Karnataka High Court
Sri A Prabhakar Deekshit vs A Rajendra Prasad on 7 September, 2022
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.3304 OF 2021 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A PRABHAKAR DEEKSHIT,
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE ARUNACHALA DEEKSHIT,
SEETHI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOHLI,
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KIRAN B S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. A RAJENDRA PRASAD,
AGED MAJOR,
S/O ARUNACHALA DEEKSHIT,
SULADENAHALLI VILALGE,
VEMGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA -563 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
MS BUILDINGS,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEDHI,
BENGALURU 560 001.
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS &
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (KHRICE)
2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, MAHADESHWARA VARTHA
2
BHAVAN, VENKATRAO RAOD,
CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU 560 020.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT, DC OFFICE
KOLAR, KARNATAKA 563 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1(CP
NO.1812/2021);
SRI. B V KRISHNA, AGA FOR R2-R4)
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,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
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
has been directed to be apportioned. The operative
portion of the same reads as under:
'DzÉñÀ
PÉÆïÁgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÉêÀÄUÀ¯ï ºÉÆç½, ¹Ãw UÁæªÀÄ, ²æÃ
¥ÀvÉñÀégÀ¸Áé«Ä ²æà ¨ÉÊgÀªÉñÀégÀ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CZÀðPÀgÀ
¸ÀgÀwAiÀÄ°è ¸Á®Ä ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è
ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà J.gÁeÉÃAzÀæ ¥Àæ¸Ázï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ
JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà J.¥Àæ¨sÁPÀgï ¢ÃQëvï F E§âjUÀÆ ºÀAaPÉ
ªÀiÁr DzÉò¹zÉ..."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
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.
3. After service of notice, the first respondent
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)
of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and therefore, he be
relegated thereto. So contending, they seek dismissal of
the writ petition.
4. 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:
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
altered the existing arrangement of pooja rights in even
terms of duration.
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.
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
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.
d) The last contention that the petitioner has got a
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.
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
Objections.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv
