Karnataka High Court
Shri Narasimhappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 September, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:37675
WP No. 25444 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 25444 OF 2022 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI NARASIMHAPPA
S/O GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCCUPATION -AGRICULTURE AND ARCHAK
2. SHRI RAMAPPA
S/O GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
OCCUPATION -AGRICULTURE AND ARCHAK
3. SHRI GANGULAPPA
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCCUPATION -AGRICULTURE AND ARCHAK
4. SHRI NARASIMHAPPA
S/O VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
Digitally OCCUPATION -AGRICULTURE AND ARCHAK
signed by
SUMA B N
Location: High 5. SHRI LAKSHMANA
Court of S/O MUNIYAPPA
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
OCCUPATION -AGRICULTURE AND ARCHAK
6. SHIR NAREPPA
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
OCCUPATION -AGRICULTURE AND ARCHAK
7. SHRI N NARASIMHAPPA
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCCUPATION -AGRICULTURE AND ARCHAK
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:37675
WP No. 25444 of 2022
ALL ARE PERMANENT
R/O ALAVATTA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
J. THIMMASANDRA POST
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT -563 135.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G A SRIKANTE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKAS SOUDHA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
BENGALURU -560 001.
2. THE ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER
4TH FLOOR, SHRI MINTO ANJANEYA BHAVANA
ALURU VENKATARAO ROAD
CHAMARAJ PET
BENGALURU -560 018.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR -563 101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
SRINIVASAPURA
KOLAR DISTRICT -563 135.
5. SHRI GANGAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT ALAWATTA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT -563 135.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SPOORTHY N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. L. VENKATARAMA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION,
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:25.08.2022 IN REVISION
PETITION NO.ADM-07-RP-03/2021 (ANNEXURE-S) PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER AND ORDER
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:37675
WP No. 25444 of 2022
DATED:29.06.2021, BEARING CASE NO.DVS(1)CR/178/ 2019-20
(ANNEXURE -M), PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT -DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, KOLAR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2021 produced at Annexure-M passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District by which the respondent No.3 has permitted the respondent No.5- Sri.Gangappa to perform the pooja and other rituals at Shree Gangamma Temple as its Archaka and has further directed the Tahsildar, Srinivasapura Taluk to pay annual Tasdik allowances to respondent No.5. Appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order before the respondent No.2-Endowment Commissioner has been dismissed by Order dated 25.08.2022 produced at Annexure-S confirming the order passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:
2.1 Petitioners, respondent No.5 and one late Chikkamuniyappa are the residents of Alavatta Village and they -4- NC: 2024:KHC:37675 WP No. 25444 of 2022 are the descendents of one Kadiriga. That the petitioners, respondent No.5 and said late Chikkamuniyappa were performing the services of Neerganti office in the said Village and certain lands were attached to the said office. Ancestors of petitioners and thereafter families of the petitioner have been performing pooja and rituals at the subject temple as hereditary arhcakas on yearly rotational basis. The said arrangement continued till the year 2005. That respondent No.5 had filed an application before the Tahsildar for sanction of annual Tasdik allowances falsely alleging that his father late Muniswamy alone was performing the poojas and other rituals as Archaka of the subject temple and that after his demise, the respondent No.5 was exclusively entitled for said allowances.
That the Tahsildar had registered the said application in case No.DVS/CR:192/2005-06 and after hearing the parties and conducting necessary enquiries by order dated 26.05.2014 had directed the parties to continue with the arrangement of conducting poojas by all the family members on rotation basis and accordingly rejected the request made by the respondent No.5 for grant of Tasdik allowances exclusively in his name. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:37675 WP No. 25444 of 2022 2.2 Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.5 had preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.25864/2014 before this Court. This Court by Order dated 15.07.2019 taking into consideration of the fact that the application filed by the respondent No.5 was only for the purpose of grant of Tasdik allowances and as there was no prayer for appointing him as Archaka, while permitting the respondent No.5/petitioner- therein to approach the Competent Authority/Deputy Commissioner for grant of Tasdik allowances, dispose of the said writ petition directing the Competent authority/Deputy Commissioner to pass appropriate orders only to the extent of granting of Tasdik allowances. That while passing such order, this Court had also directed the existing system of performing of pooja of the deity of the subject temple on rotational basis by members of nine families should not be disturbed.
2.3 Further case of the petitioners is that even without filing such an application, as directed by this Court in the aforesaid order in W.P.No.25864/2014, the respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 29.06.2021, by which apart from granting Tasdik allowances exclusively to the respondent No.5 had even proceeded to -6- NC: 2024:KHC:37675 WP No. 25444 of 2022 appoint respondent No.5 as lone Arhcaka of the subject temple. That aggrieved by the same, petitioners herein preferred an Revision Petition before the respondent No.2-Endowment Commissioner. The respondent No.2-Endowment Commissioner without even considering the grounds urged by the petitioners, by his Order dated 25.11.2021 rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners and confirmed the order passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition and drawing attention of this Court to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 15.07.2019 in W.P.No.25864/2014 submits that the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner could not have assumed the jurisdiction in the matter which was not vested in him. More particularly, when the directions issued by this Court was to consider the fresh application to be filed by the respondent No.5 only for the purpose of availing Tasdik allowances. He submits that impugned order passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-M refers only to the earlier application dated 14.11.2015 which was filed -7- NC: 2024:KHC:37675 WP No. 25444 of 2022 by the respondent No.5 and that there is no reference to any fresh application having been filed as directed by this Court. That in absence of the same the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner could not have passed the impugned order.
4. Sri.L.Venkatarama Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 who appeared on 04.09.2024 had submitted that the respondent No.5 had indeed filed a fresh application not only seeking grant of Tasdik allowances but also seeking his appointment as Archaka of the subject temple. As such, the impugned order was justified.
5. In view of the said submission of learned counsel for the for the respondent No.5, this Court had directed the learned HCGP, Sri.Spoorthy Hegde.N appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to secure the original records in the matter. Today, learned HCGP has secured the original records as directed. Perusal of the records would indicate that after passing of Order by this Court on 15.07.2019, the respondent No.5 has filed an application on 18.10.2019. Perusal of the said application dated 18.10.2019 filed by the respondent No.5 would reveal that only prayer made in the said application is for -8- NC: 2024:KHC:37675 WP No. 25444 of 2022 release of Tasdik allowances and not for his appointment as Archaka of the said temple.
6. Referring to the records secured, learned HCGP submits that subsequent to the Order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 15.07.2019, upon to application filed by the respondent No.5 as referred to hereinabove, a report was called for from the respondent No.4-Tahsildar who after conducting the enquiry and taking statements of all the parties concerned including the respondent No.5 herein had opined that each of the nine families was entitled to for performance of pooja and other ritual of the subject temple as they had 1/9th share therein and the Tahsildar further opined that all the members of the family be permitted to continue to perform pooja and other rituals as directed by this Court and accordingly submitted the report to the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner. Though the report of the respondent No.4-Tahsildar is referred to by the Deputy Commissioner, he has proceeded to pass the impugned order granting Tasdik allowances and appointing respondent No.5 as lone archaka of the said temple and as such he fairly submits that the matter requires fresh consideration.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:37675 WP No. 25444 of 2022
7. Heard and perused the records.
8. The operative portion of order dated 15.07.2019 passed in W.P.No.25864/2014 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court reads as under:
''18. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off. The petitioner is permitted to approach the competent authority/Deputy Commissioner for grant of Tasthik allowance. If such an application is filed by the petitioner for Tasthik allowance, the Deputy Commissioner shall consider and pass orders strictly in accordance with law. The Deputy Commissioner shall ensure that there is no conflict between the Archaks in performing pooja of the 2nd respondent temple. Till such consideration of application for grant of Tasthik allowance by the Deputy Commissioner, the existing system of performing pooja on rotation basis by the persons of all nine families should not be disturbed.''
9. Thus from the order passed by this Court as extracted hereinabove it is clear that the petitioner therein (respondent No.5 herein) was permitted to file a fresh application only seeking tasdik allowance. A specific direction was given by this Court to the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner only to consider application for grant of Tasdik allowances without disturbing the arrangement of conducting pooja and rituals on rotational basis as existed.
10. The application dated 18.10.2019 filed by the respondent No.5 as found in the records is also only for the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37675 WP No. 25444 of 2022 purpose of seeking grant of tasdik allowance and not for appointing him as archaka of the subject temple. That despite there being a specific report by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar regarding the arrangement which had been arrived at and being followed year after year, namely nine families having 1/9th share each in performing pooja and other rituals on yearly rotational basis, the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner on his own seem to have passed the order not only granting tasdik allowances exclusively to the respondent No.5 but also appointing him as sole archaka of the subject temple. This Order when carried in revision by the petitioner, has been confirmed by the respondent No.2-Endowmnet Commissioner.
11. It is necessary at this juncture to refer to Sub-Section (1) of Section 9 which reads as under:
''9. Appointment of Archakas [and temple servants].- (1) The committee of management of a notified institution may with the approval of the Commissioner appoint one or more archakas [and temple servants] to each temple belonging to the institution.
[Provided that in case of hereditary post, if there is no dispute among the members of the family, the next in line of succession shall be appointed; with the prior approval of the commissioner:
Provided further that in case where no legal heir of the hereditary post are available the Committee of Management may appoint any person as provided under sub-section (1).]''
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37675 WP No. 25444 of 2022
12. It is also necessary to refer to 25B(6)(III) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 reads as under;
''(6). Whenever any question arises as to.-
(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'' ... the Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties concerned shall by order decide it.''
13. Thus it is clear that if there is a dispute with regard to the hereditary archakaship of the temple, the Deputy Commissioner shall hold an enquiry, afford sufficient opportunities to the parties and only thereafter pass the Order. In the instant case, admittedly there is a report filed by the Tahsildar to the effect that the decedents of common ancestors Kadiriga are in nine families each having 1/9th share to perform pooja on yearly rotational basis and have been practicing the same over thirty years. Dispute seems to have arose when the respondent No.5 filed an application dated 14.11.2005 seeking grant of tasdik allowances to be paid in his name alone. Even in the said application the respondent No.5 had merely asked for grant of tasdik allowances and not for his appointment as archaka. The said application produced at Annexure-F to the W.P.No.25864/2014 reads as under;
''vÀªÀÄä ¢ªÀå ¸À¤ßzsÁ£ÀzÀ°è ¥Áæyð¹PÉƼÀÄîªÅÀ zÉãÉAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ C®ªÀlÖ UÁæªÄÀ zÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀªÄÀ ä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ ªÀÄĤ¸Áé«Ä gÀªÀgÄÀ C®ªÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37675 WP No. 25444 of 2022 £É®¹gÀĪÀ ²æà UÀAUÀªÄÀ ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è zÉêÀgÀ CZÀðPÀgÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÄÀ Ý F zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ zÉêÀgÀ PÉÊAPÀAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ²æäªÁ¸À¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ CZÀðPÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ°è £ÉÆAzÀtÂAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄwÃAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÀªÀiÁðzÁAiÀÄzÀwðUÀ¼À PÀ«ÄõÀ£Àgï gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀ°è ºÀPÀÄÌ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀºÁ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24.04.1991 gÀ°è £ÉÆAzÀtÂAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ vÀ¹ÛÃPï ¨sÀvÉå gÀÆ.15-00 UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÁ §gÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ºÀPÀÄÌ¥ÀvÀæzÀ eÉgÁPïì ¥Àæw ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ C®ªÁl UÁæªÄÀ zÀ ¸À.£ÀA.70 gÀ°è 0-03 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ zÉêÀgÀ E£ÁAw ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀtªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ EzÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀuÁ£ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÀ PÉÊAPÀAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß £Á£Éà ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÄÀ vÉÛÃ£É ¸Áé«Ä, DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj £ÀªÄÀ ä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ §gÀÄwÛgÄÀ ªÀ ªÁ¶ðPÀ vÀ¹ÛÃPï ¨sÀvåÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ¨sÀvåÉ UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß £À£ßÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ¥sÀªÀwªÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀÄƯPÀ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr¹ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÀÄä°è ¥ÁæxÀð£É ¸Áé«Ä, F §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀtzÀ §UÉÎ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥Àvæª À À£ÄÀ ß ¸ÀºÁ ªÀiÁr¹zÀÄÝ EzÀ£ÄÀ ß ¸ÀºÁ ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.''
14. Thus there is no prayer for appointing him as sole archaka. Despite there being a specific direction by this Court as noted above and in absence of any application by the respondent No.5, and without conducting any enquiry, the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner proceeded to pass the order impugned in this petition, which has been merely confirmed by the revisional Authority-Endowment Commissioner.
15. The entire process adopted by the Deputy Commissioner and confirmed by the revisional Authority- Endowment Commissioner does not stand scrutiny of the provisions of law extracted hereinabove.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37675 WP No. 25444 of 2022
16. In that view of the matter, following:
ORDER
(a). Petition is allowed.
(b). Impugned order dated 29.06.2021 produced at Annexure-M passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District and Order dated 25.08.2022 produced at Annexure-S passed by the respondent No.2-Endowment Commissioner confirming the order passed by the No.2-Deputy Commissioner are hereby set-aside.
(c). Parties are at liberty to approach the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner seeking appropriate order, the Deputy Commissioner in such an event shall pass orders keeping in mind the arrangement offering pooja by nine families on yearly rotational basis, which has been arrived at and prevalent amongst the members of the family as found and reported by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37675
WP No. 25444 of 2022
(d). The respondent No.3-Deputy
Commissioner may provide an opportunity of being heard, if the parties have any additional material to submit in justification or contrary to the said arrangement which the parties have arrived at.
(e). If such an application is filed within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner shall dispose of the same in line of observation made hereinabove within an outer limit of six months thereafter.
(f). It is made clear till such orders are passed, the arrangement of performing pooja and other rituals of the subject temple on rotational basis which was recognized by this Court by earlier order shall continue.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL