Karnataka High Court
Sri.H Rajashekar @ Rajappa S/O Rudrappa vs The Commissioner For Hindu Religious on 3 August, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8270
WP No. 60760 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 60760 OF 2011 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
H. RAJASHEKAR @ RAJAPPA,
S/O. RUDRAPPA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BARBER,
R/O: MAILAR VILLAGE,
TALUK: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DISTRICT: BELLARY-583 122.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GODE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTIONS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-580 016.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND
Digitally signed
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
by
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY-583 101.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR Location:
DHARWAD
Date:
2023.08.10
13:00:26 -0700
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY -583 101.
4. SHREE MAILARALINGASWAMI TEMPLE,
MAILAR, TALUK: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DISTRICT: BELLARY-583 122.
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
5. GURUNATHAPPA HADAPAD S/O. TIRUKAPPA,
AGE: 71 YEARS, MAILAR VILLAGE,
TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DISTRICT: BELLARY-583 122.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8270
WP No. 60760 of 2011
6. SRI SRI SRI GURUVENKAPPAIAH
ODEYAR SWAMIGALU,
SRIMAN KAPILAMUNI SIMHASANADEESHWARARU,
PRIEST SRI MAILARALINGASWAMY TEMPLE,
MAILARA VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DISTRICT: BELLARY-583 122.
7. SRIKANTH S/O. BHARAMALINGAPPA HADAPAD,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: BARBER,
R/O. MAILAR, HUVINHADAGALI,
TQ: BELLARY DISTRICT.
8. SANTOSH S/O. BHARAMALINGAPPA HADAPAD,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: BARBER,
R/O. MAILAR, HUVINHADAGALI,
TQ: BELLARY DISTRICT.
9. MALATESH S/O. NINGAPPA HADAPAD,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: BARBER,
R/O. MAILAR, HUVINHADAGALI,
TQ: BELLARY DISTRICT.
10. ASHOK S/O. NINGAPPA HADAPAD,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: BARBER,
R/O. MAILAR, HUVINHADAGALI,
TQ: BELLARY DISTRICT.
11. LAXMAN S/O. NINGAPPA HADAPAD,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: BARBER,
R/O. MAILAR, HUVINHADAGALI,
TQ: BELLARY DISTRICT.
12. NINGAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA HADAPAD,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: BARBER,
R/O. MAILAR, HUVINHADAGALI,
TQ: BELLARY DISTRICT.
13. PRABHU S/O. NINGAPPA HADAPAD,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: BARBER,
R/O. MAILAR, HUVINHADAGALI,
TQ: BELLARY DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI S.N.
BANAKAR, ADV. FOR R5; SRI J.S. SHETTY, ADV. FOR R6; SRI S.G.
KADADAKATTI, ADV. FOR R7 TO R12)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8270
WP No. 60760 of 2011
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ORDER DATED:07/08/2010 IN
NO.ADM I CR 1321/08-09 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-N, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT
PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the order of respondent No.1 vide Annexure-N wherein respondent No.5 are arrayed as babudar. The said order is under challenge.
2. Respondent No.6 who claims to be the hereditary trustee of respondent No.4-temple submitted a representation under Section 3 of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as '1997 Act' for short) seeking a direction in regard to management of respondent No.4- temple and right of respondent No.6 in appointing babudar. Respondent No.1-Commissioner referring to the material placed on record has allowed the application thereby holding that respondent No.6 being the hereditary -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:8270 WP No. 60760 of 2011 trustee of respondent No.4-temple has powers to appoint babudar to perform functions of tonsure (javal) to the devotees who visit respondent No.4-temple.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA and learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
4. It is also borne out from the records that there are series of litigations between the petitioner and respondents. The material on record indicate that respondent No.5 claiming to be a babudar of respondent No.4-temple instituted a suit in 0.S.No.13/2009 seeking perpetual injunction against the present petitioner herein and respondent Nos.6 to 12. The said suit was contested by the present petitioner who was arrayed as defendant No.8. The trial court by judgment and decree dated 06.01.2012 decreed the suit and thereby granted perpetual injunction in favour of respondent No.5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the present petitioner along with other defendants -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:8270 WP No. 60760 of 2011 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.8/2012. The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh enquiry. Feeling aggrieved by the remand order, respondent No.5 has preferred MSA No.654/2013. The said MSA was admitted on 30.01.2014. It would be useful for this court to cull out the substantial question of law framed in MSA No.654/2013, which reads as under:
"1. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court with a direction to give an opportunity to the plaintiffs for effecting necessary amendment to seek the relief of declaration of title and also to make jurisdictional Panchayat as a party to the suit?
2. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in remanding the matter, in view of specific finding in paragraphs 41 and 42 found in the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court?"
5. On meticulous examination of the records, though at the first instance, I found some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to order passed by respondent No.1 without impleading the petitioner, however on deeper examination -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:8270 WP No. 60760 of 2011 of the records, I am not inclined to accede to the contention raised by the petitioner. It is respondent No.6 who is asserting to be the hereditary trustee of respondent No.4-temple has moved an application before respondent No.1 seeking suitable directions. Respondent No.1- Commissioner under impugned order upheld the appointment of respondent No.5 as babudar to respondent No.4-temple. However, respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order in approving the appointment of respondent No.5 as babudar has made it dear that order under challenge would be subject to the outcome of civil proceedings. It is respondent No.5 who is asserting to be a babudar and claims that he is entitled to perform tonsure (javal) to the devotees who visit respondent No.4-temple. Petitioner herein though is party to the suit filed by respondent No.5 has not set up any counter claim. If the petitioner's rights are not decided either by the competent court or by the authorities under Section 63 of the 1997 Act, I am of the view that petitioner has no locus to question the order passed by respondent No.1- -7- NC: 2023:KHC-D:8270 WP No. 60760 of 2011 Commissioner. Unless the petitioner is able to establish his rights and claim that his ancestors had some antecedents right of performing tonsure (javal) to the devotees of respondent No.4-temple, order under challenge cannot be disturbed at the instance of the petitioner at this juncture.
6. Be that as it may, petitioner herein is party to MSA which is pending consideration before this court. The final outcome of the proceedings pending in MSA No.654/2013, if it enures to the benefit of the petitioner, he is entitled to seek suitable direction to respondent No.1 by invoking the provisions of 1997 Act.
7. For the reasons stated supra, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge.
8. The writ petition being devoid of merits stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48