Disposed

H M Dodda Jadaiah S/O Late H M Jadaiah v. the State of Karnataka Reptd by Its Secretary

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2018WA/3539/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal was disposed of by reserving liberty to the appellants to file a written complaint before the authorities under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, if aggrieved by the inclusion of their temple as a Notified Institution, pending the final hearing on the Act's validity by the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to appellants to file a written complaint before the authorities under the Act, if aggrieved by inclusion of Jadeswamy Devasthanam as a Notified Institution, requesting an expeditious

H M Dodda Jadaiah S/O Late H M Jadaiah Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BELLUNKE

¶8

WRIT APPEAL No.3539/2005 (RC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI H.M. DODDA JADAIAH S/O. OF LATE SRI H.M.JADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: ARCHAK – HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF SRI JADESWAMY TEMPLE, EMMIGANUR VILLAGE, BELLARY TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶11

(SINCE DECEASED, THE LEGAL HEIRS ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD VIDE ORDER DATED 11.03.2011)

¶12

1(a) H.M.VEERAIAH S/O. H.M. JADAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: ARCHAK & HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF JADESWAMY TEMPLE, EMMIGANUR VILLAGE, BELLARY TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶13

SRI JADESWAMY THATHA DEVASTHANA @ JADESWAMY DEVASTHANA, EMMIGANUR VILLAGE, BELLARY DISTRIT. REPRESENTED BY ITS ARCHAK HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SRI H.M. JADAIAH, APPELLANT NO.1. ... APPELLANTS

¶14

¶15

(BY SRI VYAS DESAI FOR SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, DEPT. OF REVENUE AND RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, M.S. BUILDIGNS ANNEXE, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-1.

¶18

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, BELLARY AT TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶19

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR/ADMINISTRATOR, SRI JADESWAMY TEMPLE, EMMIGANUR, KURUGODU TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE – 560 018. ... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI RAVI HOSMANI, AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.17550/2004 (GM) AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ALSO TO QUASH ANNEXURE-C BEARING NO.ADMN/CR/23/2001-2002 DATED 25.02.2004 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, ANNEXURED BEARING NO.KUM/VTHARU/531/2003-04 DATED 26.03.2004 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ANNEXURE-E BEARING N.KUM/VTHARU/ETHERE/531/2003-04 DATED 30.03.2004 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND AWARD COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

This writ appeal is listed for orders to ascertain the

¶27

status of the case pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Sahasra Lingeshwara Temple and others vs. The State of Karnataka and another reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4386 , by which, the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2002’ for the sake of brevity) made thereunder were held to be unconstitutional. But any action taken in terms of the Act prior to the date of the order is protected and the said judgment would operate prospectively from the date of the judgment i.e., 08.09.2006.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶30

the matter is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which fact is not countered by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

¶31

In the writ petitions, out of which this appeal arises, the challenge was made to various provisions of the Act, and a declaration was sought that the gazette notification bearing No.RD/77/MET/2003, dated 30.04.2003 (Annexure-A), published by the State Government notifying certain Hindu temples as Notified Institutions was illegal. Consequently, the consequent orders at Annexure-C dated 25.02.2004, Annexure-D order dated 26.03.2004 and order dated 30.03.2004 at Annexure-E were also assailed. The Act (which is of the year 1997) was enforced on 30.04.2003. The object of the Act is to make better management and administration of Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments in the State of Karnataka. The vires of the Act was challenged by several persons including various

¶32

¶33

Temples/Trustees/Archaks by filing writ petitions before this Court questioning the constitutional validity of the Act. Some petitioners also challenged the notification issued under the Act with regard to the notification of the temple as Notified Institutions. The matter was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court and by order dated 09.09.2005, the Act was held to be valid and constitutional. The learned single Judge, however, reserved liberty to the petitioners, who were aggrieved by their inclusion in the notification, to approach the authorities under the Act, if so advised. That is if any complaint was to be filed, the authorities were to hold an enquiry after giving an opportunity and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, Writ Appeal No.3440/2005 and connected appeals were filed. The Division Bench, by its judgment dated 08.09.2006, struck down the entire Act as well as the notification made thereunder as unconstitutional. The said judgment is reported as Sri Sahasra Lingeswara Temple and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Another (ILR 2006

¶34

¶35

KAR 4386) referred to above. The Division Bench considered the case on the touchstone of the objects/history of the Act, scheme of the Act, constitutional validity of the Act with reference to Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and gave its findings and conclusions. The Division Bench held that the Act was in violation of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution and struck down the entire Act and the notifications issued under the Act as unconstitutional.

¶36

The State of Karnataka preferred Special Leave

¶37

Petition in Civil Appeal No.5924/2008 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, assailing the judgment of the Division Bench in the aforesaid case. By its order dated 24/03/2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that by earlier interim order dated 02/04/2007, the operation of the judgment of the Division Bench had been stayed. The effect of the said interim order was that the aforesaid Act continued to be in force. In the meanwhile, there have been amendments made to the Act, the validity of which

¶38

¶39

was also considered before this Court. In the

¶40

circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deferred the hearing of the Civil Appeal arising out of the Division Bench of this Court referred to above, until this Court rendered a decision on the validity of the amendments made to the Act. A direction has also been issued to this Court to expedite hearing and to conclude the same as soon as possible so that the Hon’ble Supreme Court would have the benefit of the views of this Court. A Division Bench of this Court (Dharwar Bench) has considered the matter and has allowed the writ petitions. The judgment of the Division Bench is reported in Maha Ganpati Shankara Devasthana, Sirsi and others vs. State of Karnataka and others [2016 (1) AKR 503] (Maha Ganpati Shankara Devasthana, Sirsi). Therefore, the Act continues to be in force having regard to the Interim Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while the validity of the amendment made to the Act is pending consideration before the Apex Court.

¶41

¶42

But having regard to the nature of reliefs granted to the petitioners in the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, and as well as keeping in mind the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court staying the operation of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Sahasra Lingeshwara Temple and others we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

¶43

At the outset, it may be noted that the impugned order dated 09.09.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in several writ petitions (B.M.Sukumar

¶44

Shetty and others vs. State of Karnataka and another) including the writ petitions, filed by the petitioners herein were all dismissed by the following order:

¶45

“For the reasons stated above the following order:i) All the writ petitions are hereby dismissed,

¶46

¶47

ii) I hold that the Karnataka Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and the Rules 2002, as valid and constitutional.

¶48

iii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners who are aggrieved by their inclusion in the notifications issued under Section 23 of the Act, to approach the authorities under the Act, if they are so advised. If such written complaints are filed, the authorities under the Act, shall hold enquires in accordance with law by providing opportunity of hearing.

¶49

iv) No order as to costs”.

¶50

In view of the above discussion, it is observed

¶51

that the Act as well as the Rules, 2002 are in force. However, relief was granted to the petitioners by the learned single Judge including the appellants herein by reserving liberty to them to approach the authorities under the Act, if they were aggrieved by the inclusion of any Temple as a Notified Institution under Section 23 of the Act, and that if any written complaint was filed, the

¶52

¶53

authorities under the Act were to hold an enquiry in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of hearing and thereafter come to a fresh conclusion.

¶54

On perusal of the provisions of the Act, it is noted that the inclusion of any temple as a Notified Institutions under Section 23 of the Act is by operation of law and there is no discretion with the State Government to include any temple as a Notified Institution which ought not to be included or exclude any temple from the List of Notified Institutions which ought to be included. However, when the petitioners approached this Court assailing the constitutional validity of the Act as well as Rules, 2002, the learned Single Judge while upholding the validity of the Act as well as the Rules as being valid and constitutional, nevertheless reserved liberty to the petitioners therein to approach the authorities under the Act to file a written complainant in case they were aggrieved by inclusion of any temple as a Notified Temple under Section 23 of the Act.

¶55

¶56

On account of the interim order passed by the

¶57

Hon’ble Supreme Court the Act as well as the Rules are in force. However, on account of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears the appellants herein have not taken any step to approach the authorities under the Act by filing a written complaint. When the relief has been granted to the appellants herein under the impugned order to file written complaint, and in case the appellants are aggrieved by the inclusion of the Jadeswamy Devasthana at Emmiganur as a Notified Institution under Section 23 of the Act, we find that the said relief granted by this Court ought to have been acted upon by the appellant herein, particularly when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that the Act and the Rules are in operation.

¶58

In the circumstances, we dispose off this appeal by reserving liberty to the appellants herein to approach the authorities under the Act by filing a written complaint, in the event appellant is aggrieved by inclusion

¶59

¶60

of Jadeswamy Devastana as a Notified Institution under Section 23 of the Act. If such a written complaint is filed by the appellant, the authorities under the Act to hold an enquiry after providing an opportunity to the appellants herein, in accordance with law, and to pass a speaking order thereon.

¶61

In fact it would be the respondents/ authorities under the Act who would be reviewing the inclusion of Jadeswamy Devasthana as a Notified Institution under Section 23 of the Act. As a result the consequential orders at Annexures-C, D and E would also call for a review or reconsideration pursuant to the above direction. It is needless to observe that if the appellants herein file a written complaint to the concerned authorities under the Act, the same shall be enquired into in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the appellants herein. The said exercise shall be carried out in an expeditious manner. Writ appeal is disposed off in the aforesaid terms.

¶62

¶63

It is further clarified that this judgment has

¶64

been passed on the premise that the Act as well as the Rules are in force on account of the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above and the appellants are aggrieved by the action taken by the authorities under the Act and the Rules made there under and the learned single Judge has granted reliefs to the appellants as adverted to above.

¶65

At this stage, appellants’ counsel submits that the written complaint shall be filed by the appellants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment. They are permitted to do so.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Kms/EM

H M Dodda Jadaiah S/O Late H M Jadaiah v. the State of Karnataka Reptd by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H M Dodda Jadaiah S/O Late H M Jadaiah v. the State of Karnataka Reptd by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuruba Hanumantha @ Hanumanthappa Vs K Karamandhappa S/O K Bheemalingappa

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Mr.Sharanappa S/O Rayappa Jadav

The Divisional Manager, Vs Ramakka W/O Dondappa Naik

The State of Karnataka Vs Prof. S.S. Pattnashetti

Mr.Mansoor Ali Vs the Statet of Karnataka

Sri Chennabasaveswaradeva of Ulvi Vs the State of Karnataka