Smt. T. K. Sukanya Vs the Revenue Secretary

THE ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER/ MEMBER SECRETARY RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHAT, SHRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVANA, ALLURU VENKAT RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPETE, BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:2774 WP No. 10382 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶21

TAHASILDAR SRINGERI TALUK, SRINGERI - 577 139.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA AGA FOR R1 TO R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA FOR THE DE-NOTIFICATION OF THE TEMPLE, NOTIFIED AS ITEM NO.62 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA - REVENUE SECRETARIAT BY ITS OFFICIAL GAZATTE NO. RD/77/MET/2003 BANGALORE, DATED 30^TH APRIL 2003 AND PUBLISHED ON 01/05/2003 OR HUMBLY PRAY FOR NULLIFICATION OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION NAMELY ANNEXURE-A SO FAR AS ITEM NO. 62 THEREOF AND FURTHER HUMBLY PRAY FOR SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:

¶29

"Direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to recommend to the Government of Karnataka for the de-notification of the temple, notified as item No.62 as per Annexure-A

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:2774 WP No. 10382 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

issued by the Government of Karnataka -Revenue Secretariat by its Official Gazatte No.Rd/77/MET/2003 Bangalore, dated 30^th April 2003 and published on 01/05/2003 or humbly pray for nullification of the said notification namely Annexure-A so far as item No.62 thereof."

¶34

Case of the petitioner is respondent authorities have

¶35

erroneously notified "Thimmappana Shankaranarayana Devastana" situated at Bharathi Beedi, Sringeri, Chikkamagaluru District under Section 23 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, (hereinafter referred to as `Act' for short) as per the notification dated 30.04.2003 published on 01.05.2003, wherein the said temple has been notified at Sl.No.62.

¶36

Petitioner had challenged said notification by filing an appeal under Section 20A before the Rajya Dharmika Parishat, Bengaluru, which by its order dated 02.03.2019 while upholding the contention of the petitioner regarding the said temple being private temple, allowed the appeal declaring that the said temple was wrongly notified under Section 23 of the Act and the same requires to be de-notified. Non implementation of the said order despite representation made

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:2774 WP No. 10382 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

by the petitioner, as per Annexure-M dated 13.10.2022, has

¶41

constrained the petitioner to be before this Court.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records submits that once an order is passed by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat under Section 20A, the respondent authorities, namely Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar, are required to give effect to the same. Inaction on their part requires a direction to be issued by this Court, is his prayer.

¶43

Learned AGA on the other hand furnishing the copies of proceedings dated 09.04.2021 of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat submits that in the light of order dated 10.08.2018 passed in W.P.No.30609/2008 in the case of Gokarna Sri.Mahabaleshwara Devastana wherein this Court has held that the State has no power or authority to de-notify the already notified temple, no directions can be issued in the instant writ petition. She further submits that the said issue is pending consideration in SLP No.24015-24020/2018. Therefore, the respondent authorities have not given effect to the order dated

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:2774 WP No. 10382 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

02.03.2019 passed by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat, is her submission.

¶48

In response, learned counsel for petitioner submits the facts and law in issue involved in the said proceedings pertaining to Gokarna Sri.Mahabaleshwara Devastana the subject matter of SLP No.24015-24020/2018 is different and distinct from the one involved in the case on hand. He submits that de-notification in the said case was prior to insertion of Section 20A, where there was no provision for de-notification. Further, the issue with regard to application of Bombay Trust Act is also involved in the said matter. It is under those circumstances, this Court had held that the respondent authority had no jurisdiction to de-notify the temple once notified. He also brings to the notice of this Court provisions of Clause (v) Sub-section (2) of Section 20A providing for powers

¶49

and functions of Rajya Dharmika Parishat which envisages recommendation to the State Government to issue notification and de-notification of the institutions required to be notified or deleted under the provisions of the Act.

¶50

Heard and perused the records.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:2774 WP No. 10382 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

There is no dispute to the fact that the temple, namely, Thimmappana Shankarnarayana Temple was notified in terms of the notification published on 01.05.2003 produced at Annexure-A. There is also no dispute that by order dated 02.03.2019 Rajya Dharmika Parishat, Bengaluru in exercise of power under Section 20A has recommended for de-notification of the said institution. Petitioner is merely seeking direction to the respondent authorities to implement the said order.

¶55

Learned AGA relying upon the order passed by this Court in the case of SRI SAMSTHANA MAHABALESHWARA

¶56

DEVARU, GOKARNA AND ANOTHER Vs SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (ENDOWMENT) AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2018, Karnataka 4505 vehemently submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has held that the respondent-State does not have power to denotify the temple and that the said issue is still pending consideration before the Apex Court in SLP No.24015-24020/2018. As such, she insists that the request being made by the petitioner cannot be considered unless the matter is set at rest by the Apex Court in the pending SLP.

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:2774 WP No. 10382 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of Gokarna Sri.Mahabaleshwara Devastana supra indicate that the respondent-State therein, in purported exercise of power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act had sought to de-notify the said temple. Issue with regard to exercise of power pursuant to the recommendation made by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat under Section 20A was not the subject matter. There is no denial of the fact that in terms of provisions of Clause (v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20A, Parishat which is specially constituted, is vested with the power to recommend for notification and de-notification of institutions. The impugned order dated 02.03.2019 has been passed by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat after contest by the respondents- Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar where no such contention is raised. On the other hand Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar themselves has submitted the records showing the said temple to be a private temple within the precincts of house of petitioner and not in any public place.

¶61

Since the statute provides for such a recommendation to be made, same cannot but be implemented merely because an issue arising out of a completely different

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:2774 WP No. 10382 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

proceedings on a different question of fact and law are pending consideration. This Court is not persuaded by the contention of respondent-State in this regard. Hence, the same is rejected.

¶66

Accordingly, following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) Petition is partly allowed.

¶69

(ii) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the recommendation made by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat in terms of the order dated 02.03.2019 and pass appropriate order taking into consideration the provisions of Section 20A of the Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and such order be passed within ninety(90) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶70

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶71

SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Smt. T. K. Sukanya v. the Revenue Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. T. K. Sukanya v. the Revenue Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jayashree v Reddy Vs Government of India

Smt Usha Vs the Citzen Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Yuvaka Sangha (R) Vs State of Karnataka

The Muslim Orphanage Regd Vs Karnataka Information Commission

Sri. M. Marimuthu Vs State of Karnataka