Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. In WP 43621/2003, the petitioner has sought for to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in No. ADM 7 PTN 9 1984-85 and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the 1st respondent at annexure B dated 25.2.1989 and the order at annexure C dated 7.7.2003. In the alternative a direction is sought for to respondents 1, 3 and 4 to conduct fresh enquiry by giving sufficient opportunity to the concerned persons and for such other relief.

9. The petitioners are said to be religious and charitable trust with aims and objectives to safeguard, protect and develop Sri Dattatreya Peeta Devasthana, the cave temple at Inam Dattatreya Peetha village of Chikmagalur Taluk at Chandradrona Parvatha and to maintain its sanctity as a place of worship for the devotees of Sri Guru Dattatreya Devaru in particular and the public in general. It has also sought to preserve, protect and develop the property such as lands, structures acquired from time to Page 0712 time by the Devasthanam. According to the petitioners, Guru Dattatreya Peetha Devasthanam is a cave temple and is an ancient one in which Guru Dattatreya Swamy a hindu saint is believed to be an incarnation of Lord Vishnu performed penance, resided, practised and preached vedantha philosophy to his devotees and his four Shishyas. The place where Sree Guru Dattatreya was sitting for penance is revered as Peetha of Guru Dattatreya. The disciples and followers during his life time, the followers of Natha pantha from North India are main disciples and residents of local area have started visiting the Devasthanam to offer pooja to Guru Dattatreya. Before his disappearance from the Cave Temple, he had left the Padukas and nandadeepa in the peetha for which pooja is performed and also to offer Bhakthi. From time immemorial, every year on Margashira Poornima the day on which Sree Gurudattatreya was born, is being celebrated as Datta Jayanthi along with any other hindu festival in the Peetha. The followers of the Devasthanam donated extensive cultivable land, jewellery and large sums of money. Since the said Devasthanam became a place of worship, the governing body has realised that for maintenance of the Peetha, adequate provisions for income has to be made and persuaded philanthropic individuals and institutions to make grants of villages and also financial grants to the Devasthanam. And accordingly, thousands of acres of land stood in the name of the Devasthanam. The management of the Devasthanam was with the Poojaries and Devotees. Since the Rulers and Governments had extended grants, it is a major muzrai institution which is governed by the Mysore Religious & Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 and as such, the ultimate control of the management of the Devasthanam is with the 1st, 3rd and 4th respondent. There is also a mention in the Gazetteers, Ephigraphia of Karnataka and Mysore Archaeological Report regarding the grants made by the King of Anegondi and Kekadi. According to the petitioners, in course of time during the regime of Hyder Ali the management of the Devasthanam slipped into the hands of persons following the Islamic religion and he appointed one Ismail Sha Khadri, a Fakir from Srinrangapatnam to look alter the affairs of the Devasthaam and to collect the huge revenue of the Peetha. Since then, the muslims have managed the Devasthana and the Manager is called as Sajjada Nashin. In the year 1976, a suit in OS 75/1976 before the Civil Judge, Chikmagalur came to be filed by one B.C. Nagaraja Rao and Chandrashekar claiming to be hindu devotees representing hindu community against the Wakf Board and the respondents herein. The said case was transferred to the District Judge, Chikmagalur and was renumbered as OS 25/1978. The suit came to be decreed by judgment dated 29.12.1980 and the said order was confirmed in RFA 119/1980 on 7.1.1991 which was also farmer confirmed by the Supreme Court. However, the 2nd respondent herein approached the 1st respondent with a grievance that he has been aggrieved by the orders passed by the 3rd and 4th respondents acting under Section 39 of the Mysore Religious & Charitable Institutions Act, 1927. The 1st respondent is said to have dismissed the revision confirming the orders passed by the 3rd and 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent challenged Page 0713 the said order before this Court in WP 2294/1984. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 1.3.1985 with certain directions as at annexure A. Further, the 1st respondent, as per the direction of this Court, has called for the report of the 3rd and 4th respondent. A public notice was issued calling for information and the 3rd and 4th respondents thereafter are said to have submitted their reports and 2nd respondent also has been inquired and he gave his statement. Subsequently, the 1st respondent passed on order dated 25.2.1989 in ADM 7 PTM 9-84-85 codifying the several customs and practices prevailing before 1975 in the Devasthanam as per annexure B. In the meantime, the petitioner is said to have filed WP 31580/2000 and the said writ petition came to be disposed of on 15.3.2001. The 2nd respondent is also said to have filed WP 38148/2001 claiming certain relief and another WP 42621/2002 is filed by one Syed Bandagi Hussaini Shakadri the rival claimant for the Sajjada Nashin post. Further, according to the petitioner some other devotees of the Dargha have also filed WP 37878/2000 and WP 5280/2001 by way of public interest litigation which were dismissed by order dated 10.6.2002. In the said petitions, according to the petitioner, the 3rd and 4th respondents have contended that the practices and customs were codified and the hindu devotees cannot be permitted to offer their prayer through Archaka. On coming to know of the said order, review petition was filed on 21.4.2003 as per Section 39 of the Mysore Religious & Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 before the 1st respondent and the said review petition came to he rejected by order dated 7.7.2003 in No. ADM 7 RP 5/2003-4 as per annexure C. As such, petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent as per annexures B and C dated 25.2.1989 and 7.7.2003 respectively.