A Mn -
FIEIIJ I
In '-
IN THE man C-OUW arr 1'1"? _ i
DATED THIS THE 3313 DAY __OF. *
BEFORE
THE H0N'B12E MR. J¥J_S'!'§CE h- 5; A
wnrr PETITION' NO. (GMxaR1c)%
BETWEEN:
K LAKSHMINARAYA-NA ASRANHA =
AGEDABOUT58'YEARS{ % «k
SIQKQQPALAKREEEHNA Aslwsn-A";
REP. av I-IIS.PDWERV.QF'M'l_'GB.NF:_'n' .
s/o LATE PATEL~'8.;-_KRIfiH'NA'"BHA_T
AGED .A;ac2L:'M:3 YER-R8
R/0 NO. F1",'.'B"«iE3L*()(§K___ % ;
n:c.=v:-my GARE-SH-BLOCK
nsr c12osa.t:.1'. NAGA,R-- %
.=s.a..I~:r.=.A.1.r.*.=ré..rr.%-«;'5r.:er.ms2 X pmnonnn
{BY £291 9.! §=-:=..4'~'.:=!!...l.,".1-!=:.A.,, !.~...'!J
A
A ' 1'-§§'E.C{%§fi!$s!0!!ER. 0. v::z>zm..I "$1.4 mu.
E
* INS'Pl1--'U'E'l0NS 85 cHARrm'BLE NDOWMENTS
§vi§:E4'5i'..~}'v€i'u"u's'.}'?""'"'"'. B!-"V F
J_JLP'I£'II'\l III 'II I V
A'LOCvR vpsmwrmo ROAD
" GI'I3AM'R1'1JFET
: % BANGALORE --560018
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
~ H "R an as DEPA"1vE'i":fi'n7'£~r'i'- % %
pgvuw COMMISSIONER omen
uA_uuRE
DAKSHINAA }{ANNADA DISTRIC-'l'
1
'.1
AAQUASHM. " THE ORDER DATED 30.10.".K)£')i '3? R52
ANNEXURE-D AND THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2005 BY R IN
REVESION PETITYON BEARING 'R.P.iii0.:'36i0*i-05 'vI'fiE
'-ANNEXURE-H.
3 THE ADMINISTRATOR
SR1 DURGA PARMESHWARI TEMPLE
KATEEL -574 148
!¢.l.ANG.A.L-ORE TALUK
DAKSI-{INA KANNADA DISTRICT,
4 s HAYAGRIVA mrrav s1Do.xR1sismDA'mwra¥D% f ° g
AGED .1.BQU'!' 5'? YEARS '
sm DURGA PARMESHWARI D"F1§.h!P1.E »
KATEEL -5?'! 14.8
MANGALORE TALUK. t
DAKSHENA K.A.!*!.I!.A.D.A, Q,
s *.=a'.;-.~w'.-'.-r~.~::..A. 1*.-.:~:m\:s,wD2a= Hgimaggva TANTRY
5
AGED Alacztrrsa wnasg _ ~ . Z
32: 339% §-.é.g%e.%-.;-=:.s:~s*1%.I.i.'A\...1 _
KATEEL 457-2145' '
mxsHus:A K-'g;hlNA.fiA__DISTl:§1§XI§
6 :'a;HREEVKi2iSHNARA;ifi--TANFRY
AGED AEOb"i"£-G'T:'.EfiFs"£ .\
3/ 0.. s VEDAWASA*FAI'fl'RY
SR1 magma Pgifirfififii-EWA 'rE:.:.=~=-..E
: -KA'l'EEL».--5"i'4'148'-
~ Mmaawirzs
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT RESPONDENTS
taieRD1D«:§ D:.£’Di.é As:.JuNATH. HGGA ma R1-3
, * sat x*_sum.a«, ADV. F01? cm-4 To 5-,
—- THi5LfWARW PETITION 13 FT ED UWDER £’\Wi’i”” “S 226 3′-
227 OFVTHE CONS’l”l’l’UTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER ‘
‘l’Lis_I\.l.f1itPctitinnoomiI1gonforhca1:i11g. thiuday, the
Court made the following :
I
J2
Fe
9_B_D_E_B
The petitioner’ isbcfomthiuGom’t_. t
by the second mspondcnt *
and also the am: dated poisa(_l1hyVVvf%the first
r:-.53.-om..d..-5-… in at
a_,–,,A,.A,,xT.m-,.;mL~.’3 ;,.,…m_%t:tk At t x o
2.__ learned oounaci
for learned Government
Advocate 1 to 3 and Sn’ K. sumn,
loomed mogpoitdcntn No.4 to 6.
‘ the respective learned counsel, 1 have
u…_ Po.
-o,,,-.-om-t…..–= am -on
. 4. The gramme put on of-the petitioner t
h iiés that by custom and usage. he is the Demon who was-
requimd to distribute the Scva Batnwada to the: Assistant
I
J’.
‘re
Amhaka. more particularly, the respondents 4′
Despite’ the said position. the Deputy Ax
impugned order dated 30.10.2001
attached to it fixing the to’
Af.t;zI.Ij.-em \.l!l!..i¢_3_h E mom
1.IJu..IlI.l’ ‘, ‘v1v’:.u:”‘i’: T6 ‘uuem
1″” V
—=——‘- =- —~«-‘£4–“to tn-;.% tb.-…-em-.ree ;-.d..!.n.i.t
that was the ctfiigm ease Ir-f h”fi
petititmer to of the matter,
the oepeo issued notice to the
~
. the paaaed_ by the C0mnnsa1o’ ‘ nor
ad :.a_t.I Lb: me: by
% a med fi tr-. *…..’- ……’–‘-‘……-I”
order has been paaaedha eonpiaiui
Section 50 of the Modme Hindu Religious and
% tzhmdtable Endowments Act, 1951 (for shoot the ‘Act’j. It is
contended that at present, the petitittmcr is not the trustee of
I
J?
‘0
the ample .s.a__.. t.L-_= _wministrator being
px”emseu”” tue’– ra’rca as ‘-iuu”*-‘;.a’-“….. in *.}.:e 9……’–wt ”
also noticing the fact that ‘theta
whemin the right of the is ygtjnt-ea in
O.S.No.24/99 has the
same does notcajl for
5; mquin-.s to be
“” ” t ‘ te_.;;’;r:=!_i;t,1on41entnNo.4to6who
were 12-2573.4,-94 -.-.-1-tea-J:-.
the I_eapond.ent3 questioneci the order dated
been passed by the Endowment
L’ when the petitioner herein was the
Endowmb’ ‘V -‘aaioner at the earlier’ instance. this
the order and remanded the matter to
by V’ V. the Commissioner and subsequent in the same,
nt .14.. e_:ee 19.11.2005 is passed.
IE
on
9
ft
7. Though several contentions an the men- ‘
case with Iegani to the right of the’t13etitiorie1H9ltii’V.fiisti’ihtIte.,, it it
the Batawada to the respondents f.
the same need not be atttiise the
prey er..m..te.I:ti_n by. for the
“fifiiier is fiiat the has M-,…..—1…. t.h
onier fixing rates ficttife tn’:
the petifiozieg-.§’–.:. for teepomienm
No.4 is not contemplated
einee so of the Act is for the
trustee and in the present:
case; the the in-chmge trustee had
. to and thexeafler the Deputy
hpterfl. the da&m. made by
The m t1′”*}’v’et’t t-.e:~e.=-.. -.-.–ee.-.=. –‘:………*–e
that thetadminasa’ ‘ ‘ ‘ trator is no doubt in-charge’ of the tempie at
But the fact that the petitioner claims to be one of
‘ trustees and that he was distributing the Batawada
commission earlier is not seriously in dispute. Further. the
L
J-‘.
I
to
fact that the administrator had issued
petitioner also cannot be disputedewfltit
administmtor cannot be eonaiiezedtp _
&iir”1ii§ &”.o-.3′.-.-*. h.-‘.’e
been peeeed by ofifiefeijr
aeeepting efjfehe ‘ ‘ tratnr. If
is the should have heard
the hearing the parties should
have deesded. the 1eoommendat1’on’1nade by
he any alteration to the same and
tiefl hat along with the order. Since
am be-…~n i =.-zith by the .Deg_n.;t..y-
on this short Err-ii1d. the azt’.e.- $*..-:1
cannotbe sustained’ ‘ and the same is aooolum” giy
Since the Endowment failed to
____r§1ot:iee this aspect of the matter and has anived at the
oocnclusion, the consequent onier dated 19.11.2005 also
J
)2
Va
cannot be sustained and is aooonimgly’ *
is h led to the M ‘ I «V -;’«
the case on file and issue notice to parties: t
the fixatioru of
as-eordanm tvfifi-. L-.1.-.r am.-..r l.1:.;a_.ti_:;1g:t.h.e’;3ga1’tie§I;’ « .
8. Though the is quashed in
the purpose by
aiabmgadt to :23,-rs.-.%-.:1.e:I.*.a
No.4′ the the vuIIc”””‘
” _ the way or the other.
Alec] bma I’…