis supplied).
16. As per Section 3 of the Act, the Commissioner appointed by the State Government as the Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments is subject to the powers and jurisdiction of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat. The Commissioner also has the power of general superintendence and control for the purpose of carrying
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 out the provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides for the appointment of Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners, who are subject to the authority of the Commissioner and the powers of the Zilla Dharmika Parishat. They also have the power of general superintendence and control for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act in respect of all Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments within their jurisdiction.
16.1 Section 25-B(6)(iv) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, authorizes the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order on whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honor, emolument, or perquisite in any religious institution, and to determine the existing usage of a notified or declared institution. Such an order must be passed by the Deputy Commissioner after hearing the concerned parties. Sub-section (7) to Section 25-B of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by the Deputy Commissioner's order may appeal to the Commissioner within one month of the order, and the Commissioner, after hearing the concerned parties, may pass appropriate orders.
17. The petitioners argued that only the Civil Court or the Rajya Dharmika Parishat has the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 jurisdiction to adjudicate the rights of the Sthaneekas. In support of this contention, they relied on the case of Executive Officer of Arulmigu Kallagar Devasthanam, Alagar Koil v. P.R. Seetharaman and Others (1990) ILW 110, paragraphs 6 and 7, where the High Court of Madras, in a second appeal, dealt with the issue of whether the Deputy Commissioner, in the exercise of his powers under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, could decide upon the claim of the plaintiff's right to perform Mandagapadi in a mandapam. The Court held that while the Deputy Commissioner has the power to conduct an enquiry into the established usage of a religious institution, he cannot decide a claim based on long-standing usage or custom that is civil in nature; such a claim must be decided only by a Civil Court.
17.1 Further, the petitioners submitted that in the present case, the impugned order was passed ignoring the aspect of limitation. They relied on Pandurang Dhoni Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav (MANU/SC/033/1965), para 11, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the final decree passed by the Trial Court extinguished the right of the mortgagors to redeem the property due to
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 failure to pay the decretal amount within the prescribed period of limitation. The Hon'ble Court, while allowing the appeal, held that if a Trial Court or District Court commits an error in law, such an error cannot necessarily be said to involve a question of jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 115 of the CPC.
17.2 In Kamalesh Babu and Ors v. Lajpat Rai Sharma and Ors (MANU/SC/2257/2008), para 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court--which had failed to address the question of limitation in relation to the declaration of a registered will--held that when a suit is barred by limitation, it is the duty of both the First Appellate Court and the High Court to address the issue. Questions relating to the jurisdiction of a court, including limitation, go to the very root of the court's competence to entertain and decide a matter.
17.3 In K. Subbaroya Mudali and Ors v. K. Velappa Mudali and Ors (MANU/TN/0137/1958), paras 9-12, the High Court of Madras addressed the issue of whether the defendants had an exclusive right to perform the Kumbabishekam ceremony. It was held that the plaintiffs' assertion of their right to participate in the Kumbabishekam ceremony along with the
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 defendant would not fall within the purview of "honor, emolument, or perquisite" contemplated under Section 57(e) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. Such a claim does not fall within the scope of established usage in regard to matters covered by the latter part of the clause, and thus, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to inquire into the matter.
17.4 In Solamalayan Poojari and Ors v. The Commissioner, HRCE and Ors (MANU/TN/0449/1967), para 3, the High Court of Madras held that the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain a claim under Section 63(e) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which deals with "emolument"--that is, receiving profit from an office or employment or salary as a customary practice.
17.5 In Athan Sadagopa Chariar Swamigal v.
Eliavalli Srinivasa Chariar (MANU/TN/0500/1913), para 10, the dispute in the suit concerned the right of performance of Adhyapaka Miras by the Adhyapaka Mirasidar in the Vishnu Temple of Nammalwar, and the right to receive Thiratham, Prasadam, income, honors, etc. The appellant-plaintiff in the suit sought a declaration and perpetual
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 injunction restraining the defendants from performing such services.
17.6 In Arun Kumar and Ors v. Union of India and Ors (MANU/SC/3995/2006), paras 12-14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the terms "salary," "perquisite," and "profits in lieu of salary"
under Section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It held that perquisites include various items mentioned under Section 17 of the Act and that the definition is inclusive in nature. Further, it was observed that according to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, "perquisites" means "something gained by a place or office beyond the regular salary or fee." The Oxford Dictionary defines it as "any casual emolument, fee or profit attached to the office or position in addition to salary or wages."
Webster's New International Dictionary defines it as "a gain or profit incidentally made from employment in addition to regular salary or wages, especially one of the kind expected or promised."
18. On the other hand, Respondents No. 8(b),
(d), and (f) contended that the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to decide the claim of the Sthaneekas regarding the right to carry the Mudis to the Temple, and that the petitioner alone does not have the exclusive right to claim such a privilege. In
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 support of this contention, they relied on the following cases:
18.1 In M.D. Kalasappa v. Thripuranthraiah and Ors, D.D. 13.06.2024 (W.P. No. 32349/2018 c/w W.P. No. 32349/2018), the dispute pertained to the performance of puja among the hereditary Archaka family. Respondents 1 to 3 had filed a suit before the Trial Court seeking a permanent injunction to restrain Respondents No. 4 to 8 from interfering with the performance of puja in the Shri Thripurasundrammanni Temple. This Court, while dismissing the petition, held that Section 68 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and the remedy for claiming the right to perform puja lies with the Deputy Commissioner. If the claim is beyond the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, the aggrieved party must approach the Endowment Tribunal. The petitioners were given liberty to seek alternative remedies under the said Act.
18.2 In Gosegowda and Anr v. Boregowda and Ors, D.D. 16.01.2012 (R.F.A. No. 2129/2021), a Regular Second Appeal was filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court in a suit for
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with their right as Archakas of the Maremme Temple. The Court, while dismissing the appeal, held that in a suit for bare injunction, the lower courts could not have declared the legal status of the plaintiffs as Archakas without impleading the Endowment Officer as a party. Further, it was observed that a remedy exists under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, to approach the appropriate authority.
18.3 In Lokesh v. Government of Karnataka (2015) 3 KLJ 214, the issue related to the maintainability of proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner to decide disputes concerning the hereditary rights of Archakas. The amended Act of 2011, specifically Section 25-B(6)(iii) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, authorized the Deputy Commissioner to decide the rights of Archakas. The Court quashed the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and the Assistant Commissioner, and remitted the proceedings for fresh consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity for hearing to all parties.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 18.4 In Mr. Subash Chandra Naik v. State of Karnataka and Ors (ILR 2011 KAR 824), writ appeals were filed against the order directing the parties to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of the dispute regarding hereditary trusteeship of the Polali Rajarajeshwari Temple in Dakshina Kannada. The Court, while dismissing the appeals, held that the powers of the Commissioner under Section 3 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, cannot be invoked to decide the question of succession to the office of hereditary trustee. Such a dispute does not fall within the scope of the Commissioner's general superintendence and control under the Act, although Section 2(15) of the Act recognizes the office of trustees.
19. The above-mentioned cases relied upon by the Respondents pertain to disputes involving the performance of puja and the determination of the legal character of Archakas, which fall within the purview of the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 25 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. However, in the present case, the dispute relates to the right of the Sthaneekas to carry the Mudis to the Temple, which
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 does not fall within the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 25-B(6)(iv) of the Act.
19.1 In the case of Arun Kumar and Ors v. Union of India and Ors (MANU/SC/3995/2006), paras 12-14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to and interpreted the terms "salary," "perquisite," and "profits in lieu of salary" under Section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It held that perquisites include various items mentioned under Section 17, and the definition is inclusive in nature. Further, the Court observed that, according to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, perquisites mean "something gained by a place or office beyond the regular salary or fee." The Oxford Dictionary defines it as "any casual emolument, fee, or profit attached to the office or position in addition to salary or wages," and Webster's New International Dictionary defines it as a gain or profit incidentally made from employment in addition to regular salary or wages, especially one of the kind expected or promised.
20. Accordingly, the determination of the rights of Sthaneekas to carry the Mudis from the District Treasury to the Shri Cheluvanarayanaswamy Temple, Melukote, Mandya District, does not fall within the purview of the terms "any honor," "emolument," or
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 "perquisite" in a religious institution. The term "perquisite" refers to any benefit or gain attached to an office or position apart from salary or fee. As per the Concise Oxford Dictionary, the word "emolument" means "profit from office or employment or salary." Therefore, the right of the Sthaneekas to carry the Mudis neither falls under the terms "perquisite" nor "emolument," nor under any "honor," related to the office of the Sthaneekas attached to the said religious institution.
21. The Temple Manual, at pages 43 to 46, produced by Respondent No. 7 in Annexure R-2, sets out certain duties and responsibilities to be performed by the Sthaneekas during the Utsava and specifically requires them to secure the Vairamudi, Rajamudi, and Krishnaraja Mudi boxes after their arrival from Mysore, and to hand them over to the Temple. This clause provides only for the assistance of the Sthaneekas in adorning the Vairamudi on the deity, Shri Cheluvanarayanaswamy.
22. Furthermore, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 24.11.2009 in W.P. No. 4143/2008, had directed the now deceased Respondent No. 8, the Fourth Sthaneeka, to approach the Civil Court and establish his claim, if any, by
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 instituting a civil suit. However, no such civil suit was filed by Respondent No. 8 during his lifetime to assert his right to carry the Mudis.
23. Moreover, the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner to decide the claims made by the Sthaneekas asserting their right to carry the Mudis to the Temple are of a civil nature. The Deputy Commissioner cannot decide a claim involving long- standing usage or custom of a civil nature, as such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. While Section 68 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters that must be dealt with by any authority or officer under the provisions of the Act, the determination of the rights of the Sthaneekas to carry the Mudis does not fall within the jurisdiction of any such authority or officer under the Act.
24. A perusal of the impugned order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner reveals that, during the course of the proceedings, there was no representation from the Second and Third Sthaneekas; they neither entered an appearance nor filed any objections. The Deputy Commissioner further concluded that neither the Second Sthaneeka, nor his descendants, were discharging the functions of the office, and that no one was officiating in his place.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 However, Section 25-B of the Act mandates that the Deputy Commissioner must hear submissions from all concerned parties and provide a fair hearing.
25. Therefore, in light of the submissions made by the parties and upon perusal of the records, the impugned order dated 02.06.2023 in Case No. DVS(1)/R.A/136/2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Respondent No. 3 is without jurisdiction. The act of carrying the Mudis from the District Treasury to the Temple and back is neither by itself an emolument, nor any benefit attached to the office of the Sthaneekas, nor does it carry with it any grant of emolument, perquisite, or any other benefit.
26. In conclusion, the assertion of the right of the second, third, and fourth Sthaneekas to carry the Mudis does not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 25-B(6)(iv) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. It is important to note that the dispute at hand does not pertain to the recognition of a hereditary right, but rather to whether the second, third, and fourth Sthaneekas have the right to carry the Mudis in succession, in addition to the undisputed customary right of the first Sthaneeka to carry the Mudis. As such, this issue falls outside the authority vested in the
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16069 WP No. 14172 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13195 of 2016 Deputy Commissioner and the Endowment Commissioner under the Act, 1997.
Accordingly, I pass the following order, ORDER:
(i). The Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) In W.P No. 14172/2023, the impugned order dated 2.06.2023 in case No. DVS(1)/R.A/136/2015 passed by Deputy Commissioner/ Respondent No.3 under Section 25-B(6)(iv) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 is hereby quashed.
(iii) In W.P No. 13195/2016, the impugned order dated 28.03.2015 passed by the Endowment Commissioner directing the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate upon the right to carry Mudis under Section 25-B(6)(iv) of the Act, 1997 is hereby quashed.
(iv) Liberty is reserved with Respondents No.5 to 8 to approach the appropriate authority for agitating their rights in accordance with law .
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1