Quashed

Shri K Narasimha Bahat v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024WP/35826/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, claiming to be Upadivantha Kshethra Purohits entitled to Brahmaswa seva rights at Mookambika temple, Kollur, challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order allowing respondents 4 and 5's claim. The court found the order violated natural justice since written arguments were accepted post-reservation without service, quashed the order and remanded for fresh hearing within four months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri K Narasimha Bahat Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10734 WP No. 35826 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 35826 OF 2015 (GM-R/C)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI K.NARASIMHA BHAT S/O SRI. SHIVARAM BHAT AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶8

SHRI. VISHWANATHA UDUPA S/O LATE SRI. K.MANJUNATHA UDUPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶9

SHRI. PARAMESHWARA BHAT S/O LATE SRI SHANKARA BHAT AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SHRI. SHIVARAMA ADIGA S/O SHRI. K.SUBRAYA ADIGA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶12

SHRI. KALIDASA BHAT S/O SRI. MURTHY GANESH BHAT AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶13

SHRI. SHRISHA BHAT S/O MURTHY GANESH BHAT AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶14

SHRI. BALACHANDRA RAO S/O P.ANANTHA BHAT AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10734 WP No. 35826 of 2015

¶16

SHRI. K.N.GOVINDA ADIGA S/O LATE SRI. K.N.KRISHNA ADIGA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶17

SHRI. K.CHANDRASHEKARA PURANIKA S/O SRI. VENKATESH PURANIKA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶18

SHRI. GAJANANA JOIS S/O LATE SRI. RAMAKRISHNA JOIS AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶19

SHRI. K.SUDARSHANA JOIS S/O SRI. PURUSHOTHAMA JOIS AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶20

SHRI. VISHWANATHA ADIGA S/O LATE SRI. K.N.TRIVIKRAMA ADIGA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶21

SHRI. K.MANJUNATHA ADIGA S/O LATE SRI. NARASIMHA ADIGA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶22

THE ADDRESS OF ALL THE PETITIONERS IS SHREE MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE KOLLUR – 576 220, KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE)

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10734 WP No. 35826 of 2015

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HR & CE, UDUPI DISTRICT RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL – 576 220 UDUPI.

¶28

PRESIDENT COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SHREE MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE KOLLUR – 576 220 KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶29

EXECUTIVE OFFICER SHRI. MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE KOLLUR – 576 220 KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶30

SRI. K.N.NARASIMHA ADIGA S/O LATE SRI. SUBRAYA ADIGA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶31

SRI. K.V.SRIDHARA ADIGA S/O LATE SRI. VISHWESWARA ADIGA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶32

SRI. K.PURUSHOTHAMA JOIS S/O SRI. NAGAPPA JOIS AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶33

SHRI. K.NARAYANA JOIS S/O LATE SRI. RAMAKRISHNA JOIS AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10734 WP No. 35826 of 2015

¶35

SINCE DISEASED AND REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S

¶36

7(1) RAMACHANDRA JOSHI S/O LATE NARAYANA JOIS AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS WARD NO.09, MUKAMBIKA NILAYA POST HOSANAGARA TALUK – 577 418 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶37

7(2) SMT. SHOBHA S.R.BHAT AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A BA-303, KAILAS BDA JNANA BHARATHI POST RESIDENTIAL ENCLAVE MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI BENGALURU – 560 059.

¶38

7(3) SRI. SHIVANAND JOSHI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS C/O RARAMESHWARA S.BHAT KOOJALLI POST – 581 332 HARODI CROSS, KUMTA TALUKA KARWAR DISTRICT.

¶39

7(4) SRI. SADANANDA JOSHI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE NARAYAN JOIS

¶40

7(5) SRI. ROHIT JOSHI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE NARAYAN JOIS

¶41

RESPONDENT 7(4) AND 7(5) RESIDING AT SHIVAMOGGA

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10734 WP No. 35826 of 2015

¶43

MAIN ROAD, KOLLUR POST – 576 220 KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶44

SHRI. K.VASUDEVA ADIGA S/O LATE SRI. K.VISHWESHWARA ADIGA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶45

SRI. K.VENKATESH PURANIK S/O LATE SRI. PARAMESHWAR PURANIK AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶46

SHRI. K.PRABHAKARA ADIGA S/O LATE SRI. ANANTHA ADIGA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶47

SRI. N.RAVINDRA SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S SRI. N.SURESH S/O LATER SRI. N.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶48

ALL ARE THE RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT SHREE MUKAMBIKA TMEPLE KOLLURU – 576 220, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K. S., AGA FOR R1 AND R3; R2 AND R6 ARE SERVED UNREPRESENTED SRI. M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 AND R5; SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R7 (1-5), R9 AND R11;

¶51

SRI. AMIT DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS DVS.LAW:CR 22/2013-14 ON THE FILE OF

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:10734 WP No. 35826 of 2015

¶55

THE R-1; QUASH THE ORDER DTD:10.08.2015 IN DVS.LAW:CR 22/2013-14 PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-J).

¶56

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 10.08.2015, by which the Deputy Commissioner, Charitable Endowment allows the claim of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶59

Heard Sri Chandranath Ariga K., learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3, Sri M.E.Nagesh, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and 5, Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7(1 to 5), 9 and 11 and Sri Amit Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.8.

¶60

The petitioners claim to be Upadivantha Kshethra Purohits and are entitled to certain seva rates in the temple. The temple in the case at hand is Mookambika temple at Kollur.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:10734 WP No. 35826 of 2015

¶63

The history of the facts of the petition dates back to 1976. All

¶64

of which are not germane to be noticed at this juncture.

¶65

The bone of contention in the case at hand is the receipt of Brahmaswa, which according to the petitioners, they being the Upadivantha Kshetra Purohiths are entitled to receive Brahmaswa. The dispute between respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the petitioners galore and therefore, the matters were initially before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner rejects the claim of respondent Nos.4 and 5 against which respondent Nos.4 and 5 prefer an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, Charitable Endowment remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to consider afresh. The Deputy Commissioner after reconsidering the matter passes the impugned order, which is against the petitioners. The passage of the order is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶66

Learned counsel for petitioners would urge among other things that the Deputy Commissioner after reserving the matter for orders, has accepted the written argument from the

¶67

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10734 WP No. 35826 of 2015

¶68

hands of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that a copy of the written statement is also not served upon the petitioners, which respondent Nos.4 and 5 ought to have done.

¶69

In the light of what has come about is that, the contents of the written statement are taken note of inter alia by the Deputy Commissioner to allow the claim of respondent Nos.4 and 5, which is contrary to the interests of the petitioners.

¶70

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that if the written statement had to be taken note of, the same ought to have served upon the petitioners and the Deputy Commissioner ought to have heard the petitioners as well, before passing any order on the strength of the written arguments filed before him.

¶71

The submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners, is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondents. It is a matter of record that the written arguments are received by the Deputy Commissioner after the matter was reserved for orders

¶72

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:10734 WP No. 35826 of 2015

¶74

and the copy of the same is not served upon the petitioners. Therefore, on this solitary ground, the order of the Deputy Commissioner impugned in the subject petition is untenable for it being in violation of the principles of natural justice. Violation is the contents of the order; the contents of the order comes from the written statement and the written statement is received after reserving the matter was orders, even without serving a copy of the same upon the petitioners, as observed hereinabove.

¶75

Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner will have to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the respondents, consider all the contentions they have putforth or to be putforth and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioners are at liberty to urge all the contentions before the Deputy Commissioner that are urged in the present petition. The same goes with respondent Nos.4 and 5, reserving liberty to lead all the contentions before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:10734 WP No. 35826 of 2015

¶77

10 -

¶78

Since the issue dates back to decades, the Deputy

¶79

Commissioner shall conclude the issue within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not earlier.

¶80

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition

¶81

stands disposed.

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

¶83

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Shri K Narasimha Bahat v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri K Narasimha Bahat v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Annappa Nayak Vs State Bank of India

S. Nagaraju Vs the Executive Officer

Mr Abdul Azeez Vs the Station House Officer

Jashed Pasha Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Anupama B S Vs Union of India

Nirmala Bharatha Charitable Trust (R) Vs the State of Karnataka