M CHITRANJANDAS HEGDE Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is questioning the initiation of proceedings in relation to the appointment of hereditary trustee to the temple Sri Mahatobara Veerabhadra Temple Hiriadka, Bommarabettu Village in Udupi. The temple in question is being managed by the hereditary trustees belonging to the family called Kurla Hegde family. It is not in dispute that there are three branches in Kurla Hegde family (1) Anjaru. (2) Vonthibettu (3) Mombettu. The petitioner belongs to Mombettu branch of Kurla Hegde family. It appears, to assist the managing trustee, another trustee was being appointed from one Alva Hegde Family. The petitioner claims that the Mombettu branch of Kurla Hegde family is controlling the affairs of the temple and the management of the temple vests with them since time immemorial. His specific case is that the Alva Hegde family has abandoned the trusteeship way back and they have lost their right to manage the temple.

(2.) The Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments by Order No.62 dated 26/1/1931 declared the temple as an "Excepted Temple" under the provisions of Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A. The then managing trustee of the temple, one Sri Jaganjeeva Alva expired in the year 1970. Since there was some serious dispute inter se as regards appointment of trustee to the temple, one M.Balakrishna Hegde was appointed as a trustee on the premise that he is a fit person'. It appears, the said Balakrishna Hegde continued to act as such till his death i.e., on 28/3/2009. Suffice it to say that the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent to appoint him as managing trustee of the temple. The respondent also makes an application to be appointed as hereditary trustee. It appears, in turn, the Deputy Commissioner, on 08.07.2009 addressed a letter to the Commissioner recommending appointment of one Prashanth Hegde as Managing Trustee of the temple. According to the petitioner, the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner is without any authorization, but, at best, can be treated as a recommendation. Nothing more nothing less. In the meantime, one Dr.M.Sunil Hegde, son of the 'fit person' (M.Balakrishna Hegde) was appointed as trustee till the appointment of hereditary trustee and his functions were restricted only to religious affairs of the temple. It appears, without notice to him, his appointment was revoked. The same was subject-matter of an earlier writ petition in W.P.No.28727/2009. The said writ petition was accepted and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law having regard to the fact that the petitioner was not heard before revoking the order appointing him as a trustee to the temple.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the matter is pending consideration before the Commissioner. Thereafter the present proceedings have commenced.