Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 282 (KAR)

KARIYAPPA BIN TRIPPANNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2009-04-13

N.R PATIL

body2009
ORDER The petitioners are claiming that they are the devotees of Sri Rama Devaru Temple of Iguru Gollarahatti Village, Davanagere Taluk and District. The petitioners, questioning the correctness of the impugned notification issued by the Under Secretary to the Government Revenue Department (Muzrai) in No. RD 77 MET 2003, dated 30-4-2003 vide Annexure-D insofar as it relates to Sri Rama Devaru Temple of Iguru Gollarahatti Village, Davanagere Taluk and District, have presented this writ petition. 2. The petitioners are claiming that they are the residents of Iguru Gollarahatti Village, they belong to Golla community and they are worshipping the village deity Sri Rama Devaru. Sri Rama Devaru of Iguru Gollarahatti is exclusively worshipped by the petitioners community people and the said temple was not a Muzrai Temple and no Tasdik is being paid and temple owns no property and temple has no source of income. Inspite of that, first respondent, contrary to Section 23 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 has issued the impugned notification vide Annexure-D including the name of Sri Rama Devaru Temple. Therefore, these petitioners were constrained to assail the said notification insofar as in including Sri Rama Devaru Temple within the preview of Muzrai Department and declaring the said temple as Muzrai Temple, by way of filing this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and learned Counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 11. 4. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners Sri N. Shankaranarayana Bhat is that, the temple in question is not a Muzrai Temple and no Tasdik has been paid and the respondents have not produced any document to substantiate that the said temple is a Muzrai Temple and the Committee of Management has been appointed. To substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on the statement made by the Tahsildar, Davanagere, at Sl. Nos. 1 to 6 of the endorsement dated 8-8-2007 bearing No. DVS:CR: 12:7:2007-08, vide Annexure-A and submitted that, the Tahsildar has stated that, respondents have no document to show as to whether the said temple is declared as Muzrai Temple, no hundi has been installed in the said temple, no amount of annuity is being paid to the said temple and no accounts are being maintained. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners has vehemently submitted that, the impugned notification issued by first respondent vide Annexure-D cannot be sustained in view of not following the ingredients as envisaged under Section 23 of the said Act, and it is liable to be quashed at threshold. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, inter alia contended and substantiated the impugned notification issued by the fir4t respondent and submitted that, the said notification has been issued in strict compliance of the relevant Act and Rules and therefore, interfere by this Court is uncalled for. Further, learned Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that, after the lapse of more than four years petitioners have come up with the instant petition assailing the correctness of the impugned notification and therefore, the writ petition filed by petitioners is liable to be dismissed at threshold, on the ground of delay and laches and also on the ground that, petitioners have no locus standi to maintain this writ petition. Further, he submitted that, these petitioners have intentionally and deliberately suppressed the vital material which is very much available on record, since it is not in dispute that, the Competent Authority has constituted the Committee of Management, consisting of nine members from different communities, to look after the welfare of the temple in the year 1998 itself, as per the official communication dated 17-9-1998 bearing No. DVS:CR:91:98-99 and the said temple is meant for all the devotees belonging to different caste and it is not exclusively meant for Golla community alone. Therefore, he submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioners is liable to be dismissed, firstly on the ground of delay and laches; secondly, on the ground that petitioners have no locus standi to assail the impugned notification and thirdly, in view of suppression of material facts. 6. Therefore, he submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioners is liable to be dismissed, firstly on the ground of delay and laches; secondly, on the ground that petitioners have no locus standi to assail the impugned notification and thirdly, in view of suppression of material facts. 6. After having heard learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, after considering rival contentions urged by both the Counsel and after careful perusal of the material available on record, it emerges that, in fact, petitioners have not produced any authenticated documents to establish that they have locus standi to maintain this writ petition for redressing their grievance, except stating that, they are the devotees and they have got exclusive right to perform pooja and other functions of Sri Rama Devaru Temple situated at Iguru Gollarahatti Village, which has been exclusively worshipped by the petitioners' community alone and it is not a Muzrai Temple. It is significant to note that, the reliance placed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioners on Annexure-A the endorsement alleged to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Davanagere Taluk dated 8-8-2007 bearing No. DVS:CR: 12:7:2007-08. It can be seen from the perusal of the said Annexure-A that, the said endorsement has not been issued at the request of these petitioners and it has been issued in pursuance of the application filed by one Sri Javaregowda S/o. Kariyappa, Iguru Gollarahatti, on 30th July, 2007. When the petitioners have not filed any application seeking information, they cannot place reliance on the endorsement which has been issued in favour of third party and the petitioners have not whispered a word regarding as to what is the source of information and as to how they got the said endorsement. It is an admitted fact after careful perusal of the official communication dated 17-9-1998 bearing No. DVS:CR:9:1:98-99; the notification produced by the respondents 4 to 11 dated 11-2-2002 bearing No. DYS:CR:197:2001-02 and dated 28-2-2006 bearing No. DYS:CR:348:2005-06, for having constituted the Committee of Management that, after the expiry of period of three years, the Committee of Management has been constituted from time to time to look after the administration and day-to-day activities of Sri Rama Sri Basaveswara Devaru Temple and the said Committee has been represented by members from different communities. These are the clinching materials available on record and the petitioners have intentionally and deliberately suppressed the said fact and it is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Further it is significant to note that, the impugned notification has been issued as early as in the year 2003 i.e., on 30th April, 2003, and the same has been published in the Official Gazette on 1st May, 2003 and the present writ petition has been presented on 13th December, 2007 and therefore, there is an inordinate delay of nearly four years and the said delay has not been explained by the petitioners satisfactorily by offering cogent and valid reasons for condonation of the said delay. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for respondents in their objections as referred above, the writ petition filed by petitioners is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and also on merits. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the instant writ petition filed by petitioners is dismissed, on the ground• of delay and laches and also as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.