Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 86 (KAR)

Dhanraj Jain v. Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur

2015-01-14

S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2015
ORDER 1. The petitioner was permitted to construct a kalyana mantapa on the first floor of the existing guest house of Sri Ramanjaneyaswamy Temple, Tegur Village, Chickmagalur Taluk. In furtherance of the said order, an agreement was executed by the first respondent with the petitioner consisting of certain conditions for construction of the kalyana mantapa. The kalyana mantapa has to be constructed in terms of the aforesaid plan at Annexure ‘B’. However, the permission to construct the kalyana mantapa was withdrawn by order at Annexure ‘X’ dated 14.10.2014 mainly on the ground that petitioner has failed to put up the construction within the period stipulated in the agreement. 2. It is also relevant to note here that the Assistant Archaka of the temple is residing with his family in a house belonging to the temple situated within the campus of the temple. The Agama Pandit has submitted his report as per Annexure ‘G’ opining that the Assistant Archaka cannot reside within the campus of the temple with his family members. On the basis of the said report, the competent authority had directed the Assistant Archaka to vacate the premises. Finally, the Endowment Commissioner has passed an order as per Annexure ‘K’ dated 16.8.2013 directing the Deputy Commissioner to evict the Assistant Archaka from the premises in his occupation to enable the petitioner to put up construction of the kalyana mantapa. This order has not been implemented by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order at Annexure ‘X’ dated 14.10.2014 and also for a direction to the respondents to implement the order at Annexures ‘*L’ and ‘M’ and evict the Assistant Archaka from the premises in question. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Perusal of the order at Annexure ‘X’ would indicate that permission granted to the petitioner to construct the kalyana mantapa was withdrawn on the ground that he has failed to construct kalyana mantapa within the period prescribed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not put up construction of the kalyana mantapa because the respondent-authorities have failed to evict the Assistant Archaka from the premises in question, which was causing obstruction. Be that as it may. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not put up construction of the kalyana mantapa because the respondent-authorities have failed to evict the Assistant Archaka from the premises in question, which was causing obstruction. Be that as it may. The petitioner has filed an affidavit before this Court undertaking to complete the construction of the kalyana mantapa in all respects and hand over the same to the temple on or before 31.8.2015 at his cost. Therefore, it is just and proper to permit him to construct the kalyana mantapa as undertaken by him in the affidavit. 5. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 states that the Committee of management as far as possible provide rent free accommodation to Archaks within the temple premises or nearby the temple. ‘Archaka’ includes ‘Assistant Archaka’, which is clear from sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Karnataka High Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. Since the temple in question is a muzarai temple, the management has to provide the Assistant Archaka rent free accommodation within the temple premises or nearby the temple. 6. As noticed above, the Assistant Archaka is residing in the house within the temple premises, which is not permissible having regard to the view of the Agama Pandit. That is why the Endowment Commissioner has rightly directed the first respondent to evict him from the premises in question. 7. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The order at Annexure ‘X’ dated 14.10.2014 passed by the first respondent is hereby quashed. (ii) The petitioner is directed to complete the construction of the kalyana mantapa and hand over the same to the temple on or before 31.8.2015 at his cost in terms of the agreement at Annexure ‘D’ and the approved plan at Annexure ‘B’. (iii) The first respondent is directed to implement the orders at Annexures ‘*L’ and ‘M’ passed by the Endowment Commissioner and evict the Assistant Archaka from the premises in his occupation within the temple campus and provide him rent free accommodation nearby the temple, (iv) The first respondent-Deputy Commissioner is directed to co-operate with the petitioner in completing the construction of the kalyana mantapa. (v) Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.