IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION Nos.5922 – 5929 /2014 (GM – R/C) BETWEEN:
1. SRI H.S NAGARAJA RAO S/O LATE SESHAGIRI ACHAR, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, ARCHAK, SRI ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE HUDUGURU VILLAGE, D. PALYA HOBLI, (DWARANAYAKANA PALYA) GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561208, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 2. SRI M.S.CHANDRASEKHAR S/O LATE P. SOMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 SYEARS, ARCHAK, SRI BASAVESWARA TEMPLE, MANCHENAHALLI VILLAGE & HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561208, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 3. SRI. V.R.SUBRAMANYA S/O LATE RAMADASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ARCHAK, SRI CHANNAKESHAVASWAMY TEMPLE, VATADA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561208, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 4. SRI PRAKASH S/O LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ARCHAK, SRI VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE, NAMAGONDLU VILLAGE, D. PALYA HOBLI, (DWARANAYAKANAPALYA) GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561208, CHIKKABALALPURA DISTRICT 5. SRI R.RAGHUNATH S/O LATE RAMANUJAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ARCHAK, HANUMANTHADEVARA TEMPLE, MANCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561208, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 6. SRI C.A.RAMAKRISHNA SHASTRY S/O LATE ARUNACHALA SHASTRY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ARCHAK, SRI BHEEMESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, NAGARAGERE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561208, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 7. SRI H.R.NARAYANA MURTHY S/O LATE RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, ARCHAK, SRI YOGANARASIMHA SWAMY TEMPLE, MANIWALA VILALGE, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561208, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 8. SRI V.SANATH KUMAR S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 FYEARS, ARCHAK, SRI HANUMANTHADEVARA TEMPLE, LAKKASANDRA VILLAGE, D. PALYA HOBLI, (DWARANAYAKANAPLAYA) GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561208, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI D.R.RAJASHEKHARAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND MUZARAI, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENDOWMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, MM SWAMY BUILDING, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE 560018 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA 562101 4. THE THAHASILDAR GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, GOWRIBIDANUR 561208 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 3.3.2001 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AVIDE ANNEXURE-J; QUASH THE ORDER MADE BY THE R-4 DATED 13.3.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURES-P, P1 TO P7; AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE ENTIRE ARREARS OF TASDIK ALLOWANCE RELEASED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS PAYABLE TO THEM IN PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS OF REVISIONAL AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURES-A TO H WITHOUT WITHHOLDING OF 60% OF THE ARREARS OF THE TASDIK ALLOWANCE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Sri.Rajashekharappa.D.R., learned counsel fairly submits that, the prayer [a] with regard to quashing of order dated 03.03.2001 may be dismissed as not pressed. The said submission is placed on record. Prayer [a] is dismissed as not pressed.
2. The petitioners who are claiming to be the hereditary archaks are before this Court to quash the order passed by the 4th respondent Tahsildar dated 13.03.2013 issued to the petitioner in No.D.V.S.C.R/106/11-12 as per Annexures-P, P1 to P7 and direct the respondents to release the entire arrears of Tasdik Allowance released in favour of the petitioners payable to them in pursuant to the orders of Revisional Authority as per Annexures-A to H without withholding of 60% of the arrears of the Tasdik Allowance.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are hereditary archaks of different temples in Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District which was part and parcel of erstwhile Kolar District. It is submitted that the petitioners used to maintain the temples and to meet other expenses out of the income derived by them from the lands endowed to the temples. The state Government introduced the Mysore [Religious and Charitable] Inams Abolition Act, 1955 [‘Act’ for short] for vesting of the rights of the Inamdars and the lands endowed to the temple in the State Government. The Act also provided for compensating the Archaks who have lost the source of income by providing payment of basic annual amount known as Tasdik allowance and the Deputy Commissioner of the District was empowered to determine the said Tasdik Amount as per Section 21 of the Act.
4. It is further case of the petitioners that the State Government in the year 1995 amended the provisions of the Act providing for revision of the Tasdik Allowance determined by the Deputy Commissioner by a Revisional Authority under Section 21-A of the Act. The Divisional Commissioner of Revenue Division was entrusted with the power of revision who also had the suo-moto revisional power. The things stood thus, all the petitioners have filed revision petitions before the Divisional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division as per Annexures-A to H challenging the various orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, fixing the final Tasdik Allowances. The Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division exercising his revisional powers under the provisions of Section 21-A of the Act, allowed the revision petitions of the petitioners on 09.12.2002 and revised Tasdik Allowance fixing at the rate of Rs.5210/-, Rs.5590/-, Rs.23775/-, Rs.6735/-, Rs.15110/-, Rs.5310/-, Rs.14470/- and Rs.5485/- respectively to all the petitioners. The said orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner has reached finality.
5. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Tahasildar, Gowribidanur Taluk without considering the orders passed by the Revisional Authority, has proceeded to pass the impugned orders dated 13.03.2013 as per Annexures-P, P1 to P7 stating that certain amounts are deducted for expenses of the temples and the revised Tasdik amount cannot be granted to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for.
6. The State Government filed objections, has not disputed the orders passed by the Revisional Authority revising the Tasdik Amount and contended that the authorities have released 40% of the arrears enhanced Tasdik amount and ordered for depositing of 60% in the account of temples. In the meanwhile, the petitioners filed representations to the State Government to direct the authorities to pay the entire amount of Tasdik allowance as has been done in other several temples. The respondent also admitted that in Gowribidanur Taluk, while making payment of Tasdik amount to the two Archaks of Muszarai temple and inadvertently released 100% of the Tasdik amount to those archaks instead of 40% and the said release of 100% of the Tasdik amount is contrary to the Government order dated 03.03.2001. The respondents have already initiated action to recover the said amount and sought for dismissal of the petitions.
7. The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the statement of objections and specifically contended that the statement made by the State Government that they are taking action to recover the excess amount paid in pursuance of the Government order are all false and baseless. It is further contended that there are 14 temples in whose favour the Divisional Commissioner has enhanced the Tasdik amounts exercising the jurisdiction has been paid morefully stated in paragraph 3 of the rejoinder. Therefore, the statement made by the learned Government Advocate in the statement of objections is false and the State Government cannot discriminate between the Archaks in the same Taluk in respect of identical temples in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
9. Learned counsel Sri.D.R.Rajashekharappa for the petitioners contended that the impugned orders passed by the Tahasildar rejecting the claim of the petitioners are erroneous, contrary to the material on record. He would further contended that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner fixing the Tasdik allowance of the petitioners, they have filed revision petitions before the Revisional Authority i.e., Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division who exercising the revisional powers under the provisions of Section 21-A of the Act, has fixed the revised Tasdik amount payable to the petitioners. The Tahasildar while passing the impugned order, without reference to the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioners relied upon the Government order dated 03.03.2001 which is not applicable to the facts of the present petitioners whereas the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 09.12.2002 is subsequent to Government order. Admittedly the said orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner has reached finality and the State Government has not challenged the said order. The Tahasildar is bound to follow the directions issued by the Divisional Commissioner.
10. He would further contended that, though the State Government in the statement of objections has stated that two Archaks have given 100% of the Tasdik amount instead of 40% and the said release of 100% of the Tasdik amount is also contrary to the material on record. He would further contended that the petitioners have stated in the rejoinder, the respondent authorities have paid the revised Tasdik Allowance as per the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner has been paid to the 14 temples in the same Gowribidanur Taluk. Depriving the said order of revised Tasdik allowance to the present petitioners in terms of the orders passed by the Revisional Authority is in utter violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and discrimination between the Archaks of the temples in the Gowribidanur Taluk who are paid entire revised Tasdik allowance to the other 14 temples, the impugned endorsement issued by the Tahsildar is without any basis cannot be sustained. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions.
11. Per contra, Sri.S.Chandrashekharaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader sought to justify the order passed by the Tahasildar and contended that as per the Government order dated 03.03.2001 issued by the first respondent, the Tahasildar passed the order. He would further contended that though in respect of two Archaks at Gowribidanur Taluk inadvertently released 100% Tasdik amount and steps have been taken to recover the excess amount paid to the respondents. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the undisputed facts that the petitioners are hereditary Archaks of different temples of Gowribidanur Taluk. It is also not in dispute that all these petitioners aggrieved by the different orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar dated 27.07.1986 fixing the Tasdik allowance amount of the petitioners filed revision petitions before the Divisional Commissioner under the provisions of Section 21-A of the Act. The Divisional Commissioner after considering the entire material on record, has recorded a finding of fact, that the Deputy Commissioner, has fixed the Tasdik Allowance to the institution based on the report of the Tahasildar, Gowribidanur Taluk with regard to the extent and kind of lands held by the institution, the average yield and rate during the years 1965-66 to 1969-70. When compared to the average yield in the District as per the statistics of the Agriculture Department and the rates prevailing for different crops during the years 1965-66 to 1969-70 as per the information furnished by the APMC, the tasdik allowance fixed by the Deputy Commissioner appears to be less. Considering the best of the two based on the said statistics, the Tasdik allowance is arrived. Accordingly, the Divisional Commissioner has revised the revision petitions filed by the petitioners and revised the various amounts as per Annexures-A to H. Admittedly, the said order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division has reached finality.
13. It is also not in dispute that in the said orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District was directed to take further necessary action for payment of revised Tasdik amount to the institution after deducting Muzrai fund etc., as per relevant guidelines and instructions issued by the Government from time to time. The Tahasildar, working under the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner was a party before the Divisional Commissioner in the revision petitions stated supra is bound to follow the directions. By careful reading of the impugned Annexures-P, P1 to P7, clearly depicts that the Tahasildar has not followed the directions issued by the Divisional Commissioner, directing the Deputy Commissioner to take steps to pay the revised Tasdik allowance to the petitioners. Except reference to a Government order dated 03.03.2001 that the revised Tasdik amount cannot be granted to the petitioners is without any basis, absolutely no application of mind by the Tahasildar and no reference is made to the revisional orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Though the State Government has filed objections, in the entire objections, though reference is made to a Revisional orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, absolutely no reference is made about the consideration of allowing the representations filed by the petitioners for revising the Tasdik allowances has not been contraverted to in the statement of objections.
14. It is also relevant to state at this stage that the State Government in the objections stated that by inadvertently released 100% of tasdik amount to two Archaks instead of 40% as per the Government order dated 03.03.2001. But the same is denied by the petitioners in the rejoinder specifically stated as under:
“3. The petitioners submit that, while traversing he contentions of the petitioners that, enhanced Thasdik allowance has been paid in its entirety without any deduction to several temples in Gowribidanur Taluk and other parts of Karnataka, the respondent No.4 has contended in paragraph No.5 of the statement of objections that, notice has been issued in such of those Archaks to whom, 100% Thasdik allowance has been paid and action has been taken for recovery of the same. This statement of the respondent is not correct and the petitioners deny the said statement. In this regard the petitioners submit that, the following temples in whose favour the Divisional Commissioner has enhanced the Thasdik allowance, while exercising his revisional jurisdiction, the said enhanced revised Thasdik allowance has been paid to them in its entirety without any deduction and the following are the temples in whose favour the amount has been released in its entirety:-
[i] Sri Channasomeshwara Swamy Temple, Alakapura.
[ii] Sri Kodi Brahmadevaru Temple, Manchenahalli.
[iii] Sri Channaraya Swamy Temple, Kuroodi.
[iv] Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Chikkahosahalli.
[v] Sri Kallinatha Swamy Temple, Kallodi.
[vi] Sri Narasimhaswamy Temple, Kadiradevanahalli.
[vii] Sri Hanumantha Devaru, Kalloodi.
[viii] Sri Hanumantha Devaru, Muchattahalli.
[ix] Sri Hanumantha Devaru, Vatadahosahalli.
[x] Sri Hanumantha Devaru, Kurudi.
[xi] Sri Hanumantha Devaru Temple, Maripadagu.
[xii] Sri Channadevaru, Jainabasadi Temple, Namagondlu.
[xiii] Sri Venkataramanaswamy Temple, Dwaranayakanapalya [D. Palya].
[xiv] Sri Lakshminarasimha Swamy Temple, Bisalahalli.”
15. The said statement made by the petitioners in the rejoinder has not been disputed.
16. The material on record clearly depicts that when, the orders passed by the Revisional Authority exercising powers under Section 21-A of the Act revising the Thasdik Allowance, has reached finality, unless the said order is set aside by the competent Appellate Authority, it is bounden duty of the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahasildar to implement the orders passed by the Revisional Authority and have cannot tinker the orders passed by the Revisional Authority and has no jurisdiction to dilute the orders passed by the Revisional Authority. The material on record also clearly depicts that the very Tahasildar has paid the revised Thasdik Allowance to the Ardhaks of 14 temples, morefully described/stated in paragraph 3 of the rejoinder which amounts to discrimination between the Archaks in the same Taluka in respect of identical temples and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders passed by the Tahasildar without reference to the orders passed by the Revisional Authority in speaking orders cannot be sustained.
17. For the reasons stated above, writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Tahasildar dated 13.03.2013 as per Annexure-P, P1 to P7 are hereby quashed. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 in particular, respondent Nos.3 and 4 – Deputy Commissioner and the Tahasildar are directed to re- consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the directions issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division dated 09.12.2002 as per the Annexures – A to H and take proper and necessary steps for payment of revised Tasdik allowance after deducting Muzrai fund as per the guidelines and instructions issued by the Divisional Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and Tahasildar shall ensure that there should not be any discrimination between the Archaks of the same Taluka, when they have already released the entire revised Thasdik allowance to others as stated supra in the rejoinder and pass proper orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.