Allowed

Sri a Prabhakar Deekshit v. a Rajendra Prasad

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2022WP/3304/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a writ petition filed by an Archak challenging an order that directed the apportionment of hereditary pooja rights. The Court held that the family arrangement could not be altered and dismissed the view that an alternate remedy barred the writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued quashing the impugned order dated 19.01.2021 and the consequent order dated 03.03.2021.

Sri a Prabhakar Deekshit Vs a Rajendra Prasad — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3304 OF 2021 (GM-R/C)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. A PRABHAKAR DEEKSHIT, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O LATE ARUNACHALA DEEKSHIT, SEETHI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOHLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT KARNATAKA.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.KIRAN B S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

A RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED MAJOR, S/O ARUNACHALA DEEKSHIT, SULADENAHALLI VILALGE, VEMGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA -563 101.

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (KHRICE)

¶14

2^ND AND 3^RD FLOOR, MAHADESHWARA VARTHA

¶15

¶16

BHAVAN, VENKATRAO RAOD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU 560 020.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, DC OFFICE KOLAR, KARNATAKA 563 101.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. S VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1(CP NO.1812/2021);

¶20

SRI. B V KRISHNA, AGA FOR R2-R4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.01.2021 OF R-4 IN ANNX-A AND ETC,

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner - Archak of the temples in question is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 19.01.2021 made by the fourth respondent – Deputy Commissioner whereby the pooja-right-period

¶25

has been directed to be apportioned. The operative portion of the same reads as under:

¶26

‘DzÉÃ±À

¶27

PÉÆÃ¯ÁgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÉÃªÀÄUÀ¯ï ºÉÆÃ§½, ¹Ãw UÁæªÀÄ, ²æÃ ¥ÀvÉÃ±ÀégÀ¸Áé«Ä ²æÃ ¨ÉÊgÀªÉÃ±ÀégÀ¸Áé«Ä zÉÃªÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CZÀðPÀgÀ ¸ÀgÀwAiÀÄ°è ¸Á®Ä ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ J.gÁeÉÃAzÀæ ¥Àæ¸Ázï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ

¶28

¶29

JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ J.¥Àæ¨sÁPÀgï ¢ÃQëvï F E§âjUÀÆ ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁr DzÉÃ²¹zÉ...”

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

¶31

argues that there being a family arrangement dated 29.10.2010 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-C, in respect of Temples in question, the first respondent cannot be given any rights at all, he having been allotted Shri Gowreeshwara Temple. He also points out that the first respondent having parted away his pooja rights in favour of his son because of declining age now cannot turn around and seek a share in the pooja rights of petitioner.

¶32

After service of notice, the first respondent

¶33

has entered caveat through his counsel and opposes the petition by filing a Statement of Objections. The official respondents are represented by the learned AGA who makes submission in justification of the impugned order. The respondents submit that the petitioner has got an alternate remedy of appeal in terms of section 25-B6(iii)

¶34

of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and

¶35

¶36

Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and therefore, he be relegated thereto. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶38

a) The Pooja rights of the members of family, the petitioner & first respondent being such members, have been organized and apportioned under a Family Agreement dated 29.10.2010 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-C; under the said Agreement, petitioner has been allotted arshakship rights in respect of Shri Pattheshwara Swamy Temple & Shri Bhairaveshwara Swamy Temple whereas, the first respondent has been allotted Shri Gowreeshwara Swamy Temple. This is not in dispute. These rights of offering pooja have hereditary character, is also not in dispute. That being the position, the respondent – Deputy Commissioner could not have

¶39

¶40

altered the existing arrangement of pooja rights in even terms of duration.

¶41

b) The first respondent being a party to the Family Agreement at Annexure-C and having taken the benefit thereunder, has parted away his pooja rights in favour of his own son Deepakraj on the ground that now he being in a declining age is not able to perform pooja. If that be so, he cannot intrude in the pooja rights of the petitioner, not only because he is aged & disabled but he has already parted away his rights in favour of his own son. This aspect has not been properly treated by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order, as rightly contended by petitioner’s counsel.

¶42

c) The vehement submission of learned counsel appearing for the respondents that petitioner himself has accorded/agreed for arrangement of the kind as found in the impugned order and therefore, this Court should not interfere in the matter, is bit difficult to countenance. Petitioner has fervently disputed the affidavit a copy

¶43

¶44

whereof is at Anenxure-R1 to the Statement of Objections on which this contention of the first respondent is structured. Even assuming that there was a concession, that per se cannot take away the substantive rights arising under the undisputed Family arrangement/Agreement at Annexure-C. The concession gratuitously given cannot curtail the legal rights of pooja availing to the petitioner.

¶45

d) The last contention that the petitioner has got a

¶46

right of appeal before the Commissioner in terms of Section 25-B(6)(iii) read with Clause 7 thereof is bit difficult to countenance. The said Sub-clause of (iii) relates to the factum of “holding of office or the office having been held, which is not the fulcrum of the case at hands. The right of appeal unless given by the statute, cannot be created by judgments of the Court. Even otherwise, at this length of time, i.e., more than one & a half years having lapsed after the filing of petition, a litigant cannot be non-suited on the ground of availability of alternate remedy.

¶47

¶48

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 19.01.2021 at Annexure-A to the Writ Petition and also the consequent order dated 03.03.2021 which is at Annexure-R2 to the Statement of

¶49

Objections.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Bsv

Sri a Prabhakar Deekshit v. a Rajendra Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a Prabhakar Deekshit v. a Rajendra Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Prabhakar Dixit Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kodamanthaya Daivasthana Yekkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rukkamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shanthi S Vs Shrinivas Hatwar

Sri. Alla Peri Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Meltronics Systemtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Director