Sri S Venkataramana Mayya Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. S. PRABHAKAR MAYYA S/O. S. DASAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT SHWETHA, NO. 1-160-3A, ADARSHA NAGARA, BAJJAI, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-575 007.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. S.S.PARIKSHIT, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO

¶16

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENDOWMENT,

¶17

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA STATE DHARMIKA PARISHATH TRIBUNAL, 4^TH FLOOR, SRI. ANJANEYA VARTHA BHAVAN, CHAMARAJAPETE, BENGALURU-560 018.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS

¶21

AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 001.

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29424 WP No. 18622 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA ZILLA DHARMIK PARISHATH, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.

¶25

TAHASILDAR MANGALURU TALUK, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.

¶26

DR. S. GANAPATHI MAYYA S/O. S. DASAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT HAMSA, NO. 13-4/5, NEAR SRI. SADASHIVA MAHAGANAPATHI TEMPLE, SURATKAL,MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-575 011.

¶27

SRI. S. VENKATRAMANA MAYYA S/O. V. KRISHNA MAYYA, R/AT SIRASHILA NO. 10-1/1A, 2ND CROSS, SADASHIVANAGARA, SURATKAL, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-575 011.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.H.DEVARAJ, GA FOR R-1 TO R-5 SRI. VINAYAKA.B, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 SMT. SOHANI HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7)

¶29

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DTD. 28.06.2024 BEARING NO. RDP TRI 07/2023-24 VIDE ANNX-B IN SO FAR AS APPOINTING THE R-6 AS THE HEREDITARY TRUSTEE AND ARCHAKA OF SRI.SADASHIVA GANAPATHI TEMPLE SURATAKAL MANGALURU DISTRICT.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29424 WP No. 18622 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶36

“a. Quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 28.6.2024 bearing No.RDP TRI 07/2023-24 vide Annexure B in so far as appointing the 6th respondent as the hereditary trustee and Archaka of Sri. Sadashiva Ganapathi temple Suratkal. Mangaluru District, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶37

b. And further grant any such other relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶38

Initially, respondent No.6 and subsequently, the petitioner and respondent No.7 had filed applications before the Assistant Commissioner, to be appointed as Hereditary Trustee. The said application has been forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner to the Rajya Dharmika Parishat, who had passed the order

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:29424 WP No. 18622 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

under Section 20(A)(1)(d) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) since there was a dispute as regards who the Hereditary Trustee has to be. It is that order which is under challenge in terms of the order passed by Rajya Dharmika Parishat, petitioner and respondent No.6 were appointed as Hereditary Trustee. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the appointment of respondent No.6 as Hereditary Trustee.

¶43

The petitioner's remedy is under Section 63A of the Act. The said provision is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶44

“63A. Appeal to the Rajya Dharmika Parishat and appeal against its order.-

¶45

(1) Any person aggrieved by the order of Rajya Dharmika Parishat in exercise of its original jurisdiction may prefer an appeal to High Court on a substantial question of law.

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29424 WP No. 18622 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

(2) Any person aggrieved by the orders passed by the Zilla Dharmika Parishat under any of the provisions of this Act may appeal to the Rajya Dharmika Parishat within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. The Rajya Dharmika Parishat shall after giving notice to all the concerned parties and on hearing both the parties pass orders in accordance with law.”

¶49

A perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 63A indicates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Rajya Dharmika Praishat in exercise of its original jurisdiction, may prefer an appeal to the High Court on a substantial question of law.

¶50

In the present case, the order appointing the petitioner and respondent No.6 as Hereditary Trustee is in pursuance of the powers vested under clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 20A of the Act, in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat.

¶51

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, this Court passes the following:

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:29424 WP No. 18622 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) The petition is hereby dismissed .

¶57

ii) The liberty is however reserved to the petitioner to avail of the remedy of an appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 63A of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.

¶58