Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 724 (KAR)

Gangadhar Rai v. State of Karnataka

2011-07-20

MANJULA CHELLUR, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2011
ORDER MANJULA CHELLUR, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The appellants before us are aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.9.2009 wherein he rejected the request or the representation to recall the order of appointment of Administrator dated 5.6.2009 and hand over the Management of the temple insofar as ‘Bhoothasthana’ is concerned to the appellants herein as they are claiming the hereditary rights over the said Management of ‘Bhoothasthana’ in the temple in question. 3. At the earliest point of time in O.S. No. 26/1932 one Thyampa Naika and Narayana Shetty were the hereditary trustees of Shastava Brahma temple and declared ‘Bhoothasthana’ as accepted temple in the said suit. Subsequently in the year 1961 in O.S. No. 25/1960 plaintiff-K. Laxminarayana Udupoa representing his family, the third defendant -Kittappa Rai representing his family and the sixth defendant-Kanthappa Semitha representing his family were held as joint hereditary trustees of the said Brahma temple. One Gangadhar Rai, the present appellant filed an application on 27.11.2001 to declare him as the hereditary trustee/succeeding member of Mundabettu family having acquired the right of hereditary trusteeship in the said temple. 4. Subsequently by virtue of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act of 1997 (‘Act’ for short), the rights of the hereditary trustees were taken away. This came to be questioned in W.R No. 49720/2003 by the present appellants on the ground that the said enactment ultra vires the constitutional provisions. Subsequently, during the pendency of W.R No. 49720/2003 the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments, Mangalore has called for applications from the general public to appoint as members of the Committee of the Management. In pursuance of the said notification, the Deputy Commissioner also appointed the Committee. This again came to be questioned in another Writ Petition No. 13187/2006. The same came to be disposed of on 18.8.2008 as it became infructuous. In pursuance of the said notification, the Deputy Commissioner also appointed the Committee. This again came to be questioned in another Writ Petition No. 13187/2006. The same came to be disposed of on 18.8.2008 as it became infructuous. On 5.6.2009 the Deputy Commissioner appointed Administrator to look after the Management of the temple for a period of six months and it is not in dispute that every six months the said order is being renewed, At this point of time on 6.8.2009 a representation came to be given by the appellants to recall the order of appointment of the Administrator and to hand over the Management of the temple in their favour which came to be rejected on 22.9.2009 and the said endorsement was impugned in the Writ Petition No. 37892/2009. In the said writ petition, appellants have also challenged the appointment of the Administrator by the Deputy Commissioner. 5. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on 12.4.2010 and a review petition also came to be filed regarding certain observations which came to be allowed, which has nothing to do with the issues raised in this appeal. The learned Judge at paragraph-4 of the order refers to the two writ petitions viz., W.P. 28740/2009 and W.P. 30998/2009 which were disposed of on 3.2.2010 and 9.4.2010 respectively. In one writ petition, the question of controversy was with regard to continuance and appointment of an Administrator by the Commissioner under the Act and in another writ petition, the controversy was whether the Commissioner has got jurisdiction to decide the question of hereditary trusteeship. In both the writ petitions, the learned Judge having opined that the Commissioner has jurisdiction to appoint an Administrator tracing his source of power to Section 3(3) of the Act proceeded to say in the present writ petition that the appointment of the Administrator is also well within the jurisdiction and the competence of the Deputy Commissioner and further as the Apex Court has vacated the interim order insofar as Section 25 of the Act is concerned, as on today, no circumstances are made out favouring an order in favour of the appellants. This is being challenged before us. 6. This is being challenged before us. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, irrespective of the pendency of the matter before the Apex Court, the Deputy Commissioner could have entrusted the Management of ‘Bhoothasthan’ of the temple concerned to the appellants by virtue of their hereditary rights and there was no justification in the appointment of the Administrator. 7. According to us, the learned Judge was justified in saving that till the matter is decided by the Apex Court regarding the validity and the vires of the Act in question, the Management of the temple in question has to be with the Administrator without disturbing the position which was continued when a challenge came to be made to the said enactment. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, the appellants can approach the concerned authority or the Court at the appropriate time in case the Apex Court disposes of the Civil Appeal pending before the same favouring the claim made by the appellants. With these observations, we dispose of the appeal.