SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Kar) 429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Shri Uttaradi Mutt & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 103982 of 2023 (GM-RES) C/W Writ Petition No. 103994 of 2023 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 05-06-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Sr. Counsel for Shri. Satish S. Raichur & Shri. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, Sr. Counsel for Shri. Arun Neelopant.
For the Respondents: Shri. Gangadhar J.M. AAG a/w Shri. Praveen Uppar, AGA; Shri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, Sr. Counsel for Shri. Arun L. Neelopant, Shri. C.V. Nagesh, Sr. Counsel for Shri. H.R. Deshpande, Shri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Sr. Counsel for Shri. Satish S. Raichur & Shri. Bhushan B. Kulkarni.

The court affirmed the established rights of the petitioner to perform religious rites at a disputed site, directing state authorities to ensure protection and prevent contrary actions by rival claimants.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Dispute regarding religious rites and ceremonies - Petitioners sought police protection for performing religious activities during a festival - Earlier determinations indicate a long-standing tradition of worship at the disputed site as that belonging to a specific saint - The court ruled that the petitioners have an established right to conduct ceremonies and ordered state authorities to ensure peace and prevent disturbances by rival claimants. (Paras 1, 24, 28)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court can entertain petitions involving questions of fact and law, as long as those do not require extensive trials and are based on established historical context - The principles of previous court decisions could guide the determination of rights and authority regarding the disputed site. (Paras 24, 27)

(C) Admissions in Evidence - Previous statements made in legal proceedings by parties are binding and not to be disregarded in favor of later assertions without legal backing. (Paras 25, 26)

(D) Existing Legal Framework - The court highlighted the need for civil resolution of disputes regarding property rights while ensuring public peace during religious functions - Orders were issued to restrict actions of rival parties to prevent conflict during religious observances. (Paras 28.1, 28.6)

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks police protection for conducting established religious rituals. (Para 1 , 3)
2. arguments and contentions presented regarding religious authority. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court’s observations leading to legal conclusions and past admissions. (Para 16 , 18 , 24)
4. final determination on the rightful authority over the brindavana. (Para 25 , 27)
5. conclusion and directive on who may perform rituals. (Para 28)

ORDER :

Suraj Govindaraj, J.

1. Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, the petitioner in W.P.No.103982/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs.

    a. Quash the order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 27.06.2023, in file No. SAM/KAM/MAG:101:2023-24, in so far as the rejection of the application filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt requesting to depute sufficient police personnel during the celebration of Shri. Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava from 04.07.2023 to 10.07.2023 at the Holy Moola Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertha, situated in the island named Nava Brindavana Gadde, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal, the Original order being at Annexure-A and,

    b. Consequently, direct the respondent No.4 authority to allow the application filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt dated 08.06.2023, the copy of which is at Annexure-N, and

    b(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent nos. 1 to 4 to prevent Respondent no.5, including its followers, agents and office bearers and anybody claiming through or under Respondent No.5 from offering prayers or conducting any religious activity in any form including Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the name of Sri. Jayateertharu at the Brindavana of Sri. Raghuvarya Teertharu at the Navabrindavan Gadde situated on the island named ‘NavaBrindavana Gadde’, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal; and

    c. Grant any other appropriate order, writ or direction as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

2. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the petitioner in W.P.No.103994/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs.

    i. Issue appropriate writ by quashing the order bearing No. Kom.Mag:101:2023-24 dated 27.06.2023 of second respondent which is produced at Annexure-A;

    ii. Direct Respondent No.1 to 3 to provide police protection during Aradhana of Shri. Jayateertharu which is scheduled to take place on 6th July 2023, 7th July 2023 and 8th July 2023.

    iii. Grant such other relief’s as is deemed fit.

3. Facts in W.P.No.103982/2023 filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt:

3.1. The Petitioner Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, claims to be the main pontifical Mutt in the lineage of the great saint Shri. Madhvacharya.

3.2. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claims to be the owner of the land in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi being an island situate in Tungabhadra river which is known as Nava Brindavana Gadde (Gadde meaning an island). It is contended that several previous pontiffs’ brindavana is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde, one of them being that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu who was the predecessor/Peetadhipati of Shri Uttaradi Mutt.

3.3. It is contended that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, taluka Sedam, District Kalaburagi which is acknowledged by the general public. It is contended that there is no dispute as regards the said brindavana but now the dispute has been raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu by contending that it is not of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu but of Shri Jaya Teertharu.

3.4. Various averments have been made as regards the ownership of the said land which is not relevant for the purpose of this matter since ownership dispute is not being considered in the present matter which is part of another proceeding.

3.5. It is contended that there has been an admission on part of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being situate at Nava B

                          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                          1
                          2
                          3
                          4
                          5
                          6
                          7
                          8
                          9
                          10
                          11
                          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                          supreme today icon
                          logo-black

                          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                          Please visit our Training & Support
                          Center or Contact Us for assistance

                          qr

                          Scan Me!

                          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                          whatsapp-icon Back to top