- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

WRIT PETITION NO.36563 OF 2013(GM-R/C)

BETWEEN

SRI B S KESHAVA IYENGAR

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

SON OF LATE SRI M S SHESHADRI IYENGAR

RESIDING AT BOOVANAHALLI

HASSAN KASABA

HASSAN

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI KASHYAP N NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 .

THE COMMISSIONER

THE KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS

INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR,

MALE MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVANA

ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD

CHAMARAJAPET

BANGALORE 560018

2 .

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN

3 .

M S DIVAKAR

AGED ABOUT MAJOR,

RESIDING AT CARE OF NANJUNDAPPA

SATHYAMANGALA ROAD

RAVANAHALLI POST

HASSAN DISTRICT

- 2 -

4 .

B V KARIGOWDA

AGED ABOUT MAJOR

SON OF VENKATEGOWDA

RESIDING AT BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE

HASSAN TALUK

HASSAN DISTRICT

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 & R2

SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 & R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED

ORDER

DT.20.7.2013

PASSED

BY

THE

R-1

(ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALSO QUASH THE ORDER

DT.10.10.2012 PASSED BY THE R2 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ALL

OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL ACTIONS AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioner was an Archak of Sri Channakeshava-

swamy

temple,

a

Religious

Institution

situated

at

Boovanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk. It is the

contention of the petitioner that his forefathers were

performing archakship in the temple and in recognition of

the services rendered by his forefathers, the land attached

to the temple was granted as inam to his forefathers. It is

- 3 -

contended that after the Inams Abolition Act was brought

into force, the forefathers made an application seeking

grant of occupancy rights. Consequently, the Special Deputy

Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Hassan passed an

order dated 15.05.1975 in favour of the petitioner’s father

Sri.M.S.Seshadri Iyengar granting the occupancy rights in

favour of the petitioner’s father.

2. The gravamen of the arguments of the learned

Counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner is a

hereditary Archak, in terms of Rule 10(4) of the Karnataka

Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments

Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2002’, for

short) he could not have been transferred from one

institution to another. It is submitted that Rule 10(4)

provides that non-hereditary Archaks including temple

servants are liable to be transferred from one institution to

another of the same category. Learned Counsel therefore

submits that inspite of the petitioner contending before the

Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner is a hereditary

Archak and therefore in terms of Rule 10(4) of the Rules,

- 4 -

2002, he could not have been transferred from Sri

Channakeshavaswamy

temple

to

Sri

Prasanna

Venkataramanaswamy

temple,

Hassan,

the

Deputy

Commissioner, on the reports submitted by the Assistant

Commissioner, came to a conclusion that the petitioner is

not a hereditary Archak, since the archakship was done by

the father of the petitioner and not the forefathers,

including the grandfather of the petitioner. Learned

Counsel submits that when it was evident from the records

that the inam in respect of the lands attached to the temple

was granted in favour of the petitioner’s forefathers, it is

clear that the petitioner’s forefathers were carrying on

archakship of the temple and the Deputy Commissioner has

clearly ignored these aspects. The learned Counsel submits

that even the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowments, in the appeal has not considered