IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.25864/2014(GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
SRI.GANGAPPA, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT: 63 YEARS, R/AT: ALVATTA VILLAGE, TALUKA SRINIVASAPURA, DISTRICT: KOLAR-563 135.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI L. VENKATARAMANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. TAHASILDAR, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, DISTRICT: KOLAR-563135.
2. SHRI GANGAMMA TEMPLE, ALVATTA VILLAGE, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, DISTRICT: KOLAR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING COMMITTEE- SECRETARY-563135.
3. NARASIMHAPPA, S/O. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS, 4. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, S/O. ACHCHA KADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, 5. RAMAPPA, S/O. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 55 YEARS, 6. GANGULAPPA, S/O. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 44 YEARS, 7. NARASIMHAPPA, S/O. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT: 55 YEARS, 8. LAKSHMANA S/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 58 YEARS, 9. NAREPPA, S/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 55 YEARS, 10. S. NARASIMHAPPA, S/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS, SL. NO. 3 TO 10 ARE R/AT ALVATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, POST J.THIMMASANDRA, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI G.A. SRIKANTEGOWDA, ADV., FOR R3, R5 TO R10; R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.04.2015 PETITION ABATED AGAINST R-4) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.5.14, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-1, TAHASILDAR, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.5.2014 made in No.DVS/CR/192/2005-06 passed by the 1st respondent – Tahasildar, Srinivasapura taluk, Kolar district as per Annexure-A.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 27.2.1960 the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition had granted 0.30 guntas of land in Sy.No.70 of Alavatta village to the 2nd respondent – temple and the petitioner’s father was allowed to cultivate the land so long as he performs pooja in the 2nd respondent - temple. Thereafter the Commissioner, Religious and Charitable Endowment has issued Hakku Patra on 24.9.1991 as per Annexure-D in favour of the 2nd respondent – temple. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner who was performing pooja during his life time used to receive Tasthik allowance as per Annexure-E and his father died on 8.5.1986.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent – Managing Committee has issued the certificate - Pooja Arhatha Patra on 8.9.2005 continuing him as Archak. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application on 14.11.2005 before the 1st respondent – Tahasildar to continue to pay the annual Tasthik allowance as per Annexure-F. The 1st respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner and further directed that one member from each of the families of the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 shall perform pooja in the 2nd respondent temple on rotation basis. Hence the present writ petition is filed for the reliefs sought for.
4. The respondent – State Government filed objections to the main petition and specifically contended that nine persons including the petitioner are performing poojas in the 2nd respondent - Sri Gangamma temple at Alavatta village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivaspur taluk and they are performing poojas on rotation basis as was being done since long time, confirmation of occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act vested with the Government. The Endorsement dated 27.2.1960 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition will not give right for appointment as Archak of the temple i.e, only for the rights under the Inams Abolition Act. Tasthik allowance is being paid to the person who is performing poojas in the temple. The Tasthik allowance has been paid to the father of the petitioner. The Tasthik allowance is entitled to only one person who is performing pooja. Annexure-G is a certificate - Pooja Arhatha Patra issued by the Agumiraya Mahamadali which certify that person holding that certificate is entitled for appointment as Arachak in Muzurai temple.
5. It is further stated in the objections that the petitioner was not performing poojas in the 2nd respondent – temple and he has no inheritance right from his father as his father was not only the archak to the temple and he was one amongst a family who are performing poojas on rotation basis according to their convenience. It is also stated that the concerned Minister has given a direction on 23.7.2009 to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has conducted enquiry and arranged for performing the pooja in the temple. Therefore the respondent – State sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. The Respondent Nos.3 and 5 to 10 filed objections denying the averments made in the writ petition and contended that the petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are all permanent residents of Alavatta village, Srinivaspur taluk, Kolar district and they are all the linea descendants of Moolapurusha, late Kadariga. The families of the petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 to 10 were performing the services of Neeraganti office of Alavatta and Thupalli villages of Srinivaspura taluk. The land in Sy.No.100 measuring 22 guntas and land in Sy.No.91 measuring 29 guntas are the inam lands attached to the Neerganti office of the Alavatta village. Land in Sy.No.37 measuring 9 guntas is the service inam land attached to the Neeraganti Office of Thupalli village. The petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 to 10, their fathers and grand-fathers are the Baravardars and Hissedars in the said Neeraganti village offices. The Special Deputy Commissioner considering the applications filed by all the Hissedars, re-granted the lands in favour of the families of the petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 to 10, to an extent of 1/12th share each. They further contended that knowing that the Government is sanctioning monthly allowances to the ex-village office holders, the petitioner filed a joint application, requesting the Tahasildar to release the monthly allowances to the Neeraganti Village Office, in favour of the petitioner. Along with the said application, the genealogical tree of the petitioner and the respondents has also been produced. Pursuant to the said application, a mahazar was conducted in the village. The genealogical tree and mahazar report are as per Annexures-R1 to R4.
7. It is further contended that the petitioner himself has filed an application before the Tahasildar and having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Tahasildar, now after passing the impugned order, he is alleging that the Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to decide the application. The order – Annexure-A in all respects, is valid and it is enforceable in law. It is further contended that the Tahasildar issued a certified copy, disclosing the adjustment of Tasthik allowance, which was sanctioned in the year 1991-92 to the account of the 2nd respondent – Temple. But, Annexure-E produced is contrary to the same. Therefore sought to dismiss the writ petition.
8. This Court by the order dated 2.11.2018 directed the Tahasildar to file affidavit as to whether the petitioner and the respondents are performing pooja on rotation basis as per the impugned order from 26.5.2014.
9. Accordingly, the Tahasildar filed his personal affidavit before this Court on 14.11.2018 and stated on oath that one Sri Muniswamy s/o Palleppa was conducting religious rituals (pooja) in the 2nd respondent – Gangamma temple. The said Muniswamy expired on 8.5.1996 leaving behind his son Gangappa and other eight members of his family. The petitioner approached his office claiming for appointing him as a Poojari in the Gangamma temple at Alavatta village, Srinivasapura taluk. There was also a claim from other members who are his relatives on the ground that the temple is in Harijan Colony and from time immemorial every year one member of nine families used to conduct the pooja ceremonies and that same system should be continued and the petitioner should not be given exclusive and permanent right of pooja as well as Tasthik allowance. An enquiry was conducted by his predecessor and by order dated 26.5.2014, one person each from nine families was directed to conduct pooja and eligible for receiving Tasthik allowance. On all the three dates of enquiry, the petitioner as well as members of the other families were present and have infact orally agreed for the suggestion and to avoid conflict among themselves, one person each from nine families was conducting pooja on rotation basis. Accordingly, since 2014 one member from the nine families including that of the petitioner are conducting pooja in the 2nd respondent – temple on rotation basis.
10. The said affidavit of the Tahasildar, Srinivaspur taluk, Kolar district, is placed on record.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
12. Sri L. Venkatarama Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has contended that impugned order passed by the Tahasildar is totally without jurisdiction and he cannot pass an order regarding the appointment of Archak or regarding the rights of the different members of different families as regards their rights to perform pooja. He further contended that while rejecting the petitioner’s prayer as per Annexure-F for Tasthik allowance, the Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to proceed further and pass the impugned order as per Annexure-A appointing other persons to perform pooja on rotation basis. He would further contend that the Deputy Commissioner is the authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act to fix the Tasthik allowance on the basis of the records produced by the petitioner. The Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Therefore he sought to allow the writ petition.
13. Per contra, learned Government reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections, contended that from the time immemorial, one member from each of the families of the petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are performing poojas in the 2nd respondent – temple on rotation basis. He further contended that petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are all descendants of Moolapurusha – late Kadriga. He also contended that the petitioner is not performing pooja and his father was performing pooja during his life time. In the circumstances, the Tahasildar has proceeded to pass the impugned order. In fact, there was no need to pass such an order. Therefore he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
14. Sri G.A. Srikantegowda, learned counsel for the private respondents reiterating the averments made in the objections contended that one member from each of the families of the petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are performing poojas in the 2nd respondent temple on rotation basis. Considering the religious activities in the temple, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner under the Inams Abolition Act has re-granted certain lands to the petitioner and the Respondent NOs.3 to 10. He also contended that the petitioner is not performing pooja and his father was performing pooja during his life time. In the circumstances, the Tahasildar has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Infact there was no need to observe in the impugned order the existing system of one member from each of the families of petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 to 10 performing poojas in the 2nd respondent temple on rotation basis. Therefore he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the 2nd respondent – temple is a Muzarai institution. It is also undisputed fact that after the death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application as per Annexure-F for payment of Tasthik allowance. The Tahasildar after giving notice to all the parties and holding detailed enquiry in his authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, ought to have considered the application - Annexure-F filed by the petitioner only for grant of Tasthik allowance or ought to have referred the matter to the Competent Authority/Deputy Commissioner to pass order on the Tasthik allowance on the basis of the application filed. The prayer sought in the application is only in respect of Tasthik allowance on the ground that the petitioner was performing pooja. Instead of deciding the same, the Tahasildar beyond the scope of the application filed, proceeded to observe in the impugned order that one member from each of the families of the petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 to 10 shall perform pooja in the 2nd respondent – temple on rotation basis. There was no need to reiterate the existing system in the impugned order on the application filed by the petitioner, who sought for only Tasthik allowance. Because of the mistake committed by the Tahasidlar, unnecessary litigation between the parties is encouraged.
16. It is the specific case of the State Government in the statement of objections as well as in the personal affidavit filed by the Tahasildar before this Court that one member from each of the families of the petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are performing pooja in the 2nd respondent temple on rotation basis from the time immemorial. Annexure-E – Extract relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates the name of the 2nd respondent temple as well as name of the petitioner’s father.
17. The documents produced by the petitioner does not depicts that either the petitioner or their father only performing pooja. On the other hand the statement of objections filed by the learned Government Advocate as well as the other respondents clearly indicate that all along one member from each of the families of the petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are performing pooja on rotation basis. The Tahasildar ought to have considered the application - Annexure-F filed by the petitioner only for grant of Tasthik allowance or ought to have referred to the Deputy Commissioner to pass necessary orders for grant of Tasthik allowance. The same has not been done.
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.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off with the above observations.
Gss/-
Sd/-
JUDGE